Here is a "non-exhaustive list of several methods used for geologic dating purposes.
Radiometric Dating Techniques
Uranium-Lead
Samarium-Neo-dymium
Potassium-Argon
Rubidium-Strontium
Uranium-Thorium
RadioCarbon
Fission track
Chlorine 36
Here is the fundamental equation for exponential growth/decay
D = D0 + N(eλt − 1)
If you like, a little later this semester, I will invite you to the lecture on solving exponential growth/decay applications. You are invited to be my guest. I will happy to explain, the mathematical fundamentals of the science behind it.
These are not scientifically proven methodology. As you know (as apparently you are some kind of science professor), there are great discrepancies an nearly all samples taken, when a wide range of techniques are applied. In fact each of these tests are said to be useful, only within a given "range." Multiple geologists have commented on the circular reasoning inherent within this approach ("I think it is this age, so I will use this test...).
Secondly, as I am sure you are aware, these tests are based on Old Earth assumptions...not observed data. There are at least three assumption that these tests take for granted...
#1 That the original ratio of parent isotope to product (daughter) is 100/0, or at least, that we are capable of determining the original ratio. This is problematic at best, as even though secular scientists say that this is possible, it assumes that we have "all knowledge" as to how to additional daughter product could be introduced. These kinds of assumption are not scientific. Science is repeatable and verifiable.
#2 That the rate of decay has remained constant. There is good scientific evidence to state this is NOT the case, and accelerated decay rates have been shown to be at least theoretically possible under the right conditions (Please refer to the R.A.T.E. project, a research project recently done by the Scientists at ICR. I believe they have made the technical data available to others in the field, upon request.) This, again, however, is another assumption, even if no way could be conceived by our minds for accelerated decay.
#3 That we have an accurate assessment of the original conditions of the sample.
All of these are assumptions, which make said tests very much unscientific.
As per your argument of "observation", keep in mind, that argument also applies to your "postion", as you were not there either. You are relying on YOUR interpretation of the scriptural record as well.
Nope. You see, although I do have quite a few science credits, that is not really my field. Theology and Biblical studies ARE my field. And I know that in the Hebrew language, "evening and morning" (a Hebrew idiom meaning "day"), combined with the word "yom" forms a parrallelism: an emphasis by God, that these were normal, ordinary days. The language simply does not allow for anything else.
I also know, that the
structure of Genesis 1 and 2, is what is called historical narrative. It is written in the same "kind" of structure, that, say the account of David and Bathseba are written in. So to discount it as some kind of allegory, makes useless two thirds of the Bible.
But this is an untenable position. For 2 Peter 1, says that the Old Testament scriptures, as they had them (which is for all practical purposes, identical to what we have today), were breathed out by God Himself. This is the same Peter, whose follower wrote one of the gospels. If we cannot trust Peter on what he says of the Old Testament, we cannot trust him on anything.
You see, I RECOGNIZE both of our systems are based on belief. However, I give the "tip of the hat" to God and His word, why you are giving it to secular scientific theories...
