Browse Search Feedback Other Links Home Home The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

Index to Creationist Claims,  edited by Mark Isaak,    Copyright © 2004
Previous Claim: CD004   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CD011

Claim CD010:

Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.


Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.


  1. Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

  2. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

  3. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).


Thompson, Tim, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list.

Wiens, Roger C., 1994, 2002. Radiometric dating: A Christian perspective.


  1. Dalrymple, G. Brent, 2000. Radiometric dating does work! Some examples and a critique of a failed creationist strategy. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(3): 14-17.
  2. Harland, W. B., R. L. Armstrong, A. V. Cox, L. E. Craig, A. G. Smith, and D. G. Smith, 1990. A Geologic Time Scale 1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Hilgen, F. J., W. Krijgsman, C. G. Langereis and L. J. Lourens, 1997. Breakthrough made in dating of the geological record. EOS 78(28): 285,288-289.
  4. Lindsay, Don, 1999. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with each other?
  5. Lindsay, Don, 2000. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with the deeper-is-older rule?
  6. Meert, Joe, 2000. Consistent radiometric dates.
  7. Rubin, Ken, 2001. The formation of the Hawaiian Islands.
  8. Thompson, Tim, n.d. Luminescence and radiometric dating.
  9. Thorne, A. et al., 1999. Australia's oldest human remains: Age of the Lake Mungo 3 skeleton. Journal of Human Evolution 36(6): 591-612.

Previous Claim: CD004   |   List of Claims   |   Next Claim: CD011

created 2001-2-18