The so-called “absolute” methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure the present ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in suitable specimens—not their age.These measured ratios are then extrapolated to an “age” determination.
As we will see, selected data and unprovable assumptions are a problem with all methods for determining the age of the earth, as well as for dating its fossils and rocks.
It has all become something of a “dating game” in which only the evolutionarily correct are allowed to play.
This is an outrageous case of circular reasoning, and geologists are well aware of the problem. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results (American Journal of Science 2).
Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to directly determine the age of any fossil or rock.
If this trend were to continue, the earth would be 700 thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion years old by the year 4000 AD.
This “prediction,” however, is based on selected data and certain assumptions that might not be true.No wonder the laboratories that “date” rocks insist on knowing in advance the “evolutionary age” of the strata from which the samples were taken—this way, they know which dates to accept as “reasonable” and which to ignore.Of one thing you may be sure: whenever “absolute” radiometric dates are in substantial disagreement with evolutionary assumptions about the age of associated fossils, the fossils always prevail.Finally in 1976, they discovered that the earth is “really” 4.6 billion years old.These dates indicate that for 100 years, the age of the earth doubled every 20 years.Second, because of the short half-life of C, the radiocarbon method can only date specimens up to about 50,000 years of age.