Methods for dating the earth
The vast majority of creationist assumptions of uniformitarianism, however, end up absurd because they ignore important known mechanisms of rate change. one will show that the decay of carbon-14 in the latter sample is far more advanced than in the former.Radiometric dating does not merely give age for an assumed constant rate of decay, but also relative age. To believe that they are about the same age requires that two different places be subject to vastly different rates of decay.If we don't assume good faith, it appears that CMI is combining a false dilemma with the Nirvana fallacy - one theory can't yet answer all possible questions, so the other should be accepted unquestioningly.This logic is both fallacious (wrong in its pattern of reasoning) and incorrect (wrong in the facts it reasons with).Long-age proponents will dismiss this sort of evidence for a young earth by arguing that the assumptions about the past do not apply in these cases.In other words, age is not really a matter of scientific observation but an argument about our assumptions about the unobserved past.
We assume an approximately constant rate of meteor impacts on the moon, with variations depending on the stage of development of the solar system (e.g., the 4 billion years ago).If the calculated result gives an acceptable age, the investigators publish it.There is no need for an "independent natural clock" thanks to the principle that reality is objective: if analyses of many samples by different methods arrive at the same age, this is strong evidence that the estimate is correct, by .There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested.For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old.