Posted on 07/30/2009 10:42:38 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods
--snip--
This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Thanks for the ping!
I have a problem with all human-developed dating methods.
Humans invented the tests, so humans invented the interpretation of the tests, so the result can mean anything humans decide they mean. It’s not like when we arrived on earth we found an owner’s manual waiting for us with a chapter on interpreting tests that we humans developed.
Until somebody can resolve that for me, I will be skeptical of any human developed “test” that claims to date anything.
Denying the fact that God gave man the ability to study and draw valid conclusions about the universe and his environment is pretty ignorant, even for a professed Christian.
That didn’t quite answer my question, but thanks for replying.
A mechanical engineer, with an honorary degree in earth science, is that not like having a D.D.S. perform neurosurgery?
If he has in fact refuted Radiometric dating why has he not picked up his Noble prize?
“NO-sir-project-alot.”
Now, I know this will sound patronizing, and that’s because it is...don’t you worry your little head about all this science stuff. It’s ok for you and your creation playmates to pretend to be scientists, but don’t get yourself into too much trouble playing with the big boys - they know what they are doing and are much smarter than you.
“Everytime GGG posts the scientific rebuttals you and your ilk have nothing to offer but helpless insults, hysterics, extrapolation and exaggerations.”
You’re so cute when you play with your toys! Now, go clean your room.
“Everytime GGG posts the scientific rebuttals”
GGG has yet to post even one scientific rebuttal.
ID/Creationism is not science.
The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. ~ Micheal Medved senior fellow Discovery Institute
Albert Einstein
NO-sir-project-alot.
You should seriously get yourself looked into.
Evolution isn’t science, it’s sheer liberal conjecture.
“You should seriously get yourself looked into.”
You and your creation play-scientists will one day get to grow up! You’re playing in your creation treehouse while real men and women are advancing science and mankind with big-boy research that you can’t even comprehend.
Sure, you’re a bunch of ungrateful “creation science” brats, but we advance knowledge for all people, even the bad little “creation science” boys and girls that won’t do their homework because it is too hard for them.
Don’t worry your little heads, the adults are in charge and will keep the world safe, despite your “creation science” tantrums. One day you’ll appreciate the world the hard workers and serious scientists have created for you....
Until then, sit up straight and don’t talk back. It’s rude for little boys and girls to do that.
You should seriously get yourself seen about. Tend to it. Really.
“You should seriously get yourself seen about. Tend to it. Really.”
Don’t stick your little feet into the big shoes of real men and women of science, and don’t tug on their coats when they are busy.
Despite their arrogant claims to represent the “Christian point of view”, the creationists and their fundamentalist friends constitute a very tiny minority in mainstream religion. They are an abomination.
Are you purposefully lying or just that indoctrinated? ************************************************** http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006. http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719 ********************************************************** Free Republic Poll on Evolution http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63 ********************************************************** Creationism makes a comeback in US http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts *********************************************************** Teaching creation and evolution in schools Solid research reveals American beliefs http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp ************************************************************ Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63 ************************************************************ Public Divided on Origins of Life http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties ************************************************************ Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included) http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
The why are creationists investing so much energy discounting the possibility that the universe is billions, rather than thousands, of years old?
If it were acceptable to them that a universe billions of years old would be compatible with the Bible, they wouldn't be spending so much time on the subject.
Wow. The venom on this thread has rendered me (nearly) speechless. It’s sad that creationist points of view must be beaten down, insulted, and mocked.
Folks, if the topic and those who are interested in it bother you so much, there are plenty of other threads to click on. If we’re so wrong, why not leave us to our delusions and go on with your lives?
Perhaps an analogy would be in order.
Paraphrasing:
"Humans invented theI think you'll agree that substituting "thermometers" for "tests" changes the way you might look at that statement. The earliest thermometers were developed to measure and quantify a phenomenon that had not been studied in that manner before. One of the important aspects of that development was the provision of a step-by-step explanation of what was done and how it was done, so that the results could be duplicated by interested observers to prove the utility of the devices.teststhermometers, so humans invented the interpretation of theteststhermometers, so the result can mean anything humans decide they mean."
Without that independent verification, the equipment would have been as you describe, subject to the whimsical interpretation of the inventors.
With it, further analytical steps could be taken, such as measuring the shrinkage of objects when cooled. It was such experiments, by the way, that led us to the conclusion that there was a point of temperature below which an object could not be cooled, an "absolute zero".
Anyway, the utility of thermometers was proven in this manner by those wanted independent and suspicious experimenters, and this was exactly the same kind of development path that reliable dating methods followed as well. First a method was proposed and explained, so that others could verify it, and then after verification, which can be repeated at any time, further steps were taken to extend the range of reliability and meaningful interpretation that could be gleaned from an accurate way of determining the age of objects of interest.
These methods, by the way, entwine and reinforce each other in various ways, but they can all be verified at any time by simply repeating the original steps involved in developing them.
Poking fun at those who can't comprehend it? That's priceless.
Uh-huh. Then why do the evos scream and cry and whine when they get a little of their own verbage back in their faces and want more civility?
I'll tell you why, because liberalism is a disease.
No really. You owe it to yourself. Being a miserable liberal cultist is just no way to go through life.
“No really. You owe it to yourself. Being a miserable liberal cultist is just no way to go through life.”
You are a bad, bad boy. Go to bed.
Ah, I knew I could count on you for a reasonable response instead of the insults another poster hurled at me earlier. :-)
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.