You’re welcome to >believe< that.
http://www.evolutionfacts.com/
No Henry, that is not how they do it. That is a misleading and dishonest distortion of how index fossils actually work, and what selecting the right tool for the job actually means. This has been explained to you already.
As I said, you need to get your facts straight. If you are going to critique radiometric dating, you need to critique what geochronologists actually do in reality, not the straw man cartoon caricature of it described by the young-earth cults. Rejecting science might be faith, but distorting and misrepresenting science is lying.
1 Like
That’s >exactly< how they do it! That’s the actual reason why there are index fossils! But I’m sure you have your own biased sources that say differently.
No, Henry, it is a distortion of how they do it. Specifically, the implication that it is circular reasoning is a distortion. It is a half truth, and as the saying goes, a half truth is a whole lie.
Circular reasoning would be fossil A is used to date rock B and then rock B is used to date fossil A, with no other external cross-checks. What happens in reality is radiometric dating, stratigraphic layering principles, and other independent cross-checked methods are used to date rocks A, B and C. which are then used to date fossils D, E and F, then these are used to date rocks G, H and I. There is nothing circular, and nothing biased, about that.
3 Likes
You can repeat yourself loud and forcefully as often as you want, but that doesn’t make radiometric dating work! Period! I’ve given links that clearly debunk it. Take it or >believe< whatever fits your bias!
This isn’t about being loud and forceful, Henry. It’s not about “believing it” and it’s not about “bias.” It is about getting your facts straight. Nothing more, nothing less.
4 Likes
Get your own bent definition of ‘facts’ straight, first, I highly recommend.
From your profile: “I long to see the Bible upheld […].”
Then start upholding it, finally, instead of squishing evolutionary teachings into it that are upheld by atheists.
I don’t suppose you read this… I already posted it above. It has nothing to do with radiometric dating, but it does validate the consistency of radioactive decay:
Extinct Radioactive Atoms
A weaponized Bible. What else would we expect?
And actually there is a distinction between relative dating, in which index fossils or rock layers give a date relative to others, and absolute dating which would require a direct dating using various techniques independent of relative dating estimations.
Fact is that you cannot measure the age of anything directly without having actually used a clock and having it set at the point the object of interest came into existence.
All dating methods are based on assumptions. If these assumptions are not in accordance with historic events, the dating methods will fail.
The evolutionist’s time line cannot allow for garden-of-eden-conditions to begin with and catastrophic events which would alter the correlation between evolutionist assumptions about the past on which their dating methods ultimately rely. Change the assumptions and the conclusions will also change.
And keep in mind: According to the Bible, God made everything fully formed and fully functional. The universe may have appeared not young even for Adam! Do you realize that?
I don’t know if you aware of this, Henry, but accusing other people of atheism is against the rules of this forum.
In any case, getting your facts straight is nothing whatsoever to do with “squishing evolutionary teachings that are upheld by atheists” into anything. And upholding the Bible does not mean endorsing or even tolerating teaching that undermines it by shackling it to demonstrable falsehoods and misinformation.
This assertion has already been refuted, Henry. You aren’t bringing anything new to the table to address the refutations. Just repeating yourself over and over again will only end up with the discussion going round and round in circles and wasting everybody’s time.
3 Likes
I’ve not accused you of being an atheist. I said that you’re uphoalding the same things atheists uphold - in sheer contrast to scripture! Profound difference!
Which I clearly don’t do! Scripture says that God made the earth in 6 days. It says that man’s sin brought death into the world. It says there was a worldwide flood and it says that scoffers would deny the creation, the flood and the coming judgement. And despite denying the coming judgement, you demonstrably fit this description!
It is NOT demonstrably false that the earth is young. It is demonstrably true that you cannot measure its age! You >haven’t at any point< refuted that! You only assert that you have.
No dating method that doesn’t use a stopwatch or a witness account tells you when something came into existence without assumptions. And NO, you didn’t show that it has been taken into account which factors could falsify these assumptions. Keep asserting as long as you want, but the dating methods in use >don’t work< ! https://creation.com/search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=Different%20radiometric%20dating%20methods&gsc.page=1
Reflect that stupid statement onto yourself, if you please! You have from the very beginning of this discussion attacked a young earth scenario, a flood and a creation of life forms “after their kind” and you don’t even consider changing your mind. Yet you claim that it’s important for you to uphold the Bible. You don’t uphold the Bible - you uphold man’s fallible “wisdom”. Don’t be a hypocrite and just admit that your standard is nothing else but scientism. “The bible must fit what scientists say”. That’s your mindset. If you would uphold the Bible - no… if anyone here would uphold the Bible - you would >question< what scientists say in contradiction to god’s word instead of supporting it.
Science is what can be
- observed in process
- studied and modeled
- used for predictions
- experimentally verified
- repeated.
You didn’t observe the creation of the earth to know how old it actually is and you didn’t observe the evolution of new taxonomic families,
did you?!
If you can’t deduce from direct observation, you >have to< deduce from assumptions about the past that you cannot prove to be true. That’s a core premise of forensic science!
The earth’s age is >not< measurable! Read the papers in the link I provided and learn living with it!
That is a good description of radiometric dating, where cooling below the closure temperature sets the radiometric clock to zero!
1 Like
It is to everybody who is willing to consider all the evidence. To think that the earth is young, one has to first become committed to that as a religious idea, and then carefully filter out all the mountains of evidence to the contrary. History is full of people who were indeed committed to that very idea and then as evidence surfaced were compelled to change their mind. Virtually nobody looks at the evidence and decides on a young earth without first having been religiously attached to the idea. You will almost certainly ignore that obvious historical trajectory. Those of us committed to truth will not ignore such reality - which is a real problem for you and your particular understanding of scripture.
1 Like
No “evidence” for an old earth holds water. It’s all based on assumptions that Charles Lyell first came up with.
Think about this:
Just because something looks old doesn’t mean that it actually is old. How would Titanic look nowadays, if it never sank, for example?
Just because earth appears somehow wrecked, that doesn’t mean that it wore out over time! It only needs one event of certain proportions to change something’s appearance rapidly.
People knew that all the time - even Charles Lyell. The only reason why people accepted Lyell’s belief in an old earth is because it freed them from Moses. And even up to now all evidence is filtered to fit Lyell’s Geologic Column.
They use the Geologic Column to calibrate the measurement.
If radiometric dates conflict with the ages set by Lyell, they won’t be published.
“If the C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date,’ we just drop it.” (T. Save-Soderbergh and I. U. Olsson || Institute of Egyptology and Institute of Physics respectively || University of Uppsala, Sweden)
No. Those of us, committed to the truth won’t ignore the following:
If you think that you’re on the side of truth, you need to re-calibrate your definition of truth.
1 Like
Ah yeah? When Mount Saint Helen’s erupted in 1980 they took samples of freshly formed Lava and thought that it didn’t contain any daughter elements because they assumed the atomic clock had been set to zero. They dated the material to about 100000 years.
I don’t know about your stopwatch, but if I reset my stopwatch, it starts at zero - not at 14:55.
1 Like
Quote mining lots of famous people to misrepresent what they thought - that only further unmasks the departure from truth into which you have fallen.
1 Like