|Doesn’t Radiometric Dating prove that the earth is billions of years old?|
|Not at all!! The only thing that these dating methods have proven is that they (Carbon, Ar-K, Isochron, etc.) are completely unreliable. They are also non-scientific. Science is defined as knowledge derived from the observation, testing and study of evidence. These dating methods make several non-observable and non-repeatable wild guesses (assumptions) in order to arrive at “old dates”.
Take Ar-K dating as an example. Potassium 40 decays into argon 40. In Ar-K dating, scientists can accurately measure the amounts of these elements in a rock. By assuming the rate of decay of Potassium to Argon (in Ar-K dating) has always been the same, an estimate is made as to how long it took to form the amount of argon present. It’s assumed that no argon was present when the rock being dated first formed. However, no one was there to observe how much argon was in the rock when it was made. Thus the whole process is nothing more than a guessing game. There are from 11 to 23 such wild guesses associated with the radiometric dating methods. Other assumptions, such as that the rock was never contaminated with argon from another source, equally invalidates the dates given.
For example, diamonds were dated at 6 billion years old. When it was pointed out that evolutionists claim that earth is only 4.6 billion years old, “scientist” said, “There must have been argon present when the rocks formed which threw off the dates.” No kidding. Typically a wide range of ages are given by these methods with the date selected being the one which matches the Geologic Column. (see questions about this Column).