Anyone who says otherwise—that is, anyone who accepts basic science—is just spreading the devil’s lies.(That includes me.) Bill Nye’s decision to debate Ham at the Creation Museum Tuesday night, then, was a puzzling one.It also states that a huge amount of evidence supports the theory of evolution.However, if one studies the evidence, it soon becomes clear that evolution is impossible scientifically.Although the time at which any individual atom will decay cannot be forecast, the time in which any given percentage of a sample will decay can be calculated to varying degrees of accuracy.The time that it takes for half of a sample to decay is known as the half life of the isotope.
“A theory has its genesis in a hypothesis, which is a working assumption as to why we observe something—an educated guess. Chances are, you learned a simplified version of the technique at one point—if you remember your chemistry teacher discussing isotopes, half-lives, hourglasses, well, that was it—but have since removed the lesson to a box labeled "High School Amnesia" in some dark corner of your brain.If you're reading this now, however, you might be curious to reopen that box in an effort to follow my argument as I answer the title of this post (or, if nothing else, to avoid admitting that chemistry was "not really your thing").Their motivation is obvious: all techniques consistently yield age estimates far older than the purported So where to start?I imagine that I will return to this topic some time in the future, as Ai G has published a number of articles and books that discuss radiometric dating methods (and the Potassium-Argon method in particular).So now that you are better prepared, let's continue!