Radiometric dating is the best argument there is for an old Earth. In fact, dating methods based on long lived radioactive elements has been the toughest area for young earth creationists to deal with. This is because at first glance it seemed to prove that the Earth is billions of years old. In fact, it has then more to persuade people of the evolutionary view of earth history than anything else that exists. On the surface it may seem almost ironclad but studies involving healing diffusion rates in zircon crystals have shown a fundamental flaw in the assumptions behind radiometric dating.
This line of research originates from the fact that zircon crystals were discovered to have had far more helium in them in them than they would have if they had been billions of years old. The helium in the crystals originates from alpha decay, but helium tends to be extremely slippery such that it was suspected that if the uranium in these zircons had been steadily decaying over billions of years most if not all of the helium would have leaked out by now. The problem was that the helium diffusion rate of zircons had never been experimentally tested. As a result, the institute for creation research RATE project set about to make these measurements using a professional laboratory.
Before actually measuring the helium diffusion RATE scientists created two different models one based on an Earth of Biblical age with accelerated nuclear decay, and the other assuming constant decay rates and an Earth that was billions of years old. The predictions of these two models are illustrated in the graph above, with a difference in the diffusion rates of a factor of 100,000.
When the scientists got the results back from the laboratory, as plotted on the graph above, the results perfectly matched the Biblical creation model. This provides strong evidence for one or more past episodes of accelerated nuclear decay. While evolutionists have tried to criticize these results by one means or another, one fact they cannot explain is that the results match the creation model precisely. In fact, Over the years since this research first came out I have yet to hear anyone even try to explain this fact other than the fact that it supports the Biblical timescale with accelerated nuclear decay.
Additional parts of the RATE projects research have thrown further support for this model. One aspect included discordant dates with isotopes of different half-lives, which would be a natural result of a small change in the range of the strong nuclear force. Another aspect involving radiohaloes provided evidence for rapid cooling of the granite during the Genesis Flood.
This research strongly suggests that the strongest assumption a radiometric dating, that of constant decay rates is wrong. If this assumption is indeed wrong, then so is all of radiometric dating. This research produces strong scientific evidence in support of the Biblical model and refuting the naturalistic one.
---------------------------
Help support these articles.
---------------------------
References.
