Why Evolutionary Dating Methods Are Wrong

[AV1611VET]

There is no ambiguity about it YEC sites engage in straight out lies about science which is their stock in trade.

Would you know it if they weren't lying?

Does misinformed equate to lying?

In addition, what happens if we are informed, but refuse to accept the information?

Remember Frances Kelsey?

 

[AV1611VET]

1) the earth is old, and

2) that it is old cannot be attributed to "evolutionary dating methods", since the conclusion that the earth is old predates the theory of evolution.

Okay, thanks.

 

[dlamberth]

Okay.

The earth is old.

What of it?

Yes, the earth is old and with history,

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, the earth is old and with history,

Time didn't exist until 4004 BC.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There is no ambiguity about it YEC sites engage in straight out lies about science which is their stock in trade.

You would think with an "embedded age" view (the rocks were built to intentionally deceive scientific methods) an attack on scientific dating would be unneeded. Go figure.

 

[AV1611VET]

You would think with an "embedded age" view ... an attack on scientific dating would be unneeded.

I agree.

Why did you call it an "attack" though?

Did science attack itself and change Hesperopithicus haroldcookii to Prosthennops peccary?

Or the solar system from geocentric to heliocentric?

Go figure.

Go hiking.

 

[SelfSim]

Why did you call it an "attack" though?

I dunno .. try: gross misrepresentations, by way of major omissions, through admissions of deliberate and willful ignorance, might create the impression of an attack in any reasonable thinking average human.

 

[sjastro]

You would think with an "embedded age" view (the rocks were built to intentionally deceive scientific methods) an attack on scientific dating would be unneeded. Go figure.

I had a look at the video and no surprises these YEC characters just can’t resist lying about mainstream science.
The character with the smug look on his face going on about scientists cherry picking data is probably all too aware he is engaging in the same behaviour he is accusing scientists of.

The 45000 year old charcoal fragments from a tree in 45 million year old rock is a case in point, basaltic rock can undergo fissuring and erosion and plant life can take hold in such an environment.

If a bushfire destroys the tree and further erosion of the basalt covers up the fragments does not lead to the conclusion radiometric dating is flawed.
The explanation is conveniently ignored of course as it would ruin the narrative behind the video.

Then there is the nonsense proposed about scientists disregarding radiometric results they do not like which says much about the woeful ignorance of the presenter.
Samples are sent to different laboratories for testing and if results are rejected it is because they are statistical outliers due to errors, not because scientists don’t like the results.

Then there is his explanation we should reject all forms of radiometric dating because of the assumption the decay rates were constant in the past, he forgets his own reasoning is based on an assumption. He cannot explain how varying decay rates using different dating methods on the same sample produce overlapping error bars.
This is lying by omission or just plain ignorance.

The grand finale is the video does not present the case of the earth being 6000 years old, even if he wasn’t lying it is a false dichotomy to come to this conclusion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Would you know it if they weren't lying?

Does misinformed equate to lying?

In addition, what happens if we are informed, but refuse to accept the information?

Remember Frances Kelsey?

Not even remotely similar case at all.

And misinformed does become lying when the misinformed has been corrected on their incorrect information multiple times and refuses to learn.

 

[AV1611VET]

And misinformed does become lying when the misinformed has been corrected on their incorrect information multiple times and refuses to learn.

Need to repent, do they?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Need to repent, do they?

Your use of loaded words and terms rears its head again.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I had a look at the video and no surprises these YEC characters just can’t resist lying about mainstream science.
The character with the smug look on his face going on about scientists cherry picking data is probably all too aware he is engaging in the same behaviour he is accusing scientists of.

I uncovered the OP for a "peek" and saw the AiG indent on the video. AiG's view of god is not one that would lay false clues to "embed" an age, so instead they attack the methods and science that destroys their view (radiometric dating, geologic column, DNA similarity of humans and other great apes, etc.) as they must if they are to be a "scientific" YEC ministry.

The "appearance of age" (or embedded age, I care not what they call it) YEC people don't need to break radiometric dating, instead it either becomes a test of faith from the creator, or a trick from the demon to get us to "reject the creator" as part of some ill-defined dastardly plan.

(Of course the could just do what most Christians do and accept the age of the Earth is quite large. Oh well.)

 

[AV1611VET]

The "appearance of age" (or embedded age, I care not what they call it) ...

Perhaps you should, so you won't make mistakes.

But then, you and I are alike that that respect, aren't we?

You don't care that much for the things of God, and it shows on your report card.

I don't care that much for the conclusions of science, and it shows on my report card.

 

[awstar]

AiG's view of god is not one that would lay false clues to "embed" an age, so instead they attack the methods and science that destroys their view (radiometric dating, geologic column, DNA similarity of humans and other great apes, etc.) as they must if they are to be a "scientific" YEC ministry.

Your science doesn’t destroy a YEC view (radiometric dating, geologic column, DNA similarity of humans and other great apes, etc.). Radiometric dating works fine when the starting ratio is known, not assumed. It's great when Carbon-14 shows thousands rather than millions of years. The geologic column is helpful in giving names to all the sedimentary layers —all of them laid down with a lot of water and a lot heat (i.e. cataclysmic flood, per chance?)— long enough to form seperate layers, quick enough to prevent erosion between layer boundaries. Every software designer (i.e. intelligent designer) reuses code whenever possible to reduce maintenance. And once you get a coded function working efficiently, there is little that can be done to make it better -- nor any need to make it different.

Your view of cosmology, geology and biology is rather archaic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your science doesn’t destroy a YEC view (radiometric dating, geologic column, DNA similarity of humans and other great apes, etc.). Radiometric dating works fine when the starting ratio is known, not assumed. It's great when Carbon-14 shows thousands rather than millions of years. The geologic column is helpful in giving names to all the sedimentary layers —all of them laid down with a lot of water and a lot heat (i.e. cataclysmic flood, per chance?)— long enough to form seperate layers, quick enough to prevent erosion between layer boundaries. Every software designer (i.e. intelligent designer) reuses code whenever possible to reduce maintenance. And once you get a coded function working efficiently, there is little that can be done to make it better -- nor any need to make it different.

Your view of cosmology, geology and biology is rather archaic.

But none of that shows how a YEC view can be correct. Just saying the other view is wrong does not show that opposing view is correct.

And a cataclysmic flood cannot explain the geological layers at all, since their composition in no way makes sense with a flood.

 

[dlamberth]

And a cataclysmic flood cannot explain the geological layers at all, since their composition in no way makes sense with a flood.

Nor can a cataclysmic flood explain other geological features around the globe. One case in point that's in my neighborhood, the Cascade Volcanic Arc which is the result of plate subduction.

 

[River Jordan]

Your science doesn’t destroy a YEC view (radiometric dating, geologic column, DNA similarity of humans and other great apes, etc.). Radiometric dating works fine when the starting ratio is known, not assumed. It's great when Carbon-14 shows thousands rather than millions of years. The geologic column is helpful in giving names to all the sedimentary layers —all of them laid down with a lot of water and a lot heat (i.e. cataclysmic flood, per chance?)— long enough to form seperate layers, quick enough to prevent erosion between layer boundaries. Every software designer (i.e. intelligent designer) reuses code whenever possible to reduce maintenance. And once you get a coded function working efficiently, there is little that can be done to make it better -- nor any need to make it different.

Your view of cosmology, geology and biology is rather archaic.

If you think you have a better way to estimate the ages of things, why don't you do it? It's easy to sit on the sidelines and talk trash about the professionals who are actually in the game, but it never accomplishes anything.

So if you have a better method, then let's see it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nor can a cataclysmic flood explain other geological features around the globe. One case in point that's in my neighborhood, the Cascade Volcanic Arc which is the result of plate subduction.

Who told you this?

From AI Overview:

Volcanoes form when molten rock, called magma, rises from the Earth's mantle to the surface through cracks in the crust, primarily occurring at the boundaries of tectonic plates where plates collide or move apart, creating pressure that forces the magma upwards and erupts as lava, forming a volcano over time; this process is largely driven by plate tectonics.

Are you telling me that Noah's Flood in 2348 BC could not have happened because volcanoes exist?

According to that AI Overview article, volcanoes form when molten rock rises to the surface through cracks in the crust.

Are you aware that God broke Pangaea up into five major landmasses in Peleg's time?

This plate tectonic activity could account for your Cascade Volcanic Arc and much more.

The Flood and the splitting up of Pangaea are two separate incidents and have nothing to do with each other.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think you have a better way to estimate the ages of things, why don't you do it? It's easy to sit on the sidelines and talk trash about the professionals who are actually in the game, but it never accomplishes anything.

So if you have a better method, then let's see it.

I'll accept those ages and still say the earth was created in 4004 BC.

(As well as still talk trash about the professionals who are actually in the game.)

 

[River Jordan]

I'll accept those ages and still say the earth was created in 4004 BC.

Ok.

(As well as still talk trash about the professionals who are actually in the game.)

Why? To what end?