Posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.
Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
> Apparently, you agree with the need for peer review.
Yes, as long as it isn’t politically or philosophically motivated.
Unfortunately, that’s not what we have with “evolutionism” or “creationism”.
Evolutionism is filled with “must be”, “could be”, “would be”, “should be”, because nobody was there to observe the processes they claim to have happened. We can observe and measure the effects of gravity and electricity, but the transitions of life forms, e.g. from shrew to bat, and dinosaur to bird, are unobservable and unmeasureable, and therefore can never be anything more than scientific conjecture about the distant past based on evidence discovered in the present.
However, the difference with Creationist scientists is they will admit their bias right up front. They are looking for evidence that supports their worldview, because they believe that God created.
What the evolutionists won’t tell you directly, is that the overwhelming preponderance of them are atheists and that they are looking for evidence that refutes the existence of God.
Even worse, the collectivist-statists rely on Darwin to justify Marx. Every horror known to man was employed by communists and fascists to realize their vision, which included wholesale slaughter of countless millions who were deemed as evolutionary throwbacks because of their ideology or ancestry or both.
And who is to say they were wrong? If there is no absolute Truth-Giver, then there can be no absolute Truth. In order to identify Good and Evil, there must be an objective, external, transcendent Truth that’s true whether you like it or not, whether you believe it or not, whether you even know it or not.
So if you want to go through life believing that ...
* Everything came from nothing out of nowhere for no apparent reason,
* Life is just a curious side effect of an unknowing and uncaring Cosmos,
* When you die, you are just so much compost,
... then all you have to look forward to is a life of self gratification and a painless extinction.
If, however, you do believe in the Jesus of the Bible, know that He cited the Genesis accounts of Creation and the Flood as historical, not allegorical. Know also, that if Death were part of God’s plan from the beginning, then why would we need Christ to rescue us from it?
I am a Christian and find the content of your post generally embarrassing. I won’t select individual passages for detailed explanation.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
Why would radiometric decay, and only radiometric decay vary with "dynamic time" locally? You seem to be positing that the energy output can vary independently of the decay rate - that the decay rate can be speeded up or slowed down while the observable energy output remains constant. Hypothetically, you could have free energy - producing energy without any decay at all.
We have no reason to believe that, within our measurable lifetimes, the rate of decay will change in any significant manner, or change suddenly. We have never observed a sudden change in the rate of decay, so it is a reasonable assumption that such a catastrophic change will not occur.
However, it is still an assumption, and there is no guarantee that tomorrow the rate of decay might change. Maybe there is some unknown external component to decay, and that external component could in fact change. Or maybe an increase in other forms of radiation or particles might alter the rate of decay.
In the document referenced, the inference about decay rates is not really about a natural change in the rate, but rather a change based on supernatural forces. I have always presumed that God could, at any time, change even the most fundamental of our physical laws. But I don’t live my life in fear that my car is suddenly going to fly off the planet because gravity stops working.
I don’t think however that it is unscientific to entertain the notion that radioactive decay rates may have changed over thousands of years. I would say it is low-probability.
> Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.
Really?
Most evolutionists don’t believe so. But don’t take my word for it. You can read it in their own words.
I was an atheistic evolutionist before I was a Christian. I tried to believe that evolutionism was compatible with Christianity, but in my heart I knew that couldn’t be, because of what I had learned.
Look, I know we’re all busy, and don’t have a lot of time. Neither do we like to be rocked out of our comfort zones.
But if and when you have any time to just read some opposing points of view for information sake, try these articles. See what you think. They may not change your mind, but they at least offer food for thought.
http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-evolution-same-god-bible
http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-creation-evolution-controversy
http://www.icr.org/article/theistic-evolution-day-age-theory
The "age" of a rock is based on the time it assumed solid form, either from structural fusion in the case of sedimentary rock, or solidification in the case of volcanic rock. These are ongoing processes. Why should it be puzzing that they are found to be of different ages?
“What the evolutionists won’t tell you directly, is that the overwhelming preponderance of them are atheists and that they are looking for evidence that refutes the existence of God.”
—Actually, from all the polls I’ve seen, I’d say that Christian evolutionists greatly outnumber atheist evolutionists. And also, Christian evolutionists most likely outnumber Creationists.
“Even worse, the collectivist-statists rely on Darwin to justify Marx. Every horror known to man was employed by communists and fascists to realize their vision, which included wholesale slaughter of countless millions who were deemed as evolutionary throwbacks because of their ideology or ancestry or both.”
—How does Darwin justifiy Marx? Populations change because of mutations and differential survival and thus there should be common ownership and control of the means of production? Anyway, Darwinism is much closer to Adam Smith’s theories than to Marx’s, and Darwinism has been used to argue for capitalism far more than it’s been used to argue for Communism.
You know what? I don’t really care how old the earth is at this point. If everyone who is so hung up on this crap would pay attention to the politics of this country and put their energy into ridding us(legally of course) of Bozo as President we would all be a lot better off. In the long run, when you die you will find out the truth. Doesn’t matter what you think or some scientists think, what is true will remain true regardless and arguing about it will not change things one way or another.
Exactly my point. How do you know that the amount of Sr87 was in the original sample, and not added there later?
With the (essentially) liquid flow of our crust, there is no way to determine the original amount of the parent in the rock. Erosion, plate tectonics, volcanoes, etc all play a part in the composition of rock. There is no way to accurately assume the original composition of any sample.
Spare me the melodrama. Adhering to literal inerrancy is a crutch that some Christians of weak faith require. Without it, their faith would be gone. I prefer to please God by using the brain that he gave me to ascertain his actual method.
And then you post links to a creation rationalization site in an effort to sway my opinion? Thank God real science is taught in public school.
That may be true, but inference is made by the reader. I believe the authors submit that these observations and conclusions do not rely on divine intervention to be valid.
Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"Nothing in that verse would preclude dynamic time, or changes in the radioactive decay rate. This doesn't mean I think those things are true, just that your proof text doesn't refute them.
Your assertion of your beliefs in no way matters as to your feelings about the content of the post. Being a self-professed Christian doesn’t endow you with special powers of understanding unavailable to other people.
I wasn’t trying to falsify his statement
Your post can apply to anyone. What’s your specific issue?
Welcome to the modern discourse on science. Someone posts a (religiously motivated) scientific discussion of an aspect of science that touches on evolution. That discussion attempts to deal with the science of the matter.
The evolutionists show up and discuss religion. I’m beginning to think the point isn’t so much to refute the claims as it is to ensure that no discussion of the problems of evolution takes place without dragging religion into it, to keep up the fiction that they only reason anybody doesn’t believe in evolution is their religious convictions, and that there are only religious arguments to be made.
> Thank God real science is taught in public school.
That explains a lot.
However, I will agree that to believe in the myth of “evolution” does require more faith than to believe that God created just as He said He did in His Word.
Oh, and while I tried to engage you without deprecating your faith or disparaging your intelligence, your responses have been condescending and smarmy. Really “Christian” of you.
Carry on.
The Bus Ministry of the State Church of Humanism, euphemistically called “Public Schools”, is enjoying great success in their indoctrination efforts.
I was one of their “successes”, until Jesus set me free and I could research the Truth with an open mind.
“...your responses have been condescending and smarmy.”
Then my work here is done.
Henry Morris, in his book Biblical Creationism, states of verse 20, “The basic laws controlling all the processes through which they interact (that is, the laws of energy and entropy” demonstrate the necessary fact of their primeval supernatural creation by God’s “eternal power.”” Later in the same paragraph, he explains the relation of space and time to demonstrate the analogy to the triune Godhead. All this is clearly perceived in the creation. Thus, young earth creationists agree that the laws of science are clearly perceived in the creation.1 Then why do they reject these laws?
Yes, the truths of creation are crystal clear to old earth creationists, but clear as mud to young earth creationists. Why do I say this? When old earth creationists examine the universe and our world, the evidence is clearly billions of years old. However, when young earth creationists examine it, they have to twist and contort the data to make it fit their model of a 6,000 year old earth. They reject the principles of Romans 1:20.
Consider radiometric dating. The scientific principles behind radiometric dating are clearly understood. Radiometric dating is accepted by all scientists as presenting reliable dates for the age of the earth. For a scientist who accepts radiometric dating, Romans 1:20 works perfectly…it is clear that a simple reading of the evidence supports billions of years. God’s creation gives an easy to read testimony to its age.
However, young earth creationists have a huge problem with radiometric dating, so much so that they created a committee to study the problem and come up with a solution. The RATE Group, or Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, was set up in 1998 to study how the data can be interpreted to give support to their claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old.2 Why do they need a committee (that so far has lasted for six years) to interpret the data, when God said that these things are “clearly understood?”
For the RATE Group, and young earth creationists, Romans 1:20 does not work. The verse says that the testimony to his eternal power is clearly discernable through the creation, yet the RATE Group was set up to do a multi-year study of how radiometric dates can be in error. For young earth creationism, the age of the earth is not “clearly discernable” in the creation…they have to study ways to twist the scientific facts to fit their theory of a young earth. That’s not what Romans 1:20 says!
The same thing is true of many of the issues in science. Many areas of scientific facts (facts, not theories), such as the principles of Geology, which we can see operating in today’s world, should be “clearly discernable” in the creation. Again, it is clear that these geologic processes give overwhelming evidence for an old earth. However, look at the efforts expended by young earth creationists to try and offer an alternative explanation to these processes. They take these “clear” processes and twist them until they support their view of a young earth. This violates Romans 1:20…no twisting or manipulating of the data is required to support an old earth. God said these things are clearly understood. In other words “What you see is what you get.” Yes, the earth is old!
Conclusion
When scientists look at the world and our universe, it is obvious to them that it is billions of years old. Using Romans 1:20, the obvious, clearly perceived facts from the creation must be the truth. The fact that young earth creationists have to form a committee for six years to argue against a scientific principle, is evidence in and of itself that the earth is old.
When Christians complain and argue that the earth is young, the world, and in particular, scientists, view us as uneducated radical extremists who twist the facts of science to their own conclusions. Scientists are not evil, anti-Christians trying to bury God…they are merely reporting what they see. According to Romans 1:20…they are right! In essence, young earth creationists have rejected the truth of Romans 1:20.
Here is a typical poll result, posted by CBS back in 2004. Creation trumps evolution in poll
Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved. But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools.If a majority of Americans believe creation, it is certain that a majority of religious americans believe in creation.Support for evolution is more heavily concentrated among those with more education and among those who attend religious services rarely or not at all.
I wouldn't be surprised if christian evolutionists outnumbered athiests (in this country) because there are a lot more self-professed christians. But in the world? Agnostic/atheist/nonchristian evolutionists will outnumber christians as a whole.
The fascinating thing about this particular poll was that while a large majority of both Bush supporters and Kerry supporters thought creation should be taught with evolution in schools, the democratic voters were MORE LIKELY to want to throw evolution out of school than the supposedly ignorant republican voters (37% vs 24%).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.