Other Radiometric Dating Methods

[RickG]

That's not what I, or my pastor, said.

Yes you did, post # 27.

Originally posted by AV: As my pastor says, of the eighty-some methods of dating the earth, evolutionists only pick the ones that give them the answers they're looking for, and discard the rest.

 

[CabVet]

Yes you did, post # 27.

Incoming: not all methods are radiometric.

 

[RickG]

Here's another one, but I'm not going to dig up all 80 methods:

Short-Period Comets

Short-period comets orbit the sun in less than 200 years (the Halley comet orbits about every 76 years). Each time they come close to the sun they lose material (the comet tail) and disintegrate. If no new comets are being generated, it would appear that no short-period comets can survive more than about 10,000 years - implying a young earth. This claim is countered by the fact that the origin of short-period comets is still uncertain and that there may be a source of short-period comets e.g. the Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs) in the Uranus-Neptune zone, or the Oort Cloud.

SOURCE

Care to try an actual legitimate science source rather than a creationist site?

 

[CabVet]

Care to try an actual legitimate science source rather than a creationist site?

But, but, that is where those claims come from.

Of course, all of these claims were refuted at RationalWiki, but I doubt he will look.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes you did, post # 27.

We've had this discussion before, haven't we?

I think I may have misstated my pastor's position on this.

He basically said, that of the 80 or so methods of determining the age of the earth, scientists pick only those that give them the ages they are look for, and reject all the others that return a young earth age.

He said there are four methods that scientists use:

1. Argon [something]*
2. Potassium [something]*
3. Uranium [something]*
4. Krypton [something]*

He went on to say that the other 76-some are rejected for one reason or another:

1. moondust
2. strength of the earth's magnetic field
3. ocean salinity
4. a bunch of others

* He gave the exact names, but I can't remember them.


I think the book A Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel mentions them all as well, weatherman.

 

[RickG]

Incoming: not all methods are radiometric.

Nor are there 80 methods of any type that date the earth. He knows very well what I mean and being coy about it is only a form of what has been discussed the past several pages, lying.

 

[AV1611VET]

Care to try an actual legitimate science source rather than a creationist site?

Why? are they all lying?

 

[CabVet]

Why? are they all lying?

About the science? Yes. About what they believe in? Maybe not.

 

[CabVet]

And how porous does your Arab phone say I claim it is?

What I don't understand is why you keep bringing up the same lies, even though they were thoroughly refuted to you a long time ago.

Again, trying to be clear, when you say that the earth is young because you believe that is what the Bible says you are being honest. When you say science supports a young earth you are either misleading or deceiving.

 

[AV1611VET]

What I don't understand is why you keep bringing up the same lies, even though they were thoroughly refuted to you a long time ago.

Again, trying to be clear, when you say that the earth is young because you believe that is what the Bible says you are being honest. When you say science supports a young earth you are either misleading or deceiving.

Is Rick lying to me, or just confused? in your opinion?

 

[RickG]

We've had this discussion before, haven't we?

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

I think I may have misstated my pastor's position on this.

He basically said, that of the 80 or so methods of determining the age of the earth, scientists pick only those that give them the ages they are look for, and reject all the others that return a young earth age.

He said there are four methods that scientists use:

1. Argon [something]*
2. Potassium [something]*
3. Uranium [something]*
4. Krypton [something]*

He went on to say that the other 76-some are rejected for one reason or another:

1. moondust
2. strength of the earth's magnetic field
3. ocean salinity
4. a bunch of others

* He gave the exact names, but I can't remember them.


I think the book A Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel mentions them all as well, weatherman.​

I would argue that the age of the earth, young or old, is not an argument for a Creator.

However, I will agree that there are only a few radionuclides that are useful in dating the earth. The other 76, stated by your pastor, are not used because of their half-lives. You can't get in your car and drive from New York to San Francisco on a single tank of gas can you, your fuel capacity will not take you that far. The same is true for the 76 other isotopes, their range is not that far.

AV, I would truly like to sit down with your pastor and discuss both radiometric and non radiometric dating methods with you and your pastor, honestly and openly. How about a formal discussion thread?

​

 

[RickG]

Why? are they all lying?

YES!

 

[CabVet]

Is Rick lying to me, or just confused? in your opinion?

I have not seen him questioning your beliefs, only the misrepresentations of science that you are posting, and he is not lying about that. If he says that you are lying when you say "I believe (insert any belief here, in this case a young earth) because that is what I get from the Bible", he would be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, I would truly like to sit down with your pastor and discuss both radiometric and non radiometric dating methods with you and your pastor, honestly and openly. How about a formal discussion thread?

Um ... no you wouldn't. If you think I'm bad, you don't know my pastor (God bless him). His tolerance level is ... shall we say ... kinda low.

People who come to our church with ... other ideas ... usually don't stay long.

He will sit and talk with you ... for about a minute; then you'll probably get a lecture about 'the authority of the Scriptures,' and that will be that.

 

[CabVet]

Um ... no you wouldn't. If you think I'm bad, you don't know my pastor (God bless him). His tolerance level is ... shall we say ... kinda low.

People who come to our church with ... other ideas ... usually don't stay long.

He will sit and talk with you ... for about a minute; then you'll probably get a lecture about 'the authority of the Scriptures,' and that will be that.

Oh how very Christian of him.

 

[RickG]

Um ... no you wouldn't. If you think I'm bad, you don't know my pastor (God bless him). His tolerance level is ... shall we say ... kinda low.

People who come to our church with ... other ideas ... usually don't stay long.

He will sit and talk with you ... for about a minute; then you'll probably get a lecture about 'the authority of the Scriptures,' and that will be that.

I have no intention of discussing scripture or religious beliefs with him, only SCIENCE.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh how very Christian of him.

He is Christ's undershepherd, and one of his jobs is to keep out the riff-raff.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no intention of discussing scripture or religious beliefs with him, only SCIENCE.

Then I stand corrected. You'll go about 30 seconds, instead of about a minute.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Um ... no you wouldn't. If you think I'm bad, you don't know my pastor (God bless him). His tolerance level is ... shall we say ... kinda low.

Sounds like a most unpleasant person.

People who come to our church with ... other ideas ... usually don't stay long.

Cult leaders don't usually encourage dissent -- just sayin'

He will sit and talk with you ... for about a minute; then you'll probably get a lecture about 'the authority of the Scriptures,' and that will be that.

Well, at least he won't waste too much of a person's time.

 

[TLK Valentine]

He is Christ's undershepherd,

So he thinks.

and one of his jobs is to keep out the riff-raff.

Funny, Christ built his ministry on the riff-raff.