Answering Creationists – component 2 reactions to creationst that is general

Answering Creationists – component 2 reactions to creationst that is general

  • Typical Creationist Criticism’s of Mainstream Dating MethodsBy Chris StassenPart of Stassen’s FAQ file The chronilogical age of our planet, that also relates to a number of other assertions that are young-Earth radiometric relationship.
  • Radiometric Dating and also the Geological Time Scale – Circular Reasoning or Reliable ToolsBy Andrew MacRaeMacRae received their PhD in Geology through the University of Calgary in 1996. That is a well article that is illustrated includes stratigraphy, general time scales, and also the absolute chronometry supplied by radiometric relationship. It really is an assertion that is common young-Earthers that dating methods are circular; that fossils are dated based on their strata and therefore the strata are dated relating to their fossils. The assertion is flatly false.

    Chronilogical age of the Earthby Robert Williams this will be a basic reaction to a few young-Earth arguments.

  • Nearly all product is on radiometric relationship, however some other defective young-Earth age arguments are addressed also. Information, outcomes, and defective methodologies are addressed. Of specific interest is some tabulated information from Dalrymple’s chronilogical age of the Earth (see below). These data well illustrate the interior consistencies of radiometric methods that are dating. A well crafted article reading that is worth.
  • Fresh Lava Dated As 22 Million Years OldBy Computer Scientist Don LindsayA common creationist argument is that radiometric relationship needs to be unreliable, because fresh Hawaiian lava had been dated to be scores of years old. But this will be a metropolitan legend, as Lindsay points out. Also see their The Creation/Evolution Controversy page for a great deal more product on creationism, including other radiometric subjects.