What radiometric dating does is give geologists discrete ages to assign to many events in Earth’s long history, something that would be impossible to do using other techniques. HEBERT’S ARGUMENTS For those of you who do not want to wade through this entire article, here’s a summary: Dr.Hebert mentioned a few commonly-used YEC examples of radiometric dates which do not conform to reasonable old-Earth interpretations. The resultant dates for mineral and whole-rock samples ranged from 0.34 to 2.8 million years old, even though the dacite was a product of an eruption that occurred in 1986.Most scientists who investigated Earth history in the late 1700s and early 1800s came to the conclusion that Earth must be far older than just a few thousand years.This was long before the discovery of radioactivity in the 1890s or the development of radiometric dating techniques in the 1900s.If radiometric dating works—and I believe it reveals accurate dates most of the time—Christians should not be intimidated.Geologists have known for a long time that the isotope geochemistry of Earth is complex, and that radiometric dating does not always return what is considered to be a geologically-valid result, but there is no reason for old-Earth Christians to be intimidated by discrepant dates.
A good critique of the RATE helium diffusion dates is given at Helium Diffusion in Zircon: Flaws in a Young-Earth Argument, Part 1 (of 2).
I could write a rather lengthy article in response, but I will try to keep things brief. Hebert’s closing declaration: This is a true statement.
All truth is God’s truth, including the truths revealed in the creation.
All of this biased the results in favor of a younger Earth. Hebert stated that radiocarbon dating assumes the same ratio of carbon-14 (radiocarbon) in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
I was really surprised that he said this; perhaps my notes are wrong.