SkepticalDaniel Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Are there really flaws in the dating methods? Several methods for dating ancient materials have been developed. This is an important topic, for evolutionists want the history of earth to span long ages in the hopes that this will make the origin and evolution of life more likely. Therefore we shall devote an entire chapter to a discussion of every significant method, used by scientists today, to date ancient substances. 1 - RADIODATING MAJOR DATING METHODS—Several types of dating methods are used today. Chief among them are: (1) Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and thorium into radium, helium, etc., and finally into lead. (2) Rubidium-strontium dating, based on the decay of rubidium into strontium. (3) Potassium-argon dating, based on potassium into argon and calcium. In this chapter, we shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these dating methods. There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the parent or original radioactive substance gradually decays into daughter substances. This may involve long decay chains, with each daughter product decaying into other daughter substances, until finally only an inert element remains that has no radioactivity. In some instances, the parent substance may decay directly into the end product. Sometimes, the radioactive chain may begin with an element partway down the decay chain. A somewhat different type of radioactive dating method is called carbon 14-dating or radiocarbon dating. It is based on the formation of radioactive elements of carbon, in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation, and their subsequent decay to the stable carbon isotope. We will also discuss radiocarbon dating in this chapter. SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS—At the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand a basic fact: Each of these special dating methods can only have accuracy IF (if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS (always!) apply to EACH specimen that is tested. Here are seven of these fragile assumptions: (1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years! But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space. (2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading. But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do! (3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed. Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct. Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants. The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past. The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it. (4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past! "His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107. (5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals. Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1530 yards] into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major change—from the present rate,—in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air. (6) The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles [724 km] above us and is intensely radioactive. According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth. Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals. But we know next to nothing about this belt—what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances. (7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning, that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age." By this we mean "appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature the moment after Creation. Spread before us would be a scene of fully grown plants and flowers. Most trees would have their full height. We would not, instead, see a barren landscape of seeds littering the ground. We would see full-grown chickens, not unhatched eggs. Radioactive minerals would be partially through their cycle of half-lives on the very first day. This factor of initial apparent age would strongly affect our present reading of the radioactive clocks in uranium, thorium, etc. Evolutionary theorists tell us that originally there was only uranium, and all of its daughter products (radioactive isotopes farther down its decay chain) developed later. But "appearance of maturity" at the Creation would mean that, much of the elements, now classified by evolutionists as "daughter products," were actually original—not daughter—products and were already in the ground along with uranium instead of being produced by it. We already know, from Robert Gentry’s studies, that original (primordial) polonium 218 was in the granite when that granite initially came into existence suddenly and in solid form; yet polonium is thought by evolutionists to only occur as an eventual daughter product of uranium disintegration. TWELVE DATING METHODS—We have looked at the basic assumptions relied on by the radiodating experts; now let us examine the primary dating methods. Here are nineteen of them:: (1) Uranium-lead dating (2) Thorium-lead dating (3) Lead 210 dating (4) Helium dating (5) Rubidium-strontium dating (6) Potassium-argon dating (7) Potassium-calcium dating (8) Strata and fossil dating, as it relates to radiodating, will be briefly considered, although we will discuss rock strata dating in much more detail in chapters 12 and 14 (Fossils and Strata and Effects of the Flood). In addition, there are three dating methods used to date ancient plant and animal remains: (9) Radiocarbon (carbon 14) dating (10) Amino acid decomposition dating (11) Racemization dating Lastly, we will briefly overview several other supposed "dating methods" which, although not expected to provide much accuracy in dating, are still used in an attempt to postulate long ages for earth’s history: (12) Astronomical dating (13) Paleomagnetic dating has gained prominence in the past few decades. Because this present chapter is already quite long, we planned to deal with paleomagnetic dating in a later chapter (chapter 20); but, for lack of space in this paperback, that material will be found in chapter 26 on our website. (14) Varve dating (15) Tree ring dating (16) Buried forest strata dating (17) Peat dating (18) Reef dating (19) Thermoluminescence dating (20) Stalactite dating In the remainder of this chapter, we will consider each of these 20 dating methods: 1—URANIUM DATING—Because of similarities in method and problems with uranium and thorium dating, we will frequently refer to both under the category of uranium dating. Three main types of uranium/thorium dating are included here: are included here: (1) Uranium 238 decays to lead 206, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. (2) Uranium 235 decays to lead 207, with a half-life of 0.7 billion years. (3) Thorium 232 decays to lead 208, with a half-life of 14.1 billion years. These three are generally found together in mixtures, and each one decays into several daughter products (such as radium) before becoming lead. FIVE URANIUM/THORIUM DATING INACCURACIES—Here are some of the reasons why we cannot rely on radioactive dating of uranium and thorium: (1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end product. In addition, common lead (lead 204), which has no radioactive parent, could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (*Scientific Monthly, November 1957). *Faul, a leading authority in the field, recognized it also (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, 1954, p. 297). When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is "daughter-product lead" (that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium). The specimen is not carefully and thoroughly checked for possible common lead content, because it is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium samples. (2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions. (3) There can be inaccurate lead ratio comparisons, due to different types of lead within the sample. Correlations of various kinds of lead (lead 206, 207, etc.) in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also. Thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well. Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years. (4) Yet a fourth problem concerns that of neutron capture. *Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 (normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods! (5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials. SOURCE: http://godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/c06a.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted May 27, 2016 Super Moderator Share Posted May 27, 2016 I'm no expert on dating methods, but one thing I can tell you about it. The religious nuts say all science is unreliable except when it supports their own agenda. Then it becomes proof of god or the Bible or some crap. Stop reading this kind of shit, okay? It's not serving you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted May 27, 2016 Share Posted May 27, 2016 Are there really flaws in the dating methods? Several methods for dating ancient materials have been developed. This is an important topic, for evolutionists want the history of earth to span long ages in the hopes that this will make the origin and evolution of life more likely. Therefore we shall devote an entire chapter to a discussion of every significant method, used by scientists today, to date ancient substances. 1 - RADIODATING MAJOR DATING METHODS—Several types of dating methods are used today. Chief among them are: (1) Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and thorium into radium, helium, etc., and finally into lead. (2) Rubidium-strontium dating, based on the decay of rubidium into strontium. (3) Potassium-argon dating, based on potassium into argon and calcium. In this chapter, we shall discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each of these dating methods. There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the parent or original radioactive substance gradually decays into daughter substances. This may involve long decay chains, with each daughter product decaying into other daughter substances, until finally only an inert element remains that has no radioactivity. In some instances, the parent substance may decay directly into the end product. Sometimes, the radioactive chain may begin with an element partway down the decay chain. A somewhat different type of radioactive dating method is called carbon 14-dating or radiocarbon dating. It is based on the formation of radioactive elements of carbon, in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation, and their subsequent decay to the stable carbon isotope. We will also discuss radiocarbon dating in this chapter. SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS—At the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand a basic fact: Each of these special dating methods can only have accuracy IF (if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS (always!) apply to EACH specimen that is tested. Here are seven of these fragile assumptions: (1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years! But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space. (2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading. But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do! (3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed. Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct. Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants. The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past. The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it. (4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past! "His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107. (5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals. Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1530 yards] into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major change—from the present rate,—in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air. (6) The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles [724 km] above us and is intensely radioactive. According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth. Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals. But we know next to nothing about this belt—what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances. (7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning, that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age." By this we mean "appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature the moment after Creation. Spread before us would be a scene of fully grown plants and flowers. Most trees would have their full height. We would not, instead, see a barren landscape of seeds littering the ground. We would see full-grown chickens, not unhatched eggs. Radioactive minerals would be partially through their cycle of half-lives on the very first day. This factor of initial apparent age would strongly affect our present reading of the radioactive clocks in uranium, thorium, etc. Evolutionary theorists tell us that originally there was only uranium, and all of its daughter products (radioactive isotopes farther down its decay chain) developed later. But "appearance of maturity" at the Creation would mean that, much of the elements, now classified by evolutionists as "daughter products," were actually original—not daughter—products and were already in the ground along with uranium instead of being produced by it. We already know, from Robert Gentry’s studies, that original (primordial) polonium 218 was in the granite when that granite initially came into existence suddenly and in solid form; yet polonium is thought by evolutionists to only occur as an eventual daughter product of uranium disintegration. TWELVE DATING METHODS—We have looked at the basic assumptions relied on by the radiodating experts; now let us examine the primary dating methods. Here are nineteen of them:: (1) Uranium-lead dating (2) Thorium-lead dating (3) Lead 210 dating (4) Helium dating (5) Rubidium-strontium dating (6) Potassium-argon dating (7) Potassium-calcium dating (8) Strata and fossil dating, as it relates to radiodating, will be briefly considered, although we will discuss rock strata dating in much more detail in chapters 12 and 14 (Fossils and Strata and Effects of the Flood). In addition, there are three dating methods used to date ancient plant and animal remains: (9) Radiocarbon (carbon 14) dating (10) Amino acid decomposition dating (11) Racemization dating Lastly, we will briefly overview several other supposed "dating methods" which, although not expected to provide much accuracy in dating, are still used in an attempt to postulate long ages for earth’s history: (12) Astronomical dating (13) Paleomagnetic dating has gained prominence in the past few decades. Because this present chapter is already quite long, we planned to deal with paleomagnetic dating in a later chapter (chapter 20); but, for lack of space in this paperback, that material will be found in chapter 26 on our website. (14) Varve dating (15) Tree ring dating (16) Buried forest strata dating (17) Peat dating (18) Reef dating (19) Thermoluminescence dating (20) Stalactite dating In the remainder of this chapter, we will consider each of these 20 dating methods: 1—URANIUM DATING—Because of similarities in method and problems with uranium and thorium dating, we will frequently refer to both under the category of uranium dating. Three main types of uranium/thorium dating are included here: are included here: (1) Uranium 238 decays to lead 206, with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. (2) Uranium 235 decays to lead 207, with a half-life of 0.7 billion years. (3) Thorium 232 decays to lead 208, with a half-life of 14.1 billion years. These three are generally found together in mixtures, and each one decays into several daughter products (such as radium) before becoming lead. FIVE URANIUM/THORIUM DATING INACCURACIES—Here are some of the reasons why we cannot rely on radioactive dating of uranium and thorium: (1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end product. In addition, common lead (lead 204), which has no radioactive parent, could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (*Scientific Monthly, November 1957). *Faul, a leading authority in the field, recognized it also (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, 1954, p. 297). When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is "daughter-product lead" (that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium). The specimen is not carefully and thoroughly checked for possible common lead content, because it is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium samples. (2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions. (3) There can be inaccurate lead ratio comparisons, due to different types of lead within the sample. Correlations of various kinds of lead (lead 206, 207, etc.) in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also. Thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well. Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years. (4) Yet a fourth problem concerns that of neutron capture. *Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 (normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods! (5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials. SOURCE: http://godrules.net/evolutioncruncher/c06a.htm The "seven faulty assumptions" are themselves quite faulty, containing misunderstanding, lies and mispreresentations. Being a biased and disingenuous creationist hit piece, I stopped reading it after that. Here, take a read on this article. It's an accurate and unbiased discussion from a CHristian: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 No mention of red shift dating, only "astronomical dating". I question the accuracy of red shift dating for the interpretation of distances of stars and galaxies and the age of the universe as much as I question the accuracy of carbon dating for looking at cave men's bones. I didn't see carbon dating in this text. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qadeshet Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Stop reading appologetic nonsense. Are you trying to mess up your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yunea Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Science exists to be questioned. There are many flaws and inaccuracies in science, and there are many, many unfinished things. When people address them, question them and come up with better ideas, science slowly becomes more and more accurate. An important thing to understand is that not once has this process lead to scientists "admitting" that an old religious text has been "right" or more accurate than their attempts at explaining how the world works. Many old theories have been shown to not describe the world very well, but they never once end up replaced by older ones, let alone ones that are based on nothing else but an old book. The only times that scientists have been silenced in front of religion have been when they've been in danger of their heads falling off. That has been many a sad time, though. People were trying to discuss atoms back in the 1300s, but the church silenced them because the idea of atoms seemed blasphemous to them. Also the idea that the Earth is actually not the center of the Universe was heavily opposed by the church. If the Bible was true, science would end up discovering the things in it regardless of what scientists personally wish to find. For the most part (and that's a huge part) this does not happen. Geographic accuracy of the Bible doesn't mean anything but geographic accuracy. I can write a fictional story that happens in my hometown, and I can describe my hometown to the most miniscule detail, but I can also place in characters that I made up. This doesn't mean that any of my story is true, only that it's geographically accurate. This article makes claims like: Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air. as though the Flood and what happened before it was fact, and assumes that those things have probably affected the behaviour of radioactive minerals. However there is no scientific evidence ever found that supports the Flood and everything that's connected to it in the Bible. How did two kangaroos hop back to Australia? How did two polar bears walk back to the North Pole? How did predators feed on the Ark? How come there is no fossil evidence whatsoever of a mass death of human and animal just ~five thousands of years ago, and no evidence of everyone being related to the few people that survived? I strongly recommend that you get to know what the scientific method actually is and what it isn't. It will bring you much peace of mind about this kind of apologetics. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miamia Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Science exists to be questioned. There are many flaws and inaccuracies in science, and there are many, many unfinished things. When people address them, question them and come up with better ideas, science slowly becomes more and more accurate. An important thing to understand is that not once has this process lead to scientists "admitting" that an old religious text has been "right" or more accurate than their attempts at explaining how the world works. Many old theories have been shown to not describe the world very well, but they never once end up replaced by older ones, let alone ones that are based on nothing else but an old book. The only times that scientists have been silenced in front of religion have been when they've been in danger of their heads falling off. That has been many a sad time, though. People were trying to discuss atoms back in the 1300s, but the church silenced them because the idea of atoms seemed blasphemous to them. Also the idea that the Earth is actually not the center of the Universe was heavily opposed by the church. If the Bible was true, science would end up discovering the things in it regardless of what scientists personally wish to find. For the most part (and that's a huge part) this does not happen. Geographic accuracy of the Bible doesn't mean anything but geographic accuracy. I can write a fictional story that happens in my hometown, and I can describe my hometown to the most miniscule detail, but I can also place in characters that I made up. This doesn't mean that any of my story is true, only that it's geographically accurate. This article makes claims like: Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air. as though the Flood and what happened before it was fact, and assumes that those things have probably affected the behaviour of radioactive minerals. However there is no scientific evidence ever found that supports the Flood and everything that's connected to it in the Bible. How did two kangaroos hop back to Australia? How did two polar bears walk back to the North Pole? How did predators feed on the Ark? How come there is no fossil evidence whatsoever of a mass death of human and animal just ~five thousands of years ago, and no evidence of everyone being related to the few people that survived? I strongly recommend that you get to know what the scientific method actually is and what it isn't. It will bring you much peace of mind about this kind of apologetics. ^I second that^ this is some of the best advice you will hear on this matter, skeptical daniel, please take it to heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 The source is "godrules.net" Surely this is an unbiased font of information that can be relied upon for factual accuracy regarding scientific matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pantheory Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 This topic is quite difficult for creationists to deal with. Criticisms of the extent of possible error for some methods have also come from scientists. But the entire system was developed from a long history of testing to determine the half-life of many elements and their isotopes. The most well-known of these, and one of the oldest methods of age-dating is commonly called carbon 14 dating. All geological dating of the elements and isotopes have a mean value and range of possible error. It is true that under certain circumstances one method or another can give false readings. In many cases more than one method can be used to corroborate age dating where often both methods provide similar dating when needed for greater accuracy when one method or results alone might be questionable. One of the simplest methods for age dating is by examining the rock strata from which the item in question was in-cased/ dug up from. Generally all items within the same strata will provide similar age dating. Plants and animals from this same geologic time period are known collectively from samplings all over the world. Just by identifying the plants and animals found together in the same strata provides a fairly accurate age dating for all other items within that same strata. Although there can be errors in chemical and isotope age dating for any particular sample or method, the evidence which supports the collective science is beyond question supported by many other types of age dating methods often coming up with very similar age dating. Questioning and/or criticizing science results, methods or theory by logical means or by alternative scientific methodology I think is a good thing within the realm of what is reasonable and possible. But many of these systems and methods have been known to be generally valid for more than a century now and collectively known to be science at its best. Yes, there have been, and can be errors in the methods, testing, analysis, interpretations, and results of age dating, but educated Creationists that argue for a 6,000 year old Earth readily show their ignorance of this field of science. It first reveals the limited extent of their education, it questions their ability to learn new things or go beyond what they were taught as children, to consider alternative explanations, to think outside the box, and I think it questions their general intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voice Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Science exists to be questioned. There are many flaws and inaccuracies in science, and there are many, many unfinished things. When people address them, question them and come up with better ideas, science slowly becomes more and more accurate. An important thing to understand is that not once has this process lead to scientists "admitting" that an old religious text has been "right" or more accurate than their attempts at explaining how the world works. Many old theories have been shown to not describe the world very well, but they never once end up replaced by older ones, let alone ones that are based on nothing else but an old book. The only times that scientists have been silenced in front of religion have been when they've been in danger of their heads falling off. That has been many a sad time, though. People were trying to discuss atoms back in the 1300s, but the church silenced them because the idea of atoms seemed blasphemous to them. Also the idea that the Earth is actually not the center of the Universe was heavily opposed by the church. If the Bible was true, science would end up discovering the things in it regardless of what scientists personally wish to find. For the most part (and that's a huge part) this does not happen. Geographic accuracy of the Bible doesn't mean anything but geographic accuracy. I can write a fictional story that happens in my hometown, and I can describe my hometown to the most miniscule detail, but I can also place in characters that I made up. This doesn't mean that any of my story is true, only that it's geographically accurate. This article makes claims like: Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air. as though the Flood and what happened before it was fact, and assumes that those things have probably affected the behaviour of radioactive minerals. However there is no scientific evidence ever found that supports the Flood and everything that's connected to it in the Bible. How did two kangaroos hop back to Australia? How did two polar bears walk back to the North Pole? How did predators feed on the Ark? How come there is no fossil evidence whatsoever of a mass death of human and animal just ~five thousands of years ago, and no evidence of everyone being related to the few people that survived? I strongly recommend that you get to know what the scientific method actually is and what it isn't. It will bring you much peace of mind about this kind of apologetics. ^I second that^ this is some of the best advice you will hear on this matter, skeptical daniel, please take it to heart. I third it. Well said, Yunea. I liked that. If I may... Scientific method goes like this: 1. establish theorem. 2. gather data via experimentation. 3. evaluate data against theorem. 4. revise theorem. Rinse and repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts