Since my specialty is geology, I won’t try to argue against items outside of geology... Within geology, one argument used is evidence for the rapid formation of geological strata The rest of the article is interesting, but not critical.Simply stated, can I be certain about the EXACT old age of the earth? But looking at God's creation, I'm certain that it is a lot older than 6,000 years. In fact, I want to be first in line when I get to heaven, to attend God's version of Geology 101. Whereas the old earther relies on observed scientific principles from God's creation, the young earther relies solely on his assumption of the 24-hour day of creation.You would have to prove it was not contaminated from the moment it was excavated.In fact, you would have to excavate it in a vacuum to be 100% sure, because once it is exposed to the atmosphere, it is exposed to more Carbon-14.If you are in the middle of space, what is a "day." If you are eternal, what meaning does time have? Before we go on..thinking "context." We can't only rest on radiometric dating.Keep considering the rock layers, which can't be laid down in a global flood.
It could not be created with the "appearance of age".If there are possible discrepancies, how can I accept these dates as reliable?The young earth creationism believer thinks that all we are relying on is the radiometric techniques.Even looking at geology alone, it is evident from the using a young earth. And, although you can come up with gross errors using radiometric dating, by and large, the millions of dates that have been accomplished lend support to their accuracy, granting, of course, a large margin of error.These "millions" of semi-accurate dates have correlated throughout the stratigraphic layers of the earth. Are they usable for giving a rough estimate of age..