Radiometric Dating Errors

[BYRPV@ccmail.ceco.com]

Thanks to all who have responded (and those who still are) to my 
posting about old Earth theories.

In that posting, I stated that eleven human skeletons were dated using 
an accelerator-mass spectrometer method for quantifying C-14.  All 
eleven were from the western hemisphere and were the oldest known 
remains found in this part of the world... The tests showed all of the 
remains to be 5000 years old or less.  I added that evolutionists 
believed them to be 100s of thousands or millions of years old.  This 
was an error on my part.  I was recalling the supposed age of the 
oldest human remains found anywhere, namely Africa.  One radsafer 
wrote me and informed me that humans are not believed to have lived in 
the new world longer ago than 11,000 years.  He asked me to post this 
acknowledgment of my error.

While investigating this, I found some more interesting info.  
Human-like footprints have been found in rock formations in Utah, 
Kentucky, Missouri, and possibly Pennsylvania which by traditional 
geological dating techniques are supposedly 150 to 600 million (!) 
years old.  One of these fossils discovered in 1968 near Delta, Utah 
was an apparently human or nearly human footprint showing what appears 
to be a shoe with a raised heal, worn at the back just like heals wear 
out today.  The interesting thing about this shoe is that it squashed 
a trilobite which was very clearly rendered.  According to 
evolutionists, the trilobite became extinct 240 million years before 
humans evolved.  Other cases abound where artifacts of obviously human 
manufacture such as a thimble, an 8 carat gold chain, a metal vessel 
with inlaid silver have been found encased in coal.  Other artifacts 
like a screw, a nail, a coin and a clay figurine have been found in 
deeply buried rock.

Back to radiometric dating.  "The public has been greatly misled 
concerning the consistency and trustworthiness of radiometric dating 
techniques (the K-Ar method the Rb-Sr method and the U-Th-Pb 
method)"..."Many published radiometric dates can be checked by 
comparisons with the assumed ages for the fossils that sometimes lie 
above or below the radiometrically dated rock.  In more than 400 of 
these published checks (about half of those sampled), the 
radiometrically determined ages were at least one geologic age in 
error--indicating major errors in methodology."  The quote was taken 
from "In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the 
Flood" published by Center for Scientific Creation (602) 955-7663.

As you can see there are many cases demonstrating irreconcilable 
discrepancies in the dating methods used by geologists.  Maybe the 
history of the Earth isn't as they say.

Paul Vitalis
byrpv@ccmail.ceco.com