So again I ask, can we be sure there is no dating method other than radiometric that does not depend on unproved assumptions?
And if we assume that, why was helium diffusion dating performed by the RATE team? As I previously said, I agree that the RATE work provides strong evidence that the earth is young.
’ I said ‘No’, and he appeared to be satisfied that if there are no better methods of dating, then these are good enough.
But can you ride a bicycle into the past simply because no one else has a better time-machine? In the same way it is absurd to argue that an inadequate method is adequate because nothing better is available. This is often the "make it or break it" spot for arguments on evolution.
There has been considerable controversy over the RATE results and the underlying assumptions have been questioned.
Various RATE scientists have responded and defended the RATE work (see e.g.
The critics don't appear to have done so yet by a long shot, and unless or until they do (it appears unlikely to happen), the helium diffusion dating method must be considered not only as valid science, but as a clearly superior dating method over radiometric dating of igneous rock.If you can tell me any unproved assumption upon which helium diffusion in zircon crystals is based, I will concede that point and bow to your logic.But if not, I think YEC's are entitled to claim that RATE scientists have determined (or rather verified, Scripture having already revealed) the approximate age of the Earth from this dating method.Otherwise, what was the point of doing the RATE research at all?It would seem to have been a waste of time and money, if we concede that there is no way other than Scripture to verify the age of the Earth.In fact, the other 139 crystals show such a confusion of information that a statistician could only conclude that no sensible dates could be extracted from the data. They extracted diamonds from rocks in Zaire and found by the potassium-argon method that they (the diamonds) were six billion years old.A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable. But the earth is supposed to be only 4.5 billion years old. They admitted, however, that if the date had not been contradicted by the ‘known’ age of the earth, they would have accepted it as valid.And why did it date granite samples at about 6000 years old? In our article Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe we include the RATE results as one of those evidences (Items 59, 60, and 61).To me, given that this date agrees with Scripture (and for other reasons), it would seem that this dating method is valid and does give true dates. The introduction to that article entitled "Can science prove the age of the earth?which is data/logic-based as opposed to unproved assumption-based), but that the RATE team did exactly that when they dated the New Mexico zircons at 6000 years old or - 2000 years.This is not to say that a day, year, century or even a millennium can yet be determined, but I believe they demonstrated that at least an age range that is orders of magnitude far below billions of years (i.e.