Hello all,
I've recently ventured a little bit from my personal interest in evolutionary biology and started examining geology a little closer. Specifically, the various dating methodologies. In a recent debate with a young earth creationist, he directed me towards the following website called "Foolish Faith", which is a book that outlines it's arguments for creationism.
More specifically, I was directed towards the following page:
Foolish Faith - Chapter 3: Two Worldviews in Conflict - Radio Dating
which outlines the following assumptions on dating methods:
quote:
The accuracy of these dating methods depends critically on several assumptions.[69] To date a rock by radiometric means, one must first assume:
1.What the initial amount of the parent atoms was at the time that the rock formed.
2.That the original composition of the rock contained no daughter atoms.[70]
3.That neither parent nor daughter atoms have ever been added or removed from the rock.
4.That the decay rate of parent atom to daughter atom has always remained constant.
If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. However, there is no way to independently test these assumptions. If they are wrong, the method could yield faulty dates that might be far too old.
Now the conclusions that follow are quite a stretch, and even I can depict a number of instances of fallacious logic. But what I have a question about are the assumptions outlined above. Are these assumptions true? I get the distinct impression that they are, in fact, true "assumptions", but that does not necessarily weaken the case for utilizing these assumptions in dating methodology. Furthermore, I also have a notion that the author is incorrect that these assumptions cannot be independently tested, but again I really do not have the knowledge to explain further.
Any thoughts? Thanks for any replies.
Opus1
™ Version 4.2