Bible and science?

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well all the YEC scientists I know and read prefer creation ex-Deo!

That's not what they've been telling me.

God called forth the herbs from the ground.

Actually, He said:
Genesis 1:11
And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.

Point 1: the bible does declare a worldwide flood!

Nope. Go look. Doesn't say worldwide. "World" has a different meaning in the Bible, BTW. The term did not mean "entire globe."

It would be stupid for Noah to spend 120 years building an ark, when he could have packed up and moved to a different region to avoid the mess.

Here, you decided to impose what seems right to you, on the Bible.

The bible declared all mountains were covered.

Nope. Doessn't say "all."

Geology shows that the world has continent large sedimentary rock formations!

And your argument is that they could only be formed by a single worldwide flood? Show us the evidence for that.

Evolutionists say multiple floods- but the conformity of the strata across the globe denounces that thought!

Nope. In fact, there are only a few places on the Earth with all of the strata of the geological column.

Point 2 The bible writes it as history and Jesus confirms Noah.

Nope. Neither the Bible, nor Jesus said it was a historical account.

Point 3 No I have not been misled and yes I do know how radiometric dating works.

But you can't tell us how? Why is that?

I also know all the untestable assumptions required to arrive at a radiometric date

Show us those. We'll see if they stand up to inspection.

and the peer reviewed and approved publications in both YEC and secular journals that show how radio decay is not constant.

As you learned, even if the rates aren't constant, (the supposed variations are within the error margins of existing instruments), they wouldn't change billions of years into millions, much less thousands. And if they did, the increase in ionizing radiation would have killed all organisms on Earth. No way to get around it.

Point 4: Argon40/argon39 cannot date such a young event like Pompeii.

And yet it did so. Accurately.

Nailing Pompeii Roman historian Pliny the Younger noted that Mount Vesuvius blew its top and destroyed Pompeii in the early afternoon of August 24, 1,918 years ago. Now, a team of scientists, tempted by the certainty of that record, has confirmed the eruption to within 7 years. The team developed and used an improved radioactive argon-argon dating technique, which they say can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as recent as 1,000 years old. "We nailed the date to 5% on our first attempt, so we could probably get the error down to 1% or less," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics at the University of California at Berkeley and director of the private Berkeley Geochro-nology Center. "Dating things that are really young has always been the Holy Grail of potassium-argon [an earlier method] and argon-argon dating." Coauthors of the report, published in a recent issue of Science magazine, are Warren D. Sharp and Alan L. Deino of the Geochro-nology Center, and Giovanni Orsi and Lucia Civetta of the Department of Geophysics and Vulcanology at the University of Naples. Civetta also heads the Vesuvian Vulcanologi-cal Observatory.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/EO078i036p00382-02

That is less than 2,000 years old and qr/ar replaced K/Ar which supposedly measures samples in the billions of years!

Yep. But it worked. So we know the process is valid and accurate.

Point 5: when I caqn find the CERN report again I will post it. The info that I gleaned came from CERN- they applauded it as a means of dealing with nuclear waste.

That's the usual response. No one ever seems to have the data to back up the claim.

Point 6: Neutrino bombardment does affect decay about 3/10% /annum.

Show us your data for that. Checkable source.

You wrote: "Such tiny variation would do YE believers no good at all. If radioactivity increased to a level sufficient to indicate an Earth less than 10,000 years old, it would have fried all living things on Earth anyway. Rock and a hard place, for YE creationism."

Unless of course there was a global flood that washed away and so diluted radio materials as to give rocks a false appearance of age radioactively.

Nope. The soil, the water, the rocks, the air itself would be releasing huge amounts of ionizing radiation. And everything would die.

It has been repeatedly shown that flowing water alters ages because radio material is easily removed from the lattice matrix of minerals.

That's why porous rocks are not used for dating. Only rock that is impermeable to water.

So let us know if you ever find that data, hear?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
No, only appear to be.

No, because I do not hold to scientific infallibility of Scriptures, so I do not care.


But its not firmanent. Its not firm. Its just a space.


Evolution works. But thinking with kidneys, as Bible describes, does not.


1: So stars only appear to emit light but really do not? and you call the bible unscientific.

2. but yet where the bible speaks of science subjects- it is infallible!

3. the firmament is not firm- you should look at the original word to understand the modern word. or a simple dictionary would do as well:

fir·ma·ment
/ˈfərməmənt/
noun
LITERARY
  1. the heavens or the sky, especially when regarded as a tangible thing.

4. where does the bible say to think with kidneys???

5. Darwinian Evolution is scientifically impossible. We have no empirical evidence that mutations preserved by natural selection over time adds greater complexity and new and previously uncoded features in any creature.

Evolutionism says that raptors evolving to birds is a fact! So show me the evolution of the scales of a raptor to the feathers of a bird and you win! This is a fact so the evidence must be there to support this supposed fact!

Empirical science has shown that over 99.9% of all mutations are harmful to the host. Some barely so (almost benign) to toxic. We have no example to point to to show how mutatating a genome changed a mouse to something that is not a mouse, or a fish to an amphibian.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That's not what they've been telling me.



Actually, He said:
Genesis 1:11
And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done.



Nope. Go look. Doesn't say worldwide. "World" has a different meaning in the Bible, BTW. The term did not mean "entire globe."



Here, you decided to impose what seems right to you, on the Bible.



Nope. Doessn't say "all."



And your argument is that they could only be formed by a single worldwide flood? Show us the evidence for that.



Nope. In fact, there are only a few places on the Earth with all of the strata of the geological column.



Nope. Neither the Bible, nor Jesus said it was a historical account.



But you can't tell us how? Why is that?



Show us those. We'll see if they stand up to inspection.



As you learned, even if the rates aren't constant, (the supposed variations are within the error margins of existing instruments), they wouldn't change billions of years into millions, much less thousands. And if they did, the increase in ionizing radiation would have killed all organisms on Earth. No way to get around it.



And yet it did so. Accurately.

Nailing Pompeii Roman historian Pliny the Younger noted that Mount Vesuvius blew its top and destroyed Pompeii in the early afternoon of August 24, 1,918 years ago. Now, a team of scientists, tempted by the certainty of that record, has confirmed the eruption to within 7 years. The team developed and used an improved radioactive argon-argon dating technique, which they say can reliably establish the age of rocks as old as the solar system or as recent as 1,000 years old. "We nailed the date to 5% on our first attempt, so we could probably get the error down to 1% or less," says Paul Renne, adjunct associate professor of geology and geophysics at the University of California at Berkeley and director of the private Berkeley Geochro-nology Center. "Dating things that are really young has always been the Holy Grail of potassium-argon [an earlier method] and argon-argon dating." Coauthors of the report, published in a recent issue of Science magazine, are Warren D. Sharp and Alan L. Deino of the Geochro-nology Center, and Giovanni Orsi and Lucia Civetta of the Department of Geophysics and Vulcanology at the University of Naples. Civetta also heads the Vesuvian Vulcanologi-cal Observatory.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/EO078i036p00382-02



Yep. But it worked. So we know the process is valid and accurate.



That's the usual response. No one ever seems to have the data to back up the claim.



Show us your data for that. Checkable source.



Nope. The soil, the water, the rocks, the air itself would be releasing huge amounts of ionizing radiation. And everything would die.



That's why porous rocks are not used for dating. Only rock that is impermeable to water.

So let us know if you ever find that data, hear?


1> Well in the past they said it but ICR and AIG and CRS all use ex-deo now!

2. I was summarizing- herbs can mean all plant life.

3. True- eretz can mean a certain location. It can also mean the entire planet! context determines which. But Genesis 6 and Genesis 7:19 let us know that eretz means the whole earth.


4. Yup! Read the accounts there is nothing in the language or construct in both the old or new testament to even imply they are a parable. Also the earth bares testimony to a global flood!

5. Well you haven't told us how either. Why is that?

6: The Sun Alters Radioactive Decay Rates
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable

7: And ar40/ar39 uses the same untestable assumptions used for all other radio dating methods. I will wait until this has been used hundreds of times to see.

8. Well I did give you a source that shows the experiment and a reference to the research so this is moot. When I find the cern article I will post it. If that is not enough- oh well....

9. Says the math without proof. But a global flood would dilute the radiation and no one said the water washed it all at once. But the major factor is radio dating is established by untesatable assumptions and that the decay constant has been shown to be altered by a simple process of cavitation. an order of 10,000 in 90 minutes!

10. No rock is impermeable to water! And many many rocks used for dating are sedimentary rocks- which are very porous! That is basic science 001. And you subntly throw your little insults out and fail at such a basic truth?

Are you sure you know how radio dating works? I stand in doubt of you know!
 
Upvote 0

Queller

I'm where?
May 25, 2012
6,446
681
✟45,092.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
Well a student of biblical history knows the answer. First there were two Jerichos in Jesus' day so one could be leaving Jericho and going to Jericho at the same time.

As for the blind man healings?

There are two separate healings of blind men, also many times the synoptic writers used different aspects of teh same story to convey a thought to the audience they were primarily addressing.

Matthew to the Jewish mind
Mark to the Roman mind
Luke to the Greek Mind.

They did not contradict each other but many times just told partial parts of the whole story! Just like the resurrection!
Great. So who was Matthew teaching when he said there were two blind men and why did Mark feel the need to change the story when he told it?
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,677
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,453.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
5. Darwinian Evolution is scientifically impossible.
This will be news to the world's scientists.
We have no empirical evidence that mutations preserved by natural selection over time adds greater complexity and new and previously uncoded features in any creature.
Sure we do. We have abundant evidence of common descent, and we can easily see how new genes were created by well-understood mutational processes.
Empirical science has shown that over 99.9% of all mutations are harmful to the host.
This is so utterly wrong as to be absurd. Why are you making proclamations about a science you clearly know nothing about?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This will be news to the world's scientists.

Sure we do. We have abundant evidence of common descent, and we can easily see how new genes were created by well-understood mutational processes.

This is so utterly wrong as to be absurd. Why are you making proclamations about a science you clearly know nothing about?
Do these guys know what they are talking about Steve?

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation. Genetics April 1, 1998)
A 'very few', doesn't sound like a viable mechanism for 'adaptive on an evolutionary scale'. Or do you have some better insights?
 
  • Like
Reactions: nolidad
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
This will be news to the world's scientists.

Sure we do. We have abundant evidence of common descent, and we can easily see how new genes were created by well-understood mutational processes.

This is so utterly wrong as to be absurd. Why are you making proclamations about a science you clearly know nothing about?


Yes because they have been indoctrinated to see evolution.

We have superficial evidence by morphology and the opinion of evolutionism.

If we can easily see mutations producing new information that previously did not exist- I await you showing one example.

Is it? Then why do a former chair of Harvard genetics and Mutoo Kimera (an evolutionary geneticist many times awarded) with his Kimera distribution both say that in reality there is no such thing as a "beneficial" mutation! Do they know nothing of the studies they lead???
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Do these guys know what they are talking about Steve?

Among the mutations that affect a typical gene, different kinds produce different impacts. A very few are at least momentarily adaptive on an evolutionary scale. Many are deleterious. (Rates of Spontaneous Mutation. Genetics April 1, 1998)
A 'very few', doesn't sound like a viable mechanism for 'adaptive on an evolutionary scale'. Or do you have some better insights?


I have been in this debate for a long time with many evolutionmists or believers in evolutionism. All and I do mean all examples of "beneficial" mutations they have thrown at me (and there have been only three in many years) are not real mutations, but a simple process of proteins remaining in th e"on or off" position along a certains section of the DNA or immune systems functioning as they should.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Great. So who was Matthew teaching when he said there were two blind men and why did Mark feel the need to change the story when he told it?

Please give the scriptures you are calling into question and I wil look them up!
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I have been in this debate for a long time with many evolutionmists or believers in evolutionism. All and I do mean all examples of "beneficial" mutations they have thrown at me (and there have been only three in many years) are not real mutations, but a simple process of proteins remaining in th e"on or off" position along a certains section of the DNA or immune systems functioning as they should.
Went through the same thing myself, I remember the Nylon eating bug was popular for a while. Come to find out a reading frame was swapped out, no actual mutation was involved. Now don't get me wrong, there are changes in DNA sequences that can be mistaken for mutations. Stay up on it, you would be amazed at how many times this broad misconception unmasks itself.

BTW, ever hear of the CRISPR gene? It was an editing tool for bacteria until it was uncovered and patented by MIT. Now it's a gene editing tool. Might want to look it up.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
For Barbarian:

I looked up an article on ar40/ar39 dating! it is only good for relative dating and must be coordinated with other methods. As there is no method that dates rocks under 2,000 years AFAIK the issue is moot.

Also as ar40/ar39 dates out to over 1.25 billion years- if my math is correct then 1949 years is about .00000155% of 1.25 billion years of decay and i think that ratio of ar40to ar39 is way way way withion the MOE of even th e most sensitive measuring system. And you mocked a 3/10 of 1% /annum measured acceleration.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,677
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,453.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do these guys know what they are talking about Steve?
They were writing in 1998, when very little was known yet about the details of the genome. We now know that 95% or more of mutations are neutral.
A 'very few', doesn't sound like a viable mechanism for 'adaptive on an evolutionary scale'.
Why not? For example, there something like 750 billion mutations occurred in the lineage leading to modern humans from our common ancestor with chimpanzees. If 1 in 10,000 were beneficial (which is indeed "very few"), that mean 75 million beneficial mutations. Even if only 1 in a thousand of those fixed, that's still plenty of adaptive mutations.
 
Upvote 0

nolidad

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 2, 2006
6,762
1,269
69
onj this planet
✟221,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Went through the same thing myself, I remember the Nylon eating bug was popular for a while. Come to find out a reading frame was swapped out, no actual mutation was involved. Now don't get me wrong, there are changes in DNA sequences that can be mistaken for mutations. Stay up on it, you would be amazed at how many times this broad misconception unmasks itself.

Absolutely.

I love the "evolution" of e-coli! 50,000 generations of ecoli in a carefully controlled , highly structured experiment and they got it to digest sodium citrate. Hailed as a breakthrough for proof of evolution and then years later on the back pages of science journals, come to find out it was simply a protein that went from the "off" position to the "on position" to allow it to change its diet!

Also it seems that most defenders of evolution forget Mendels Law and chalk up variation within a species or even speciation itself to random undirected mutation.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Absolutely.

I love the "evolution" of e-coli! 50,000 generations of ecoli in a carefully controlled , highly structured experiment and they got it to digest sodium citrate. Hailed as a breakthrough for proof of evolution and then years later on the back pages of science journals, come to find out it was simply a protein that went from the "off" position to the "on position" to allow it to change its diet!

Also it seems that most defenders of evolution forget Mendels Law and chalk up variation within a species or even speciation itself to random undirected mutation.
Oh, you have learned something about Mendel, that's encouraging. I've seen experiments like that described in papers before, that's really a lot of generations when you think about it. Always liked this definition of a mutation:

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Mutations. Kimball Biology Pages)
Yea, that's how adaptive evolution happens, a failure of DNA repair. Explains everything. Does it bother anyone that the number of deleterious effects vastly outnumber beneficial?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
They were writing in 1998, when very little was known yet about the details of the genome. We now know that 95% or more of mutations are neutral.

Why not? For example, there something like 750 billion mutations occurred in the lineage leading to modern humans from our common ancestor with chimpanzees. If 1 in 10,000 were beneficial (which is indeed "very few"), that mean 75 million beneficial mutations. Even if only 1 in a thousand of those fixed, that's still plenty of adaptive mutations.
How many billions of people on this planet, that should mean given your ratio there are an enormous number of adaptive traits emerging from mutations. But strangely, we as a race have not so much as speciated and do not diverge by more then 1/10th of 1%.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that there is such a thing as adaptive evolution. I just don't think spontaneous mutations make a very good explanation for how they happen.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,677
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,453.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Yes because they have been indoctrinated to see evolution.
<snort> Your suggestion is so far off that mark as to be amusing.
We have superficial evidence by morphology and the opinion of evolutionism.
We have detailed evidence from genetics.
If we can easily see mutations producing new information that previously did not exist- I await you showing one example.
You've got mutations in your body that produced new information that did not previously exist. You have DNA specifying antibodies to a host of viruses and other pathogens that you've been exposed to during your life, each exquisitely tuned to a protein on the surface of the pathogen. You were not born with those DNA sequences -- they came about through mutation of existing DNA.
Is it? Then why do a former chair of Harvard genetics and Mutoo Kimera (an evolutionary geneticist many times awarded) with his Kimera distribution both say that in reality there is no such thing as a "beneficial" mutation!
You mean the Kimura (not Kimera) who wrote "adaptive changes due to positive Darwinian selection no doubt occur at the molecular level", and "there is not the slightest doubt that the marvelous adaptations of all the living forms to their environments have been brought about by positive Darwinian selection"? You've never read anything by Kimura, have you?

Who is the former chair of Harvard genetics, and what did he actually say?
All and I do mean all examples of "beneficial" mutations they have thrown at me (and there have been only three in many years) are not real mutations
How odd, since far more than three beneficial mutations are well known and easily observed. Beneficial mutations to produce drug resistance can be observed very easily in bacteria, and we see them routinely in malaria parasites when we expose them to drugs. Something like a dozen beneficial mutations are known in humans just in genes controlling pigmentation, not to mention multiple independent mutations controlling expression of lactase, a coding change in EDAR, and duplication of the gene for amylase. That's just off the top of my head.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,677
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,453.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
How many billions of people on this planet, that should mean given your ratio there are an enormous number of adaptive traits emerging from mutations.
Quite possibly there are.
But strangely, we as a race have not so much as speciated and do not diverge by more then 1/10th of 1%.
We've only had billions of people for a couple of generations, so, um, what's your point?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Quite possibly there are.

We've only had billions of people for a couple of generations, so, um, what's your point?
Mutations do a lot of bad things, a lot more bad things then good things. I'm not belaboring the point here. I'm just saying there has to be a better explanation then beneficial mutations, that's all.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,677
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,453.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Mutations do a lot of bad things, a lot more bad things then good things. I'm not belaboring the point here.
Yeah, we all know that, biologists included.
I'm just saying there has to be a better explanation then beneficial mutations, that's all.
But you've never been able to give any support to this belief of yours.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
1> Well in the past they said it but ICR and AIG and CRS all use ex-deo now!

ICR, AIG, and CRS now also admit the evolution of new species (but they say it isn't "real" evolution, ignoring the meaning of the word) So they have modified their religion a bit over time, to accomodate reality.

2. I was summarizing- herbs can mean all plant life.

I'm merely showing you that life was not created from nothing; it was brought forth by the Earth as God intended.

3. True- eretz can mean a certain location. It can also mean the entire planet! context determines which. But Genesis 6 and Genesis 7:19 let us know that eretz means the whole earth.

No. Neither of those say 'the whole earth' or even suggest it.

4. Yup! Read the accounts there is nothing in the language or construct in both the old or new testament to even imply they are a parable.

Theologians who know more than you or I, have said the language reflects a parable. Which is why a literal worldwide flood has never been Christian orthodoxy.

Also the earth bares testimony to a global flood!

No, that's wrong. It's why so few people believe in a global flood today; the evidence doesn't support it. Would you like me to show you why?

5. Well you haven't told us how either. Why is that?

You didn't ask. Would you like to learn how it works?

https://www.icr.org/article/fluctuations-show-radioisotope-decay

As you learned, the variation in rates, (if they exist; the changes are so small, they might be instrument variations) would not change billions of years to millions of years, much less thousands of years. And of course, if it somehow did, the massive increase in radiation from earth, air, and water would have killed all living things.

7: And ar40/ar39 uses the same untestable assumptions used for all other radio dating methods.

And yet, it accurately identified the date of the volcanic eruption that buried Pompeii.

I will wait until this has been used hundreds of times to see.

Doesn't matter. That's the funny thing about reality. It keeps right on going, even if you try to ignore it.

8. Well I did give you a source that shows the experiment and a reference to the research so this is moot. When I find the cern article I will post it. If that is not enough- oh well....

No, you merely cited a place wherethe claim was made, but no evidence provided. If you do find it, by all means, show us. Checkable source.

9. Says the math without proof. But a global flood would dilute the radiation and no one said the water washed it all at once.

Water contains radioactive elements, as does air and earth. Can't get away from it. If you accelerate radioactive decay by a factor of tens of millions (which is what you'd need to get from billions of years to thousands of years) it would have killed all living things.

But the major factor is radio dating is established by untesatable assumptions

For example, it was tested by dating the age of the volcanic flow that buried Pompeii. It's easy to record how much an element decays over time. That excuse won't work.

and that the decay constant has been shown to be altered by a simple process of cavitation. an order of 10,000 in 90 minutes!

A researcher in Rome presented this finding. However, no one to date has been able to reproduce it. So there's a problem. Morever, if the atmosphere of the Earth had experienced such huge pressure waves, very little but microbes would have survived.

10. No rock is impermeable to water!

Clay, shale and slate are rocks that do not allow water to pass through and are therefore classified as impermeable. Unlike permeable rocks that absorb water, impermeable rocks can support and change the beds of rivers and streams, are prone to erosion, and can prevent the flow of groundwater. The latter is commonly referred to as an aquiclude. Composite rock materials such as concrete or brick are porous and allow for the seepage of water, unless treated with a water-proofing substance.
Substances That Are Impermeable to Water

And many many rocks used for dating are sedimentary rocks- which are very porous!

Nope. You can't use sedimentary rock for radioisotope dating. I bet, if you thought about it a bit, you'd realize why.

That is basic science 001.

See above. I'm not trying to make fun of you. But you don't understand a lot of the things you would need to understand to make a reasonable conclusion.

Are you sure you know how radio dating works?

Yep. It's not all that complicated in principle. The devil is in the details. There are entire books written about things that you can do to mess up an analysis.

1. All radioisotopes decay at known rates.

2. This is calculated as half-lives, the time it takes for half of the isotope to decay to a daughter isotope.

3. The relative amount of the parent and daughter isotopes will give the date at which the rock "closed"

4. If there are more than two datable isotopes in the rock, one can check the results by an isochron.
That is, if you plot the relative amounts of three parent and daughter isotopes on a graph, the three points should lie on a straight line.

The analysis is straightforward. Argon-39 has a half-life of 269 years. Which means that in 269 years, half of it will be gone and converted to Potassium-39. In 538 years, three-quarters of it will be gone and converted to potassium, and so on.

I stand in doubt of you know!
 
Upvote 0