We will now look at several arguments, which may or may not be supported by Dr. I will also present a couple of arguments indicating that the earth is much older than a few thousand years.
Former creationist Glenn Morton examines several famous young-earth creationist arguments and provides data to illustrate their flaws.
Seriously speaking, a favorite attack on radiometric dating involves dangling "horror stories" about gross errors before the reader, thus giving the impression that radiometric dating is totally unreliable.
Woodmorappe (1979), with his collection of some 350 bad radiometric dates, must surely be the master of that technique.
Upon being presented with claims that radiometric dating is totally erroneous, a question naturally arises: If radiometric geochronology is half as bad as Woodmorappe's list suggests, then how in the world did geologists ever arrive at a tight consensus for the official dates?
Look at the various radiometric tables in use over the last 20 years or so and you will find, at least for the fossil-bearing strata, a remarkably tight agreement. Did the geochronologists throw darts to determine the accepted dates?
(Matson, 1993, p.1) Either we have a worldwide conspiracy among geologists, which no sane person believes, or else the numerous radiometric dates were consistent enough to allow that kind of close agreement. Dalrymple, an expert in radiometric dating with lots of hands-on experience, puts the percentage of bad dates at only 5-10 percent.
When you consider that each radiometric method is subject to different types of error, that the different "clocks" run at different speeds, such an agreement would be extremely rare on the basis of pure chance.
Today, we have some 100,000 radiometric dates, the vast majority contributing sensibly to the overall picture.