Uranium-thorium-lead dating methods are not free from controversy. Their results may not be accurate.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For starters, Uranium-Lead dating on fragments of the Canyon Diablo meteorite imply an age of ~4.5 billion years. I.e., it looks ~4.5 billion years old.
So, why would God create things to look billions of years old?
If your salvation is not based on what the bible says then the bible has little use for you. If your salvation is based on what is written, then what is written better be accurate, right?
Care to elaborate?Uranium-thorium-lead dating methods are not free from controversy. Their results may not be accurate.
It's worth pointing out that such doubts are easily quelled by noting that every other method of dating the Earth has arrived at the same age: ~4.5 billion years. That's a mighty fine coincidence, don't you think?
Care to elaborate?
It's worth pointing out that such doubts are easily quelled by noting that every other method of dating the Earth has arrived at the same age: ~4.5 billion years. That's a mighty fine coincidence, don't you think?
The irony is that we are discussing why the universe looks oldThe easy answer is that the Lord made the earth to look that old.
Some points: first, neither science nor Christianity ever suggested that the Earth was flat; it was proven by the Ancient Greeks; second, science never said 'black holes don't exist'; third, nothing has yet been shown to travel faster than c (though I admit, the entanglement phenomena is rather perplexing).The honest answer is that I have no clue. Science "corrects" itself all the time to account for new discoveries. The earth was flat, black holes didn't exist, and nothing could go faster than light. These have all changed over the course of history, as the earth certainly is round, there is very convincing evidence for black holes, and quantum spin can change no matter the distance.
I never understood why the Earth was supposed to be 6000 years old, instead of, say, 100, 000 (which is still quite young).The bible, however, is pretty quiet on "apparent age" as far as I know, so as a believer in the bible I really can't say anything
My understanding is that radiometric dating makes certain assumptions before drawing conclusions. I am not a scientist so I will elaborate by refering you elsewhere for some answers (I know it's bit of a cop-out).
And I cite:
As an explanation of the 'flaws' outlined in your article, and in most other articles on the 'flaws' of radiometric dating.
- CD0: Geochronology
- (see also CD241: Varves can form quickly.)
- CD000: Radiometric dating makes false assumptions
- CD001. Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.
- CD002. Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.
- CD004. Cosmic rays and free neutrinos affect U and Ar decay rates.
- (see also CF200: Radiometric dating)
- CD010. Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
- CD011. Carbon dating gives inaccurate results.
- CD011.1. Variable C-14/C-12 ratio invalidates C-14 dating.
- CD011.2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C-14 dates.
- CD011.3. Living snails were C-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old.
- CD011.4. A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old.
- CD011.5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33,000 years old.
- CD011.6. Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.
- CD012. U-Th dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
- CD013. K-Ar dating gives inaccurate results for modern volcanic rocks.
- CD014. Isochron dating gives unreliable results.
- CD015. Zircons retain too much helium for an old earth.
- CD016. The U-Th-Pb method, properly corrected for neutron capture, gives recent dates.
- CD020. Consistency of radiometric dating comes from selective reporting.
- CD031. KBS Tuff shows the flaws of radiometric dating.
Not all dating methods use radioactivity.Perhaps the faults associated with one form of radiometric dating are common to the other forms and therfore they give similar results.
I don't think we really know what something billions of years old looks likeSo why does everything look billions of years old?
so we would discover Him through faith.So, why would God create things to look billions of years old?
On the contrary, such antiquity leaves marks.I don't think we really know what something billions of years old looks like
So it is a test to see if his followers would be fooled by tangible evidence and unanimous science. How cunning.so we would discover Him through faith.
Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, He has set eternity in their heart, without which man cannot find out the work that God makes from the beginning even to the end.
If you havent figured it out by now, it is by faith.( For followers and non-followers.)On the contrary, such antiquity leaves marks.
So it is a test to see if his followers would be fooled by tangible evidence and unanimous science. How cunning.
I don't believe in the 6 literal days argument. I believe that when the Bible said God created the world in six days it was speaking in God's time.Not if you believe in a literal 6 days of creation. In that case the earth wasn't around for very long prior to man. Personally I believe in the inerrancy of the bible, so 6 literal days of creation is not a hard thing to swallow considering the omnipotence of god.
Also, was time introduced pre-apple or post apple, after sin was thrust upon us in the existence in Satan, time then shackled us post apple. Since Satan was already there in the garden, then time might be introduced pre-apple but not destroying us little by little until sin was introduced and consumed by man.I don't believe in the 6 literal days argument. I believe that when the Bible said God created the world in six days it was speaking in God's time.
Elsewhere in the Bible it says that a day to the Lord is a thousand years. The same applies to the 6 "days" of creation.
In fact, some Jewish traditions put the expulsion less than a day after they were created.Also, was time introduced pre-apple or post apple, after sin was thrust upon us in the existence in Satan, time then shackled us post apple. Since Satan was already there in the garden, then time might be introduced pre-apple but not destroying us little by little until sin was introduced and consumed by man.
So, Adam and Eve could have been around a long time before they succumbed.
Since you bring this up, can you point to one error in the bible?
Because God is powerful enough to ensure that the definitive book about him and his desires for us is inerrant!
My head hurts.If you havent figured it out by now, it is by faith.( For followers and non-followers.)
The believer is to believe what is written, in faith.
The unbeliever believes what is told them, by faith.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?