How old is the earth based on radiometric dating Free teen sex chatroom
In some cases, they turn up still alive today, but these can go unreported.
Evolutionists assume that the creature evolved somehow, lived for a certain time period, and then died out.
If that had happened, Darwin’s ideas would have been refuted and abandoned.
Instead, radioactive dating indicates that Earth is about 4.5 billion years old—plenty of time for evolution and natural selection to take place.[i] But as we show here, geologists do not use radioactivity to establish the age of certain rocks.
The first fatal flaw is that it relies upon assumptions.
The assumptions are untestable because we cannot go back millions of years to verify the findings done today in a laboratory, and we cannot go back in time to test the original conditions in which the rocks were formed.
Trace fossils and the Law of Superposition can only provide the relative age of the rock.
Radiometric dating is far more specific in formation analysis.
Many textbook authors consider radiometric ages as absolute ages.
As any judge in court will attest, eyewitness records record the past more accurately.
Also, keen observations in the field testify that the sediments comprising the ancient rock layers were laid down , not slowly over millions of years.
If these assumptions that underlie radiometric dating are not true, then the entire theory falls flat, like a chair without its four legs.
The second fatal flaw clearly reveals that at least one of those assumptions must actually be wrong because radiometric dating . Helens, we watched rocks being formed in the 1980s, but when sent to a laboratory 10 years later for dating, the 10-year-old rocks returned ages of hundreds of thousands to millions of years.