Other Radiometric Dating Methods

[RickG]

I believe Jesus walked on water, irregardless of what science says.

Am I lying?

That is totally non sequitur to the topic and discussion. Jesus walking on water is a belief of written scripture, there is no physical supporting evidence that can be falsified in that particular case. Conversely, the fact that Ken Ham has been shown to deliberately misrepresent radiometric dating in many different ways is clear physical falsifiable evidence that he is lying. Do you understand the difference?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you really approve of the deliberate misrepresentation of radiometric dating by Ham and others? Honestly AV, please give a simple yes or no answer.

That's a loaded question.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is not the first time you have shared that with us. This is also not the first time I have pointed out that your pastor is uninformed. You may tell him I said so, In fact I encourage you to do so.

So the other 76 [of 80] methods return the same ages?

 

[CabVet]

So the other 76 [of 80] methods return the same ages?

That is not what he is saying. What he said is that your pastor is wrong. I cannot evaluate the claim because I never saw it in detail. How about you post a list of the methods, and then a list of papers where people reject them in favor of the ones that give them the dates they expect? This must be very easy to do if your pastor is telling the truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is totally non sequitur to the topic and discussion. Jesus walking on water is a belief of written scripture, there is no physical supporting evidence that can be falsified in that particular case. Conversely, the fact that Ken Ham has been shown to deliberately misrepresent radiometric dating in many different ways is clear physical falsifiable evidence that he is lying. Do you understand the difference?

I say there was a global flood in Noah's time, despite what I've been told otherwise.

Am I lying?

 

[AV1611VET]

That is not what he is saying. What he said is that your pastor is wrong. I cannot evaluate the claim because I never saw it in detail. How about you post a list of the methods, and then a list of papers where people reject them in favor of the ones that give them the dates they expect? This must be very easy to do if your pastor is telling the truth.

13

 

[CabVet]

I say there was a global flood in Noah's time, despite what I've been told otherwise.

Am I lying?

No. That is not lying if you truly believe it (which I think you do). What is lying is saying this: "evidence supports a global flood in Noah's time", or this: "radiocarbon dating is wrong, therefore the global flood happened".

 

[CabVet]

13

Yeah, not what I asked, so I can't refute it due to the lack of information. Again, just give me a list of the methods, and a list of the papers where they are rejected.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, not what I asked, so I can't refute it due to the lack of information. Again, just give me a list of the methods, and a list of the papers where they are rejected.

50

 

[CabVet]

How about oil pressure?

Oil reservoirs underground are under great pressure. Since rocks are porous, this oil should be forced into them, reducing the pressure; but since we don't find this happening, it is evidence that that oil hasn't been there as long as evolutionist models say it is.

There is no logic in that argument. If rocks were as porous as you claim they are, all the oil would escape and there would be no pressure, at all, regardless of how long they have been down there.

 

[AV1611VET]

How about oil pressure?

Oil reservoirs underground are under great pressure. Since rocks are porous, this oil should be forced into them, reducing the pressure; but since we don't find this happening, it is evidence that that oil hasn't been there as long as evolutionist models say it is.

If rocks were as porous as you claim they are,

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

 

[CabVet]

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

Porous enough to let the pressure escape, that is exactly what your post said.

 

[RickG]

That's a loaded question.

It is not at all loaded AV, either you approve of "bearing false witness" or not.

 

[RickG]

So the other 76 [of 80] methods return the same ages?

There are not 80 radiometric methods for dating the earth and it is not done by evolutionists, it is the specific field of geochronology and geochemistry. Do you understand that? If so, please convey that to your pastor.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are not 80 radiometric methods for dating the earth...

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

 

[TeddyReceptus]

I say there was a global flood in Noah's time, despite what I've been told otherwise.

Am I lying?

You are not lying. You are just uninformed on geology.

There is no evidence of a global flood. So you are likely mistaken.

There is a difference.

Your personal ignorance of geology and what countless thousands of independent researchers have been working on for a couple of centuries is not akin to you "lying".

So don't worry about it! You are perfectly fine to express an opinion uninformed by facts.

Now, I suspect you have been told by many earth scientists on this very board that there is no evidence of a global flood and I suspect you have simply told them to keep looking.

Again, this does not make you a liar it makes you willfully ignorant and actively ignoring what people who know have told you.

This is fine, because your "belief" is purely based on some unknown authors words which may have been based on what they'd heard from countless generations before.

 

[RickG]

I say there was a global flood in Noah's time, despite what I've been told otherwise.

Am I lying?

No, you are not lying because that is your belief. Now, it you claim that the Grand Canyon or marine fossils on mountain tops prove the flood was global, then you are uninformed. However, after being shown where that is wrong and continuing to make the same claims, that is lying to yourself and others you tell it to.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

 

[AV1611VET]

No, you are not lying because that is your belief. Now, it you claim that the Grand Canyon or marine fossils on mountain tops prove the flood was global, then you are uninformed. However, after being shown where that is wrong and continuing to make the same claims, that is lying to yourself and others you tell it to.

There's that p-word again.

 

[CabVet]

There's that p-word again.

Replace it with "are evidence that". Does that make any difference?