So we finally get an explanation of how this "different atmosphere" is supposed to affect radiometric dates. However, this time, it is not connected to the Flood but the 3rd day of creation in Genesis 1.
quote:
Now we come to the important stuff relative to your question. Nobody but nobody knows how long plants were on earth. What we would conclude is that there had to be a very different atmosphere on the planet for who knows how long. Nobody would know how much carbon etc; likely very much less than post flood. The same would likely go with other radiometric dating methods.
And it's complete rubbish. Carbon dating is NOT based on the "amount of carbon". It's based on the proportion of different carbon isotopes. Moreover, carbon dating has been calibrated with non-radiometric dates with no sign of any major error - as has been discussed on this site before.
Other radiometric dating methods do NOT rely on atmospheric material at all, so how this is supposed to affect them, I have no idea.
And, of course since it relies on a world with only plants, this puts the date of the "change" before the start of the Cambrian - far out of range of carbon dating. Which is one more reason why it cannot affect carbon dates.
quote:
have been into the Bible extensively and daily over 60 years since a 10 year old child. Not to boast, but for the record I am well versed on all of the prophecies and how they all corroborate the whole. I have the Lennart Moller, Swedish marine scientist's book and video on the phenominal discover of chariot debris at Nweiba Beach at the Gulf of Aqaba corroborated , I say corroborated by all else that the Bible states which should be found in the region of the crossing, which until this discovery was thought to be down at the southern tip of Sinai. etc. I
I'm amazed that you would consider this uncontroversial given the lack of real evidence and the major errors in Moller's work discussed on this site - not to mention the association with Ron Wyatt.
quote:
I say this to enforce that there is a significant amount of evidence for the veracity of the Biblical record, especially the fulled prophecies relative to the end times and the emerging evidenc of the yet to be fulfilled ones. This all, not to mention the significant amount of personal experiential phenomena I have witness and experienced relative to the reality of Jehovah, god. This, of course cannot be verified to you. Nor can the pre-flood stuff be verified. I cite it and explain so as to explain why I doggedly hold to those views, in spite of being accused of foolishly rejecting established theory and the science of it.
Of course these claims, too, have been debunked here - and often shown to be based on twisting and misrepresenting the Bible. Which is an odd way of "believing " it.
quote:
The reason there can be no legitimate science debate of creationism versus evolution is that science has devised what is considered to be a imperical way to explain naturally what the Bible states was done relatively suddenly.
We know, for example that if (I say if) the sun were created by a supernatural means it would have needs have been created beyond the proto-star period of star building so as to do the function it was created to do. What would require billions o y to be a functional star would take God whatever time deemed by him.
Of course, this argument, too is refuted by the evidence of age. It does not explain the evidence of past events. For instance the iridium layer from the major meteorite at the end of the Cretaceous. And, of course, radiometric dates.
™ Version 4.2
