Radiometric dating only works if you know the starting conditions
I find Carbon dating less problematic in it's assumptions because you can assume a certain amount of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere being the same in the past as today but I did not say that it is not problematic
Other dating methods are more problematic in my opinion
Let's say you have Uranium turn to lead and try to find the date by the ratio of Uranium to Lead
What was it before 100% Uranium
For example an object could have had some lead in it that was already there and did not come from Uranium as it's starting point
You can not really know how much lead it started with and how much Uranium unless you know what it was like in the initial condition it was formed
And if you witnessed it in the initial condition it was formed then you would already know how old it was from when it was formed and not need a dating method to date it
Not to mention the asymptote in the carbon dating graph. At about 40k years?
Anyone speaking with authority about "muh million years ago" is talking out of their ass.
The variation in the 14
C/12
C ratio in different parts of the carbon exchange reservoir means that a straightforward calculation of the age of a sample based on the amount of 14
C it contains will often give an incorrect result. There are several other possible sources of error that need to be considered. The errors are of four general types:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_considerations
Variations in the 14
C/12
C ratio in the atmosphere, both geographically and over time
Isotopic fractionation
Variations in the 14
C/12
C ratio in different parts of the reservoir
Contamination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_considerations
Four categories of errors in carbon dating according to wikipedia
That's bc soyence is the new religion and public school is the temple
You wouldn't go to church and doubt the existence of God, now would you?
@pepsi_man @JollyWizard @TrevorGoodchild
Some spokesperson for Answers in Genesis said that Christians who majored in or perhaps were professors in hard sciences like physics or chemistry were more likely to believe in Young Earth Creation than Pastors who attended seminary for their degree instead or perhaps seminary professors
I wish I could find a link on their website describing this supposed study
@TrevorGoodchild @pepsi_man
If matter was not created out of nowhere then something that once had a certain percent of Uranium had to exist before it had that certain percent so if you assumed it started 100% Uranium and turned to lead then you could guess a date but if it was 100% Uranium then it must have been something before it was 100% Uranium and something before that and so on
Also you could start at some other % Uranium
It is very arbitrary because you do not know the starting point