Virtual dating radiocarbon answers who is fernando colunga dating
National Geographic hardly mentions a word about the many dubious assumptions of isotopic dating (see also Q&A: Radiometric Dating).To rectify this situation, I briefly outline here some of the many fallacies of isotopic dating and discuss some recent developments in the field of age determination.
Nuclear physicists Drs Eugene Chaffin and Russell Humphreys suggest that the nuclear decay rate was highly accelerated during Creation Week and possibly during the Flood year.A recent National Geographic article fails to portray the commonly used age-determination methods either accurately or objectively.The fact that the readership largely consists of unsuspecting laypeople makes this all the more inexcusable.Similarly, the National Geographic article tells the reader that the oldest rock from Earth dates at 4.03 billion years. There have been much ‘older’ dates obtained, by various dating methods and from different locations on Earth, some of which exceed 10 billion years.Nevertheless, because the age of the Earth is conventionally accepted at 4.6 billion years, these older ‘dates’ have been ignored or explained away.
By contrast, dating methods that are alleged to measure geologic events of millions and billions of years clearly depend on unverified and unverifiable assumptions. The Hubble Constant is highlighted in the National Geographic article, and conventionally accepted cosmogonies are presented as proof for the old age of the Universe.