Live videocam sextalk
If you're reading this now, however, you might be curious to reopen that box in an effort to follow my argument as I answer the title of this post (or, if nothing else, to avoid admitting that chemistry was "not really your thing").
Anyone can learn technical jargon (queue Wikipedia page for Potassium Argon Dating); reading this post only requires a knack for scientific reasoning.
" Although the article was not published by any member of the RATE team, it provides a simple example of Ai G's critical approach: 1) remind readers that several assumptions are inherent to radiometric dating methods; 2) provide a case-in-point where at least one of those assumptions was falsified; 3) extrapolate the proven uncertainty to the rest of geochronology without qualification; 4) (optional) advise readers that anyone defending radiometric dating methods is trying to undermine God's clear teaching of a young Earth and, consequently, the gospel itself.
Before I begin, there is one set of terms you should be able to distinguish: radiometric dating is a method of estimating the age of geological events using radioactive isotopes in minerals; radioactive dating occurs in the storage room at the nuclear power plant and has very little to do with geology.
Less than 1% of this potassium occurs as 40K, which is the radioactive isotope.
Their motivation is obvious: all techniques consistently yield age estimates far older than the purported So where to start?
Over the years, Answers in Genesis has committed to undermining the credibility of radiometric dating techniques.
I imagine that I will return to this topic some time in the future, as Ai G has published a number of articles and books that discuss radiometric dating methods (and the Potassium-Argon method in particular).
For now, I wanted to consider an older article, only a page long, entitled "How do you date a New Zealand volcano?