Job 33:6
Well-Known Member
- Jun 15, 2017
- 7,442
- 2,801
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Excuse me, let's stay on topic please, you're changing the subject from radiometric dating to another topic about biology. It's QA/QC of research that authenticates the data. Thereby substantiating the research. Either you're able to answer my question or you're not.
And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result (65 million years)?
And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?
No...
And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.
And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make-up any claim they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.
Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if the person doesnt have data to back up the argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.
You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is similar to asking me to refute a claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because the claim itself lacks any QA/QC data (hence why the claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).
Red blood cells are not the same as C-14. In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Let's try not to change the subject.
And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result (65 million years)?
And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?
No...
And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.
And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make-up any claim they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.
Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if the person doesnt have data to back up the argument. It's that simple. Christian Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.
You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is similar to asking me to refute a claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because the claim itself lacks any QA/QC data (hence why the claim is unpublished in any peer reviewed journal).
Red blood cells are not the same as C-14. In fact, biological traits of a fossil have nothing to do with radiometric dating at all. Let's try not to change the subject.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
