While such notions have no currency among mainstream scientists, a handful of “scientific creationists” continue to tilt against the windmills of modern science, arguing that the radiometric dating techniques used by geologists and other scientists are not valid.
The latest in this genre is a series of articles written by Vernon R.
For example, in 2011, when astronomer Peter Nugent observed a new supernova explosion in the Pinwheel Galaxy (21 million light-years away), he and his team observed the laws of physics in general (and of radioactivity in particular) playing out in exquisite detail, identical to experiments in laboratories today.
This is in spite of the fact that this explosion occurred 21 million years ago.
Cupps, who is affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) in Dallas, Texas.
Cupps analyzes several different types of radiometric “clocks” and concludes: Evolutionists may claim that radioactive dating methods prove the earth’s strata to be millions of years old, but they won’t tell you that those methods are built on a house of cards that cannot bear the weight of scientific scrutiny. Are radiometric techniques, which used by scientists to measure the ages of the geologic eras, indeed “built on a house of cards”?
But in the end, these arguments fall far short of anything that truly constitutes a substantive challenge to the scientific consensus.
Here are just a few of the difficulties with this material: With regards to item 4 (variations in rates of radioactivity), it should be noted that scientists do indeed have “time machines” that can peer into the distant past and ascertain whether rates of radioactivity were the same back then.