Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] carbon dating?

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
V

Vanaka

Guest
there are 32 or so methods of time dating,and...guess what?

carbon dating is the worst one....funny how EVO's use the worst method....
 
Scientists use all kinds of methods.

That's the reason why there are more than one in the first place.
 
Figures don’t lie but liars figure.
A statement (of “FACT“) caught my eye. “In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years.†Who has observed them not changing over hundreds of thousands of years?

The paragraph below shows how this is done I presume:
“Work on radiometric dating first started shortly after the turn of the 20th century, but progress was relatively slow before the late forties. However, by now we have had over fifty years to measure and re-measure the half-lives for many of the dating techniques. Very precise counting of the decay events or the daughter atoms can be done, so while the number of, say, rhenium-187 atoms decaying in 50 years is a very small fraction of the total, the resulting osmium-187 atoms can be very precisely counted. For example, recall that only one gram of material contains over 1021 (1 with 21 zeros behind) atoms. Even if only one trillionth of the atoms decay in one year, this is still millions of decays, each of which can be counted by a radiation detector!â€Â
So we are extrapolating this from our extensive work over 50 years. Excuse me if I want to barf right here. This is about as extremely pompously arrogantly ignorant as it gets. We know the rates haven’t changed for hundreds of thousands of years because we have been counting them so fastidiously for the last fifty and we can‘t come up with a single reason why they would. Not only that but we know that there were no, absolutely no, daughter isotopes in the material to start with. Why else would we call them daughter isotopes? Heh heh. Is everyone buying this? Bow down before the radiation god of detectororism. :roll:
 
The Oklo natural reactor was about 1.5 billion years ago. Basically the ratio of U-235 to U-238 was much higher and is close to what we use in nuclear reactors today. Some water gets added that moderates the neutrons and you get a substained chain reaction.

What this tells us is that decay and nuclear data have not changed much in billions of years.

We understand the physics of decay enough to know that a fundamental force has to change for the decay to be different. So there is high confidence that the decay rate has not changed in billions of years. (In science there are no real 100% facts.)

Quath
 
unred typo said:
So we are extrapolating this from our extensive work over 50 years.
Yes.

Excuse me if I want to barf right here.
You’re excused.

This is about as extremely pompously arrogantly ignorant as it gets.
No, this is pretty much the exact opposite of ignorance. It’s the application of the scientific method.

We know the rates haven’t changed for hundreds of thousands of years because we have been counting them so fastidiously for the last fifty and we can‘t come up with a single reason why they would.
No, it’s not that we can’t think of a reason, it’s that we understand enough about how the universe works to know that it is impossible for these decay rates to change without changing the constants of a fundamental force in the universe, and we also know that such a change in a fundamental force would result in extreme observable differences in the past universe---something which we do not see.

Not only that but we know that there were no, absolutely no, daughter isotopes in the material to start with. Why else would we call them daughter isotopes?
Sorry, that’s not something we need to know. From the FAQ

11. There is little or no way to tell how much of the decay product, that is, the daughter isotope, was originally in the rock, leading to anomalously old ages.
A good part of this article is devoted to explaining how one can tell how much of a given element or isotope was originally present. Usually it involves using more than one sample from a given rock. It is done by comparing the ratios of parent and daughter isotopes relative to a stable isotope for samples with different relative amounts of the parent isotope. For example, in the rubidium-strontium method one compares rubidium-87/strontium-86 to strontium-87/strontium-86 for different minerals. From this one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope. This is the same as the initial amount (it would not change if there were no parent isotope to decay). Figures 4 and 5, and the accompanying explanation, tell how this is done most of the time. While this is not absolutely 100% foolproof, comparison of several dating methods will always show whether the given date is reliable.
 
cubedbee wrote:
No, this is pretty much the exact opposite of ignorance. It’s the application of the scientific method.
What I see as ignorance is taking a faulty idea, applying scientific methods and terminology and building a theory that has the appearance of reliable truth but is totally off base. This is ignorance with arrogance.


cubedbee wrote:
No, it’s not that we can’t think of a reason, it’s that we understand enough about how the universe works to know that it is impossible for these decay rates to change without changing the constants of a fundamental force in the universe, and we also know that such a change in a fundamental force would result in extreme observable differences in the past universe---something which we do not see.

The bottom line is, the amount of daughter isotope can not be a known quantity, only a contrived amount. It is assumed there is no or x amount when this may not be true at all. Using the hour glass analogy, when half of the sand is in the bottom, it is assumed that it came from the top, at the current rate and it was exactly a half hour that has passed. Actually the hourglass may have been turned over several times and there would be no way of knowing how many times or how often it was stopped and restarted. The rock may have been created with more of the daughter isotope to begin with. For instance, there may have been lead that never was created as uranium and always has been nothing but lead.

Taking just one paragraph from your site reveals this faulty assumption:
“On the other hand, calcium carbonates produced biologically (such as in corals, shells, teeth, and bones) take in small amounts of uranium, but essentially no thorium (because of its much lower concentrations in the water). This allows the dating of these materials by their lack of thorium. A brand-new coral reef will have essentially no thorium-230. As it ages, some of its uranium decays to thorium-230. While the thorium-230 itself is radioactive, this can be corrected for. The equations are more complex than for the simple systems described earlier, but the uranium-234 / thorium-230 method has been used to date corals now for several decades. Comparison of uranium-234 ages with ages obtained by counting annual growth bands of corals proves that the technique is highly accurate when properly used (Edwards et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 90, 371, 1988).â€Â

Even if “a brand-new coral reef will have essentially no thorium-230“, what does that prove about coral that grew thousands of years ago. If you check it against growth bands, who even knows they are yearly growth bands? Maybe coral has been continually and gradually evolving to become thorium-230 free, and lacking this element has also slowed the growth of the coral itself, giving a false impression of increasing ages instead of decreasing thorium. Maybe high concentrations of thorium-230 were originally in the water but have been gradually decreasing over the last 6000 years. If this is a gradual condition, “extreme observable differences in the past universe†would not be apparent.

cubedbee wrote:
From this one can determine how much of the daughter isotope would be present if there had been no parent isotope.
I’m sure you believe you can.
 
Even more impressive, the various methods all agree closely. So one would have to account for an unbelievable series of coincidences if one wanted to prove the data didn't show what they show.
 
The Barbarian said:
Even more impressive, the various methods all agree closely. So one would have to account for an unbelievable series of coincidences if one wanted to prove the data didn't show what they show.

Or all of the elements of the methods have undergone the same series of events that brought about parallel results in the specimens.
 
unred typo said:
Or all of the elements of the methods have undergone the same series of events that brought about parallel results in the specimens.


That is a very good point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
unred typo said:
[quote="The Barbarian":2f10c]Even more impressive, the various methods all agree closely. So one would have to account for an unbelievable series of coincidences if one wanted to prove the data didn't show what they show.

Or all of the elements of the methods have undergone the same series of events that brought about parallel results in the specimens.[/quote:2f10c]Parallel results in dozens of different specimen types? Yeah, it could happen if God miraculously decided to deceive us and make all the evidence point to an ancient Earth, not a young one. I don't believe God would do that though. He tells us that we are to observe his creation for evidence of him, and falsehood would not be evidence of our good and perfect God.
 
cubedbee said:
unred typo said:
[quote="The Barbarian":76138]Even more impressive, the various methods all agree closely. So one would have to account for an unbelievable series of coincidences if one wanted to prove the data didn't show what they show.

Or all of the elements of the methods have undergone the same series of events that brought about parallel results in the specimens.
Parallel results in dozens of different specimen types? Yeah, it could happen if God miraculously decided to deceive us and make all the evidence point to an ancient Earth, not a young one. I don't believe God would do that though. He tells us that we are to observe his creation for evidence of him, and falsehood would not be evidence of our good and perfect God.[/quote:76138]

Hmmmn. Suffering from a little paranoia this morning? If we have a catastrophic event that leaves it mark on every aspect of geology and biology, how is this a deception? If anyone is deceived, it is a self inflicted condition brought about by willful blindness.
 
unred typo said:
Parallel results in dozens of different specimen types? Yeah, it could happen if God miraculously decided to deceive us and make all the evidence point to an ancient Earth, not a young one. I don't believe God would do that though. He tells us that we are to observe his creation for evidence of him, and falsehood would not be evidence of our good and perfect God.

Hmmmn. Suffering from a little paranoia this morning? If we have a catastrophic event that leaves it mark on every aspect of geology and biology, how is this a deception? If anyone is deceived, it is a self inflicted condition brought about by willful blindness.
You just don't understand. There is no catastrophic event that could possiboly cause these dozens of dating results to correspond and show a false date. It would take miraculous changes in the very nature of animals, plants, rocks, sediment, ice, and other materials for these results to all coincide with a false date. You are the only one being blind---God's creation declares that it is billions of years old, plainly showing us through varieties of methods, and you simply refuse to believe the evidence God has provided because of your wrongful interpretation of the Bible. You can blind yourself all you want---anyone who objectively looks at the scientific facts cannot hold your belief.
 
cubedbee said:
unred typo said:
Parallel results in dozens of different specimen types? Yeah, it could happen if God miraculously decided to deceive us and make all the evidence point to an ancient Earth, not a young one. I don't believe God would do that though. He tells us that we are to observe his creation for evidence of him, and falsehood would not be evidence of our good and perfect God.

Hmmmn. Suffering from a little paranoia this morning? If we have a catastrophic event that leaves it mark on every aspect of geology and biology, how is this a deception? If anyone is deceived, it is a self inflicted condition brought about by willful blindness.
You just don't understand. There is no catastrophic event that could possiboly cause these dozens of dating results to correspond and show a false date. It would take miraculous changes in the very nature of animals, plants, rocks, sediment, ice, and other materials for these results to all coincide with a false date. You are the only one being blind---God's creation declares that it is billions of years old, plainly showing us through varieties of methods, and you simply refuse to believe the evidence God has provided because of your wrongful interpretation of the Bible. You can blind yourself all you want---anyone who objectively looks at the scientific facts cannot hold your belief.

The catastrophic event that causes anomalous readings across the geological and biological board is the flood and the various unique world altering aspects of it. Losing the entire carbon dioxide producing plant cover for the surface of the planet in a few weeks time would drastically affect any later readings of isotopes of carbon and anything related to it’s abundant presence, either before the flood in the atmosphere or after, in the earth as rotting vegetation, or to it’s absence on the surface after the flood. Imagine the billions of tons of destroyed vegetation, floating mats of flood debris as big as countries, buried piles of vegetation as high and wide as mountains, decomposing into pockets of coal, oil, tar and goo all over the world, and producing natural gasses for us to find as evidence of their untimely demise.

If freshly killed seals can be dated as thousands of years old, simply because of the shell fish they consume, how would being in contact with these quantities of carbon by-products mixed with the soil? Besides the effects of leaching ‘old’ and new carbon, there is the complication of volcanic gasses which would further confuse the picture. There is absolutely no way to assure that any sample has not been contaminated in the last 5,000 years of it’s existence. The following taken from 2 recommended sites below show a minuscule degree of the problems associated with any dating method:


This from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html :
“A sample, of course, can be contaminated if organic material rich in fresh atmospheric C-14 soaks or diffuses into it. Such contamination may occur in the ground or during the processing of the sample in the laboratory. However, such contamination will make the sample appear younger than its true age. Consequently, with regards to carbon-14 dating, creationists are barking up the wrong tree on the contamination issue!â€Â

This only addresses the effects of extra C-14 being leached into the sample. How many samples have been exposed to extra amounts of C-12 or other radiation, making them appear older? If all rock and organic substances have undergone a world wide soaking in ‘old’ carbon and this has been diffused into the entire geological record, of course everything is going to agree. The closer to the surface, the more carbon-14 contamination and the newer the dates.

When countering objections on C-14 dating, http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14datc.htm gave the following explanation to this anomalous sample:
Fossilized wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone in Australia, believed to have been hundreds of millions of years old, was dated by C-14 as 33,720 ± 430 years BP.

“One wonders why a sample which most geologists would date to the middle Triassic (225 to 230 millions of years ago) would be tested using C-14. At that age, any C-14 that the wood originally had would have decayed to unmeasurable levels millions of years ago. This particular sample was porous. It would probably have absorbed groundwater containing modern carbon. This slight degree of contamination could have provided sufficient C-14 to give a 33 millennia age. Alternately, there could have been radioactivity in the surrounding rocks which created some C-14 in the sample.â€Â

Notice how there is immediate prejudice as to even considering a sample considered to be ‘too old’ to be tested by this method. Also note that because the date was expected to be older, the explanation is that the sample has been contaminated. This is the usual occurrence when there is any evidence that there is a real problem with the method. The dating game is so essential to the support of the ToE, the preservation of the mythical geologic column, and belief in the fallacious ages necessary to put the Bible into the realm of legendary fiction, that it is vehemently and irrationally defended against all skepticism from disbelievers.

The more I read of these sites defending dating methods, the more I doubt they are in any way reliable.
 
unred typo said:
cubedbee said:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html[/url] :
“A sample, of course, can be contaminated if organic material rich in fresh atmospheric C-14 soaks or diffuses into it. Such contamination may occur in the ground or during the processing of the sample in the laboratory. However, such contamination will make the sample appear younger than its true age. Consequently, with regards to carbon-14 dating, creationists are barking up the wrong tree on the contamination issue!â€Â

This only addresses the effects of extra C-14 being leached into the sample. How many samples have been exposed to extra amounts of C-12 or other radiation, making them appear older? If all rock and organic substances have undergone a world wide soaking in ‘old’ carbon and this has been diffused into the entire geological record, of course everything is going to agree. The closer to the surface, the more carbon-14 contamination and the newer the dates.

When countering objections on C-14 dating, http://www.religioustolerance.org/c14datc.htm gave the following explanation to this anomalous sample:
Fossilized wood from the Hawkesbury Sandstone in Australia, believed to have been hundreds of millions of years old, was dated by C-14 as 33,720 ± 430 years BP.

“One wonders why a sample which most geologists would date to the middle Triassic (225 to 230 millions of years ago) would be tested using C-14. At that age, any C-14 that the wood originally had would have decayed to unmeasurable levels millions of years ago. This particular sample was porous. It would probably have absorbed groundwater containing modern carbon. This slight degree of contamination could have provided sufficient C-14 to give a 33 millennia age. Alternately, there could have been radioactivity in the surrounding rocks which created some C-14 in the sample.â€Â

Notice how there is immediate prejudice as to even considering a sample considered to be ‘too old’ to be tested by this method. Also note that because the date was expected to be older, the explanation is that the sample has been contaminated. This is the usual occurrence when any evidence that there is a real problem with the method. The dating game is so essential to the support of the ToE, the preservation of the mythical geologic column, and belief in the fallacious ages necessary to put the Bible into the realm of legendary fiction, that it is vehemently and irrationally defended against all skepticism from disbelievers.

The more I read of these sites defending dating methods, the more I doubt they are in any way reliable.[/quote:b806a]

OK, carbon dating could have been affected by the flood. There are dozens of other dating methods which use dozens of other elements, none of which are a product of life like carbon. So, how did the flood miraculously change the amounts of every single one of these elements so that the miraculously all give a false indication that our Earth is several billion years old? You do understand that it is miraculous if dozens of independent dating methods, based on different elements with different sources, were to all give the same incorrect age? You simply cannot have that level of false correspondance---either the methods are all correct and the earth is billions of years old, or the methods are all false yet consistent, meaning God miraculously choose to deceive all of us and change the amount of elements to make the Earth look old, even though it is 6,000 years old.
 
Cubedbee wrote:
OK, carbon dating could have been affected by the flood. There are dozens of other dating methods which use dozens of other elements, none of which are a product of life like carbon. So, how did the flood miraculously change the amounts of every single one of these elements so that the miraculously all give a false indication that our Earth is several billion years old? You do understand that it is miraculous if dozens of independent dating methods, based on different elements with different sources, were to all give the same incorrect age? You simply cannot have that level of false correspondance---either the methods are all correct and the earth is billions of years old, or the methods are all false yet consistent, meaning God miraculously choose to deceive all of us and change the amount of elements to make the Earth look old, even though it is 6,000 years old.

LOL. Sometimes I think I must have fallen through the looking glass! Your rationale is so illogical and your reasoning so circular, I only marvel that your heads don’t spin off!
God has never told you that counting isotopes or layers or tea leaves would give you the age of the earth. You made this weird assumption all without his suggestion or blessing. Evolutionists have embarked on the quest to pile up enough evidence to have God committed to obscurity. I might suggest who has inspired them to do this but since you probably don’t believe in Satan either, you would only laugh hysterically and spit coffee all over your screen.

As for your dozens of so-called independent dating methods, each one is ‘calibrated’ with each other and all are based on the same fallacious assumptions, so naturally they are in agreement! If they weren’t in agreement, they wouldn’t even be used to collaborate with the other elements of your farce. You don’t get it, do you? The methods chosen are those that can be manipulated to give the ‘expected’ dates. The evidence against long ages is assumed to be incorrect and all data that gives credibility to a young earth position is discarded as anomalous or reinterpreted to fit the ToE and the long ages it needs to even appear rational.
 
unred typo said:
LOL. Sometimes I think I must have fallen through the looking glass! Your rationale is so illogical and your reasoning so circular, I only marvel that your heads don’t spin off!
I don't think you know what either logic or circular reason are, because you are the illogical circular reasoner.

God has never told you that counting isotopes or layers or tea leaves would give you the age of the earth.
God never told us 99.9% of our scientific knowledge, yet it's all true. That's what science is---it is repeatable, verifiable knowledge that we gain by observing God's creation. Counting isotopes is science, tea leaves are not. The scientific one gives us true knowledge about the world.


You made this weird assumption all without his suggestion or blessing.
Nope, no assumptions other that the fact that we can believe our own senses.

Evolutionists have embarked on the quest to pile up enough evidence to have God committed to obscurity. I might suggest who has inspired them to do this but since you probably don’t believe in Satan either, you would only laugh hysterically and spit coffee all over your screen
This isn't about evolutionists, it's about dating the age of the Earth. Many people who deny evolution acknowledge the simple fact that we live on an ancient planet. And no, Satan doesn't inspire a quest for the truth which is what science is.

As for your dozens of so-called independent dating methods, each one is ‘calibrated’ with each other and all are based on the same fallacious assumptions, so naturally they are in agreement!
No, they are not. Repeating a falsehood doesn't ever make it true. The first link clearly shows how the different methods rely on different assumptions, and yet are indepently supportive of each other. Lying about this fact isn't going to discredit science, it discredits you.

If they weren’t in agreement, they wouldn’t even be used to collaborate with the other elements of your farce.
No, this is false. Science doesn't discard evidence that disagrees with it. There are no dating methods that have ever been discovered that conflict with the others.


You don’t get it, do you? The methods chosen are those that can be manipulated to give the ‘expected’ dates.
No, you obviously don't get it. There are no other methods that give different dates---every method known to science agrees.

The evidence against long ages is assumed to be incorrect and all data that gives credibility to a young earth position is discarded as anomalous or reinterpreted to fit the ToE and the long ages it needs to even appear rational.
Data that gives credibility to a YEC is anamolous, because no single dating method consistently results in young ages. Dating methods all consistently result in old ages---the results that show young ages are few and far between, and can in fact be shown to be caused by improper methods/samples. If you could provide a single dating method that consistently results in dates younger than 6,000 years, you might have a leg to stand on in rejecting the other methods. However, every single dating method ever used by scientists have always consistently given old ages.

You obviously have a profound ignorance of the basic tenets of science. It doesn't matter though, because science irrefutable works, and the Earth is irrefutably older than 6,000 years old. To believe otherwise is to believe that we cannot trust our senses, that God purposely deceived us by making our senses provide us with false conclusions, and that not one conclusion of science can be trusted. Only through self-deception and twisted illogical can you accept that most of science is true, that God is not deceptive, but that the Earth is still 6,000 years old.
 
Cubedbee wrote:
God never told us 99.9% of our scientific knowledge, yet it's all true. That's what science is---it is repeatable, verifiable knowledge that we gain by observing God's creation. Counting isotopes is science, tea leaves are not. The scientific one gives us true knowledge about the world.
There ya go. Repeatable, verifiable knowledge gained from observing God’s creation. Read this from the horse’s mouth and get your head out of the sand: (highlights mine)
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/archa ... .html#rev4
Notes & References
[0500] William G. Dever, Archaeological Method in Israel: A Continuing Revolution in BA, Winter 1980, p. 40-48.
[0700] Naturalisms religious statements corroberate that. D.M.S. Watson, known to the public for his B.B.C. talks popularizing the Darwinian notion that human beings descended from primates, declared in an address to his fellow biologists at a Cape Town conference: "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or . . . can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." [Quoted in Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and Its Confrontation with American Society(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, [1983] 1993), 144-145.] C. S. Lewis was astounded at Watson's frank admission and responded: "Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice? Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God?" [C.S. Lewis, They Asked for a Paper (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1962), 163.] Evolutionists Gould and Eldredge are not reluctant to admit that 'The general preference that so many of us hold for gradualism is a metaphysical stance embedded in the modern history of Western cultures: it is not a high-order empirical observation, induced from the objective study of nature.' [Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, 'Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered,' in Paleobiology 3 (1977), 145.] Gould adds: "But our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social preconceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective "scientific method", with individual scientists as logical (and interchangeable) robots, is self-serving mythology."[Gould, Stephen Jay, 'In the Mind of the Beholder,' Natural History (February 1994), 103:14.]
[1000] On scholarly bias see also D.N. Freedman & J.C. Geoghean, House of David - Is There in BAR, Mar 1005, p. 78-79.


Cubedbee wrote:
This isn't about evolutionists, it's about dating the age of the Earth. Many people who deny evolution acknowledge the simple fact that we live on an ancient planet. And no, Satan doesn't inspire a quest for the truth which is what science is.
You’re right. It’s not about evolution, though that is one of the errors those supporting ancient planet theories generally subscribe to. Yes, many people who have no axe to grind in regard to God or the Bible, have been sucked into the seemingly overwhelming evidence. I forget that. I see it as a lie of Satan and it’s hard for me to distinguish between the liars and the pawns who are merely caught up in the deceit.


Cubedbee wrote:
No, they are not. Repeating a falsehood doesn't ever make it true. The first link clearly shows how the different methods rely on different assumptions, and yet are indepently supportive of each other. Lying about this fact isn't going to discredit science, it discredits you.
Denying that it’s true, doesn’t mean it isn’t. There is so much blatant deceit in the ‘scientific’ findings that it’s a wonder they can find so many gullible to believe anything at all they say. If people were not so totally enamored with their breathtaking ‘discoveries’ announced with pomp and impressive terminology and people weren't so apathetically isolated from the actual facts, I don’t think they could get away with it. Eventually maybe they won’t if Lincoln was right. You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.

Cubedbee wrote:
No, this is false. Science doesn't discard evidence that disagrees with it. There are no dating methods that have ever been discovered that conflict with the others. ….However, every single dating method ever used by scientists have always consistently given old ages.
I can tell you’re a big believer in ‘all these scientific people can’t be wrong.’ Here’s some who don’t agree:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... metric.asp I suppose we could play ‘my experts are smarter than your experts’ if you want but then we have to do the ‘that has all been refuted’ and the ‘all those refutes have been countered’ and ‘your experts are biased greedy dogs but mine are driven by a love of scientific truth’ ad nauseum…whut phun izzat? If no such incongruous dating methods have been discovered, someone isn’t trying very hard to find anything that conflicts with their POV.

Cubedbee wrote:
Data that gives credibility to a YEC is anamolous, because no single dating method consistently results in young ages. Dating methods all consistently result in old ages---the results that show young ages are few and far between, and can in fact be shown to be caused by improper methods/samples. If you could provide a single dating method that consistently results in dates younger than 6,000 years, you might have a leg to stand on in rejecting the other methods.
You obviously have a profound ignorance of the basic tenets of science. It doesn't matter though, because science irrefutable works, and the Earth is irrefutably older than 6,000 years old. To believe otherwise is to believe that we cannot trust our senses, that God purposely deceived us by making our senses provide us with false conclusions, and that not one conclusion of science can be trusted. Only through self-deception and twisted illogical can you accept that most of science is true, that God is not deceptive, but that the Earth is still 6,000 years old.
There is no logical way to prove geological ages by any of the methods you boast of. The unknown factor remains unknown and every single date you consider irrefutably older than 6,000 years can neither be proven true nor false since it is only based on assumptions that can not be known. The only living witnesses, the world’s oldest trees, are not older than the date of the flood.

If you understood how little you know of the secrets of God’s universe, you would be embarrassed of your grand scientific knowledge that opposes the plain testimony of scripture.
 
unred typo said:
I can tell you’re a big believer in ‘all these scientific people can’t be wrong.’ Here’s some who don’t agree:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... metric.asp I suppose we could play ‘my experts are smarter than your experts’ if you want but then we have to do the ‘that has all been refuted’ and the ‘all those refutes have been countered’ and ‘your experts are biased greedy dogs but mine are driven by a love of scientific truth’ ad nauseum…whut phun izzat? If no such incongruous dating methods have been discovered, someone isn’t trying very hard to find anything that conflicts with their POV.
No, let's try a "my experts" game. How many experts can you come up with to support a young Earth? A handful? A dozen? Whatever the exact number, it is really small? OTOH, I personally know dozens of qualified scientists with degrees who will attest to an ancient Earth, and I can find you literally millions of more. In the absense of an impossible conspiracy the numbers simply don't lie. The small miniscule percentage of scientists who disagree with the majority all have extreme biased views already believing in a young earth, and none can provide scientific evidence publishable in a journal to support their theory. The experts, those who actually know how the methods work, are overwhelmingly on my side.
 
Cubedbee wrote:
No, let's try a "my experts" game. How many experts can you come up with to support a young Earth? A handful? A dozen? Whatever the exact number, it is really small? OTOH, I personally know dozens of qualified scientists with degrees who will attest to an ancient Earth, and I can find you literally millions of more. In the absense of an impossible conspiracy the numbers simply don't lie. The small miniscule percentage of scientists who disagree with the majority all have extreme biased views already believing in a young earth, and none can provide scientific evidence publishable in a journal to support their theory. The experts, those who actually know how the methods work, are overwhelmingly on my side.

An army of robotic genius clones programmed with the same error wouldn’t impress me, would it you? The thing that should impress you is that there are qualified intelligent experts in the field who against all ridicule and pressure to conform, have the faith to stand firm in what they know to be truth.

Remember the flat earth theory? It was believed and taught and to disbelieve was heresy. This multitude of respected leaders of the day were wrong. Now you think the majority of self proclaimed experts have arrived at the pinnacle of knowledge and we can cast off the minority based on their numbers? This is your weakest defense but it may actually be your most compelling reason for believing as you do.
 
Back
Top