Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
No way does a stack of disparate sediments represent time periods, that's nuts, nothing sensible about it.
We all did the experiment when we were eight years old: a handful of dirt in a jar, fill it with water, shake and let it settle. It proves that all of the strata we observe could not be deposited in one event. Sequences of strata sorted by density require sequences of events. The flood scenario doesn't work.
I mentioned piltdown, nebraska, etc being found to be flawed....
The information on Piltdown Man and Nebraska Man is readily available on the Internet. Only the most ignorant of the ignorant creationists use them as examples any more.
Every time I have questioned macro ev, I get the "you must be a ...." treatment.
Well, nobody but a creationist makes a distinction between macro and micro. There's no reason to.
Again, there are very few TRUE scientists in MY EXPERIENCE.
Talking about "true" scientists is another giveaway. The real true scientists are the ones who do science. The people creationists call TRUE scientists are not.
FYI, we have a member in this very thread who uses radiometric dating in his daily work. You might do well to ask questions about how it works before you start questioning its validity or its conclusions.
Creationist insist that micro-evolution is evolution from wolves to dogs, however slow, and does occur, while macro-evolution is evolution of say a land animal-kind to a whaley-kind, and cannot occur cause you did not see it.
Nobody saw the wolves to dogs evolution either, so they're shooting themsleves in the foot.