Creationist claims radiometric dating Free chatvideosex
There is hard evidence for this occurring as shown by scientific studies. As for the first assumption, there is no way we could know one way or another if there were daughter elements in the rock when it was originally formed.
Creation While Evolution uses assumptions to get to the right set of dates (most of the time), Creation uses its own set of assumptions as well. Some of the daughter elements could have been there when the fossil was created, 2. As for the second, Creationists believe in a global flood, and if there was a such an occurrence in the past, it would add daughter elements to the rocks through the water and sediments around the rocks. Do we have any evidence of them being faster in the past?
YOU ARE READING Non-Fiction Questions About the Origins of the Universe Answered.
If water or any other force occurred that could have made the rock move around and rub on other substances, it is very likely for daughter elements to be added to the rock.
But the fact of the matter is, radiometric dating is much less accurate than what you may think. Each type of radiometric dating method is based on a certain element's rate of decay. Whether all the atoms were parent elements or not when the rock was formed,2.
For example, uranium decays into lead, and potassium decays into argon. Whether all the current daughter elements all came from parent elements or whether they came from outside sources, and3.
It is very dangerous to assume in uniformitarianism--that nothing catastrophic has ever happened in the past, which is what you must believe to trust these dates.
Finally, for that last assumption, it is impossible to prove it one way or another.