Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How do creationists test their ideas?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jonathan Mathews" data-source="post: 73898357" data-attributes="member: 382847"><p>The problem is that none of the radioactive methods of dating is:</p><p>1) Repeatable</p><p>2) Accurate</p><p>3) Consistent</p><p></p><p>I've seen where people took their dog's bones to be dated and they came out as anywhere from 600 - 12,000 years old. Each time it was measured, different labs got different results and they were all wrong. The dog died as was buried 10 years earlier.</p><p></p><p>So if you can show me an accurate, repeated, consistent form of dating, it would be a starting point, but so far, I've seen none, including all the forms of isotopic, radioactive carbon dating, etc. So in the absence of reliable scientific methods of dating, I see instead where the Scriptures record every man from Adam to Jesus, and see how Creation took God 6 days. I have also seen non-Christian physicists show how a Universal Ocean could have been molecularity split by a huge explosion of Universal light, creating the entire known Universe in 6 literal days. So the evidence and science I've tested and seen points to young, round earth. The science textbooks in all my College Bachelors degree of Engineering at IUPUI in Indianapolis never showed me a dating method that was repeatable, accurate for items of known age, or consistent in their findings. They just basically said "It's X years old, this is generally how radioactive carbon dating works". But I've seen HUNDREDS of people who tried to use radioactive dating to accurately date KNOWN objects ages and these methods failed miserably. That is why I have no faith in radioactive dating methods. The evidence I've seen points to their lack of credibility.</p><p></p><p>Here's a basic video explaining some of the issues with current dating methods. It talks about some of the reasons carbon dating is not reliable.</p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]3AomTKRLB_4[/MEDIA]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jonathan Mathews, post: 73898357, member: 382847"] The problem is that none of the radioactive methods of dating is: 1) Repeatable 2) Accurate 3) Consistent I've seen where people took their dog's bones to be dated and they came out as anywhere from 600 - 12,000 years old. Each time it was measured, different labs got different results and they were all wrong. The dog died as was buried 10 years earlier. So if you can show me an accurate, repeated, consistent form of dating, it would be a starting point, but so far, I've seen none, including all the forms of isotopic, radioactive carbon dating, etc. So in the absence of reliable scientific methods of dating, I see instead where the Scriptures record every man from Adam to Jesus, and see how Creation took God 6 days. I have also seen non-Christian physicists show how a Universal Ocean could have been molecularity split by a huge explosion of Universal light, creating the entire known Universe in 6 literal days. So the evidence and science I've tested and seen points to young, round earth. The science textbooks in all my College Bachelors degree of Engineering at IUPUI in Indianapolis never showed me a dating method that was repeatable, accurate for items of known age, or consistent in their findings. They just basically said "It's X years old, this is generally how radioactive carbon dating works". But I've seen HUNDREDS of people who tried to use radioactive dating to accurately date KNOWN objects ages and these methods failed miserably. That is why I have no faith in radioactive dating methods. The evidence I've seen points to their lack of credibility. Here's a basic video explaining some of the issues with current dating methods. It talks about some of the reasons carbon dating is not reliable. [MEDIA=youtube]3AomTKRLB_4[/MEDIA] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
How do creationists test their ideas?
Top
Bottom