In keeping with my goal of improving the geo-technical knowledge of our Christian brethren, and in the spirit of tolerance and patience in education, I offer my second presentation on "mad science", in this case, on the topic of archeological sample dating as applied in modern geological studies.
Papers published after 2008 have established amazing accuracy in their determination of the ages of samples. While there has been much debate over the years here on C-D as to the accuracy of the methods used in past studies, the ongoing and relentless modernization of these methods continues to evolve, and in addition, the "cross-pollination" and cross-checking now in common use provides previously unseen levels of confidence.
As well, in reading each of the descriptive elements in the link provided below, you'll clearly see that the scientist-geologists involved always provide the limiting factors, the things which have traditionally limited the accuracy of such readings. These scientists are the first to "admit" the limits to their conclusions, but also note the relentless improvements in such analyses and conclusions.
Some of the really
old determinations, [i.e.: pre-1990
, such as the original 1967 and later, 1988, X-Ray luminescence dating of the Delk footprints, which used the entirely incorrect techniques to assert the dino footprint's young age as being concurrent with bible-era hominids in the area], have been supplanted entirely within the scientific/geological community in the interest of confirming our new-found levels of accuracy.
Essentially, when a date for an ancient sample is generated with these modern well-developed techniques, and it's been cross-checked by three or four entirely different methods, the method's results calculated by the latest high-resolution algorithms and rigorous peer review, and the authors of such publications providing
very conservative confidence limits to their work, we can pretty much conclude the determination is
highly accurate within the limits stated.
Certainly to the degree that an alternate faith-based "belief" in a much younger geological age, completely
unsupported by
any such careful research, is in all likelihood totally invalid. Subsequent wild claims of scientific bias are, of course, irrational and unsupportable.enhance
Here's a brief, not too technical summary of some of those techniques as well as their co-application to enhance accuracy:
Geological Dating
So... enjoy the read. I'll look forward to your questions or ideas. Rational ones, that is....
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
