Or why some Christians insist on believing in Creation when science claims to have proven it wrong? Introduction Last time I showed you how the geologic column wasn't even close to being hard evidence for Evolution, and now we will be diving into another one of the most quoted evidence for Evolution--the dating methods.
Evolution Evolutionists use the three unprovable assumptions to get the dates they do, which are the following: 1.
No daughter elements were there when the rock was formed,2.
Just because the hands do not move as fast as I push them on their own does not mean I did not push them, or that I do not exist.
I am not suggesting God intervened only as an excuse to prove the unreliability of radiometric dating.
It is not unreasonable to assume that God used the energy of accelerated radioactive decay to initiate and drive the major geologic changes in the earth that accompanied the Flood" (answersingenesis.org).
In other words, RATE has found evidence, through how different dating methods come up with different ages of the same rock samples, that the decay rates of certain elements' have been faster in the past than they are now.This could have been done by supernatural intervention by God during the Creation week and before and during the Flood.When Creationists use these assumptions, they can get results under 6,000 years!We also have tons of evidence I have already gone over for catastrophism.If water or any other force occurred that could have made the rock move around and rub on other substances, it is very likely for daughter elements to be added to the rock.No current daughter elements came from outside forces, and3. The first assumption is completely unprovable, and quite frankly, unlikely.