• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Truth: either God exists or He don't.

Pilgrim Soldier

Active Member
Okay, here is your big chance, why doesn't radiometric dating work?

No creationist can answer that without looking like a complete fool. Do you think that you can do any better?
Because radiometric dating will give you different estimates of the age of the same subject, if it was preserved in different environments. You can take different fossils from the same animal, which was spread over a larger area where you have different geological compositions, and find different readings depending on how much exposure they had to the elements and minerals.
If one part of the animal was deposited in a mineral rich section of sediment, while other parts settled in sand you would find entirely different radiometric estimates
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Now you have explained why I don't put my trust in science, there's nothing certain or sure about it. The whole thing could be discarded at anytime as unreliable fantasy

And you say this while using a computer that is the result of the discoveries of that science. You drive a car based on our understanding of materials and of chemistry. We have aircraft that are based on our understanding of fluid flow. We have GPS based on our understanding of time and gravity. We have communication technology based on our understanding of electromagnetism. We have vaccines based on our understanding of biology (and evolution). We have more productive crops based on our understanding of evolution.

I could go on and on, but these are NOT fantasies. And you *do* put your trust in them as a daily thing, whether you realize it or not.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Because radiometric dating will give you different estimates of the age of the same subject, if it was preserved in different environments. You can take different fossils from the same animal, which was spread over a larger area where you have different geological compositions, and find different readings depending on how much exposure they had to the elements and minerals.
If one part of the animal was deposited in a mineral rich section of sediment, while other parts settled in sand you would find entirely different radiometric estimates

Example? Give a reference.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Because radiometric dating will give you different estimates of the age of the same subject, if it was preserved in different environments. You can take different fossils from the same animal, which was spread over a larger area where you have different geological compositions, and find different readings depending on how much exposure they had to the elements and minerals.
If one part of the animal was deposited in a mineral rich section of sediment, while other parts settled in sand you would find entirely different radiometric estimates
Citation needed. Your claim appears to be purely nonsensical.

By the way, fossils are practically never dated using radiometric dating. Do you know why?
 

Pilgrim Soldier

Active Member
Oh, you mean like the tax exemptions for religious organizations? And allowing them to govern themselves? And get large groups of people who mindlessly follow them?

Scientists have a wide range of experiences and viewpoints. They are hardly monolithic in what they believe. And that is a GOOD thing: it means there are always new views to challenge the consensus, making sure that all the conclusions are valid.

Most scientists are in it because they want to understand. They are curious. The monetary compensation is NOTHING compared to what they would get if they went into industry. For the most part, they simply want to understand how the world works.

I would MUCH rather have a scientist in charge of something than a preacher. You KNOW the preacher is a huckster trying to separate the marks from their money by giving pat answers to questions that have nothing to do with reality. Those that follow them tend to be brainwashed to never even consider another viewpoint.

I'd much rather someone who is curious and willing to consider new views as opposed to someone who isn't willing or able to admit they are wrong.
science is based on the most pathetic method of discovery imaginable. It uses the old process of elimination, whereby they put someone in a lab and give them the incredibly boring and frustrating task of experimenting with thousands of different chemical compound combinations to achieve a single formula.

Scientists have never approached a problem with some idea of what to look for, the whole thing is based on blind trial and error. Scientists haven't even discovered the basics yet, they been experimenting for 6000 years and they still don't know anything useful such as how to cure the common clod or what makes some organism live.

My nephew is only 5 years old and he can leave the worlds best scientists speechless and dumbfounded in 30 seconds. They can't even answer the most elementary questions of a 5 year old and you want me to put my faith in them? Your standards may be a lot lower I don't know but I need hard evidence before I put my trust in anyone.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
science is based on the most pathetic method of discovery imaginable. It uses the old process of elimination, whereby they put someone in a lab and give them the incredibly boring and frustrating task of experimenting with thousands of different chemical compound combinations to achieve a single formula.

Scientists have never approached a problem with some idea of what to look for, the whole thing is based on blind trial and error. Scientists haven't even discovered the basics yet, they been experimenting for 6000 years and they still don't know anything useful such as how to cure the common clod or what makes some organism live.

My nephew is only 5 years old and he can leave the worlds best scientists speechless and dumbfounded in 30 seconds. They can't even answer the most elementary questions of a 5 year old and you want me to put my faith in them? Your standards may be a lot lower I don't know but I need hard evidence before I put my trust in anyone.
Scientists are not used to explaining concepts to the completely ignorant. Like five year olds, or creationists. There really is not much in the way of difference. Except, and this is a big one, five year olds are not cowards when it comes to learning.
 
But! What if He does?
I know God exists, I’ve proved that Jesus Christ died for my sins, rose from the dead. He offered me the gift of Eternal Life and I accepted. When I accepted He gave me His Holy Spirit as a guarantee of His promise. I was changed at that moment from death to life. When this happened everything became clear for me.
 

Pilgrim Soldier

Active Member
And you say this while using a computer that is the result of the discoveries of that science. You drive a car based on our understanding of materials and of chemistry. We have aircraft that are based on our understanding of fluid flow. We have GPS based on our understanding of time and gravity. We have communication technology based on our understanding of electromagnetism. We have vaccines based on our understanding of biology (and evolution). We have more productive crops based on our understanding of evolution.

I could go on and on, but these are NOT fantasies. And you *do* put your trust in them as a daily thing, whether you realize it or not.
Scientists are in a process of degeneration and devolution, and incase you don't know the English word "devolution" it means to degenerate or get dumber and decay.
We know that the ancient scientists were vastly superior to what we have today. They had much better flying machines and all of their technology was infinitely superior to today's. They gene manipulation technology down to a fine art, they were able to breed dinosaurs and giant human like creatures which stood 36 feet tall and they were built like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
They built structures like the pyramids and many other structures which had single stones weighing 1,200 Tons each, which were transported thousands of miles from their mine suite. They were perfectly cut and assembled with perfect precision.
I don't want to get into this because I don't want to waste precious time explaining something which you have been taught not to believe. .
 

Pilgrim Soldier

Active Member
Citation needed. Your claim appears to be purely nonsensical.

By the way, fossils are practically never dated using radiometric dating. Do you know why?
Yes I know they don't contain conductive elements, like rocks and mineral based subjects do. The thing is, all of the scientific dating theories and methods have gaping big holes in them
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes I know they don't contain conductive elements, like rocks and mineral based subjects do. The thing is, all of the scientific dating theories and methods have gaping big holes in them

You made some very specific claims about radiometric dating providing inconsistent results from "the same animal" depending on "how much exposure they had to the elements and minerals". Have you got a proper reference for this claim or not?

Where is the actual evidence that dating methods have "big holes in them"?
 

Pilgrim Soldier

Active Member
So why is it you can't provide even the first hint of a morsel of the merest suggestion of a scintilla of evidence for your silly YEC beliefs? All you've provided is empty assertions.
Nobody can provide anything satisfactory to anyone because everyone adds their own conditions and standards of acceptance. So we don't have a mutually accepted standard of testing to arrive at a conclusion or consensus.

Pseudo scientists say, lets play a game we invent and then allow us to set all the standards and then allow us to be the sole arbitrators of whats true and false.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Scientists are in a process of degeneration and devolution, and incase you don't know the English word "devolution" it means to degenerate or get dumber and decay.
We know that the ancient scientists were vastly superior to what we have today. They had much better flying machines and all of their technology was infinitely superior to today's. They gene manipulation technology down to a fine art, they were able to breed dinosaurs and giant human like creatures which stood 36 feet tall and they were built like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Wow. Just. Wow. Do you have any actual evidence for any of these claims?

They built structures like the pyramids and many other structures which had single stones weighing 1,200 Tons each, which were transported thousands of miles from their mine suite. They were perfectly cut and assembled with perfect precision.
I don't want to get into this because I don't want to waste precious time explaining something which you have been taught not to believe. .

And we know how such cutting and transport were done because it was documented on the pyramids themselves.
 

Pilgrim Soldier

Active Member
You made some very specific claims about radiometric dating providing inconsistent results from "the same animal" depending on "how much exposure they had to the elements and minerals". Have you got a proper reference for this claim or not?

Where is the actual evidence that dating methods have "big holes in them"?
I can't be bothered to find every single relevant article of the thousands posted. Don't tell me you've never looked outside of the box. I don't have the time to re educate you from scratch, you can ask Doctor google to show you the thousands of papers debunking the radiometric method
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Nobody can provide anything satisfactory to anyone because everyone adds their own conditions and standards of acceptance. So we don't have a mutually accepted standard of testing to arrive at a conclusion or consensus.

But you haven't even tried. All you've done here is make empty, completely unsupported assertions, then claimed that you needed "hard evidence" and claimed nobody else had any. Evidence is observations or experimental result that are consistent with one hypothesis and not others. Have you got any or not?
 

Pilgrim Soldier

Active Member
Scientists are not used to explaining concepts to the completely ignorant. Like five year olds, or creationists. There really is not much in the way of difference. Except, and this is a big one, five year olds are not cowards when it comes to learning.
If you want to teach someone something, you first need to establish the thing ain't based on stupidity or fantasy
 

Pilgrim Soldier

Active Member
But you haven't even tried. All you've done here is make empty, completely unsupported assertions, then claimed that you needed "hard evidence" and claimed nobody else had any. Evidence is observations or experimental result that are consistent with one hypothesis and not others. Have you got any or not?
I have tons but science doesn't have a single piece of solid evidence that their method works. As I said, it keeps changing everyday. So yesterdays facts are today's lies and new facts are embraced. I can't lend my mind to such a self defeating system of self destruction
 

37818

Active Member
Sorry to say for all those Christians who are still waiting for the same man Jesus to return, but all those prophecies were fulfilled before Baha'u'llah appeared, and then He appeared with power and great glory despite the clouds of men's ignorance just as the verse says.

Who is the Son of man who will come in the clouds of heaven?

Rev 6:12-13 “And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.”

Matthew 24:29-30 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”

Mark 13:24-26”But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

The signs of Revelation that would appear in succession, leading up to the day of the return of Christ were, in order:

1. The great earthquake

2. The darkening of the sun and the moon.

3. The falling of the stars from the heavens.

The Books of Isaiah, Joel, Daniel, Zechariah, and the New Testament of Christ Himself, had all foretold that these things would take place. Following these events, the ‘great and dreadful’ day of the Lord would appear, and then the Messiah would come, bringing the end of the world.

Some Bible scholars felt that all of these events mentioned in Revelation would take place in one great upheaval, and that the world as we know it would pass away forever. Most of them, however, felt that these three events would take place successively, each one in turn heralding a closer approach of the footsteps of the Messiah, until, shortly after the last of the three, the star-fall, He would appear.....

“As we look, we find the events recorded (in Revelation), following on in the order predicted.” (Our Day in the Light of Prophecy, Spicer, p. 77.) These events which he listed were as follows:

1. The Lisbon earthquake, 1755. 1755 Lisbon earthquake

2. The Dark Day, 1780. New England's Dark Day

3. The Falling Stars, 1833. The Falling of the Stars

It is interesting to note that the great star-fall came on the night of 12 November, which is the birthday of Bahá’u’lláh.

Excerpts from: http://bahai-library.com/pdf/s/sears_thief_night.pdf

Jesus said that there would be many deceivers because he knew there would be many who would come in His name claiming to be Christ, but Baha'u'llah did not claim to be Christ, He came in His own name, a new name, just as it says in Revelation 2:17 and Revelation 3:12 .

Also, it is illogical to say that because Jesus warned that there would be many false prophets that means there would never be any true prophets. That would be like saying that because there are many junky cars in a junkyard that there can be no nice cars in the car lot down the street. It is illogical.

Besides that, if there were not going to be ANY MORE prophets after Jesus, why did Jesus say the following?

Matthew 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

The problem is that Jesus never promised to return to earth, Jesus said that His work was finished here and he would no longer be in the world.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.


You cannot deny these verses without calling the Bible into question... If you deny those verses how can you say that any other verses you cite are accurate? That would be illogical.
You bring up too many issues to answer in one post. Personally, I only try to answer one issue at a time. Some times a few.

Christianity is based on the historical, the prophecies and supernatural claims of the Bible. Especially the Christian New Testament. The claim of the bodily resurrection of Christ. God reveals Himself to the Christian by way of the new birth. Once that is done for that professing Christian there is no denying the faith. Jude 1:3.

Now there is one unique historical date (which remarkably most of Christianity has wrong) based on Mark 14:12.
By the way, interpreting Mark 14:12 correctly is not an essentual to the Christian faith. But belief in the bodily resurrection and in the future second appearing are essentuals of the faith.
 

Pilgrim Soldier

Active Member
How about just one? You made a very specific claim, are you able to back it up or not?
Yes I'll show you irrefutable examples, but I will need to dig them out since this censorship of truth was imposed on humanity by google, you tube, Facebook and others.
I may need to go into the dark web to retrieve them, then I will need to remove all the encryption before I can share them with you here.
See the truth has been under attack for some time now, the enemies of truth are hell bent on destroying it and hiding it. They can't keep a person in bondage and enslaved if the person discovers the truth, so the truth is their worst enemy.
 
Top