Creationist arguments against radiocarbon dating married dating as seen on oprah

Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases.

In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.

Ages of millions of years are all calculated by assuming the rates of change of processes in the past were the same as we observe today — called the principle of uniformitarianism.

creationist arguments against radiocarbon dating-81

If we don't assume good faith, it appears that CMI is combining a false dilemma with the Nirvana fallacy - one theory can't yet answer all possible questions, so the other should be accepted unquestioningly.

This logic is both fallacious (wrong in its pattern of reasoning) and incorrect (wrong in the facts it reasons with).

In the few cases where reputable peer-reviewed scientific papers are cited, their content is severely misrepresented or incorrectly interpreted.

Ultimately, the article seeks to persuade by force of numbers, rather than force of argument.

However, to draw this conclusion we have to assume that the rate of cratering has been the same in the past as it is now.

And there are now good reasons for thinking that it might have been quite intense in the past, in which case the craters do not indicate an old age at all (see below).

Although the list claims to have 101 points, several are just reworded duplicates and one is even a copy of the preceding item.

Almost every reference link in the original article either goes directly to creationist sources, or to popular science magazines which support creationism.

Its only assumption is that the bombardment of the moon was uniform over its surface (not necessarily over time).

We assume an approximately constant rate of meteor impacts on the moon, with variations depending on the stage of development of the solar system (e.g., the 4 billion years ago).

Assuming good faith qua ignorance, this attack is simply a misconstruction of uniformitarianism - as a scientific assumption it does not claim that major disruptive events like ice ages, meteor impacts, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and so on have never happened (since plenty of people alive today have witnessed or been affected by one or more of them), but rather that the specific physical laws governing their causes and effects have remained constant over time.

Tags: , ,