Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8966 total)
49 online now:
jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: javier martinez
Post Volume: Total: 873,481 Year: 5,229/23,288 Month: 350/1,784 Week: 237/211 Day: 4/81 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Validity of Radiometric Dating
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16071
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(3)
Message 14 of 200 (730340)
06-27-2014 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Faith
06-27-2014 11:50 AM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
First, if the Earth was young we'd see that. (If you see above it was possible to get a good date for the historical eruption of Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii). If the actual age is too low that doesn't mean that we'd see dates all over the place - almost all the dates would be around the minimum for the method.

There might be a very few fringe cases where the Flood might be relevant, but generally it would have no effect at all on most radiometric methods.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 11:50 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16071
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 17 of 200 (730343)
06-27-2014 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
06-27-2014 12:39 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
quote:

Yes, that is my problem all right, along with the fact that the Flood is the only reasonable explanation for the strata and the fossils, and the fact that the Old Earth explanations of the strata and the fossils are just plain ridiculous, and quite a few other things.

In reality it is the Old Earth explanations that make sense and the Flood story that is ridiculous. That's why the Old Earth is accepted as scientific fact and the Flood is rejected as a myth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 12:39 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:12 PM PaulK has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16071
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 21 of 200 (730347)
06-27-2014 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:01 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
Well, you've been told and it's nothing like what we actually see. So either you need to invent some new physics which just happens to result in many different dating methods giving consistently wrong results - despite relying on different processes. Or admit that radiometric dating is an effective falsification of YEC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:01 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2014 1:25 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16071
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 38 of 200 (730364)
06-27-2014 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
06-27-2014 1:12 PM


Re: bump for another Faith thread to discuss radiometric dating
quote:

No way does a stack of disparate sediments represent time periods, that's nuts, nothing sensible about it.

Obviously they represent a period of time where some environmental changes caused different material to be deposited. We've SEEN that changes in sea level explain a lot. I can't see that compressing the time available into a single year is at all sensible,

quote:

You can rationalize it all in terms of the Old Earth but it's a strain on common sense

Maybe if you exercised your common sense more you wouldn't find using it such a strain.

quote:

and billions of fossils is just too perfectly the result of the worldwide Flood.

Except for the numerous problems with that explanation, For example the order in the fossil record which the Flood can't explain at all.

And what's wrong with the old Earth explanation ? You can't say that the number of fossils is a problem given hundreds of millions of years.

quote:

Not to mention the other problems I've pointed out in the GC examples.

None of any weight compared to the evidence against YEC.

It's pretty obvious that the rationalisations are on your side. Even you admit that your interpretation of the Bible is more important to you than the science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 06-27-2014 1:12 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16071
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 55 of 200 (730426)
06-28-2014 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Faith
06-28-2014 12:09 AM


Re: Re:Libraries
Sure Faith I see what you are saying. People are being told the truth! As a creationist it is your duty to use lies and slander to suppress it.

Popular accounts are popular accounts. People want them. There is nothing suspicious or evil about providing them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Faith, posted 06-28-2014 12:09 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020