Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,925 Year: 4,182/9,624 Month: 1,053/974 Week: 12/368 Day: 12/11 Hour: 0/1


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Dates and Dating ⇒

Creationist Arguments with Dating Methods.

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist Arguments with Dating Methods.
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5939 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 8 of 30 (70017)
11-30-2003 2:35 AM 		Reply to: Message 6 by NosyNed
11-30-2003 2:06 AM

Nostned
​
I wonder if I have this clear. Do creationists realize that if daughter products are present then the age of the rock is even greater than the inferred age? If they are pointing out in order to bolster the case of a young earth it certainly hurts their cause.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by NosyNed, posted 11-30-2003 2:06 AM NosyNed has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:02 AM sidelined has replied
  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5939 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 12 of 30 (70023)
11-30-2003 3:11 AM 		Reply to: Message 11 by Sonic
11-30-2003 3:02 AM

Sonic
​
And the reason it would prevent it from being dated correctly is because the dughter product is a result of radioactive decay that has already occured,hence the date would be greater than the date we could thereby establish. So if we have a date set a 150,000,000 years and there is daughter products already present at 150,000,000 years ago then the rock is actually older by the amount of daughter product.If you are trying to establish that the rock is merely thousands of years old I believe this will not help your case.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 3:02 AM Sonic has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 4:01 AM sidelined has replied
  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5939 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 14 of 30 (70031)
11-30-2003 4:18 AM 		Reply to: Message 13 by Sonic
11-30-2003 4:01 AM

Sonic
​
I have to go to bed now however I will leave a web site for you to ponder over until I am back.Assuming you are still awake to read this.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/clkroc.html#c6
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 4:01 AM Sonic has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 4:42 AM sidelined has replied
  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5939 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003

Normal Thread Display
Message 19 of 30 (70054)
11-30-2003 10:55 AM 		Reply to: Message 15 by Sonic
11-30-2003 4:42 AM

Sonic
​
You say the Earth could be 4.5 billion years old. By what means do you arrive at this conclusion?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 4:42 AM Sonic has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Sonic, posted 11-30-2003 11:45 PM sidelined has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024