All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false as they vastly vary in measuring the age of the same thing – part 2

[SavedByTheLord]

All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false as they vastly vary in measuring the age of the same thing – part 2

From part 1 of this series or threads, the evidence shows that radioactive dating of things with a known young age yield vastly large and inconsistent dates. So, the technique is unreliable. In these cases, the error range is as large as the measured value which means an age 6000 years or less is within the error range. Some of these measurements have a percent error approaching 40 billion percent.

But the evidence also shows that radioactive dating using either the same isotope or different isotopes, even using isochrons, yield very different dates on same things.

Here is the evidence.

Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?

Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray

Radioisotope Dating of Rocks in the Grand Canyon

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology

The Faith of Radiometric Dating - Creation Moments

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1430&context=icc_proceedings

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context=icc_proceedings

The Question of Time

These sites also show vastly varying dates but from known historical events.

The Iconic Isochron: Radioactive Dating, Part 2

Radioactive dating anomalies

"Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks

More and More Wrong Dates

The rock layers cannot be dated by these techniques and using the fossils they contain, including index fossils, is just pure circular reasoning with no data at all. The rock layers are dated by the assumed age of the rock layers and the assumed age of the fossils they contain. And the fossils are dated by the assumed age of the rocks that contain them.

 

[exchemist]

All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false as they vastly vary in measuring the age of the same thing – part 2

From part 1 of this series or threads, the evidence shows that radioactive dating of things with a known young age yield vastly large and inconsistent dates. So, the technique is unreliable. In these cases, the error range is as large as the measured value which means an age 6000 years or less is within the error range. Some of these measurements have a percent error approaching 40 billion percent.

But the evidence also shows that radioactive dating using either the same isotope or different isotopes, even using isochrons, yield very different dates on same things.

Here is the evidence.

Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?

Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray

Radioisotope Dating of Rocks in the Grand Canyon

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology

The Faith of Radiometric Dating - Creation Moments

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1430&context=icc_proceedings

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context=icc_proceedings

The Question of Time

These sites also show vastly varying dates but from known historical events.

The Iconic Isochron: Radioactive Dating, Part 2

Radioactive dating anomalies

"Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks

More and More Wrong Dates

The rock layers cannot be dated by these techniques and using the fossils they contain, including index fossils, is just pure circular reasoning with no data at all. The rock layers are dated by the assumed age of the rock layers and the assumed age of the fossils they contain. And the fossils are dated by the assumed age of the rocks that contain them.

If this were true, how likely is it that all the professional scientists that rely on these methods would not have realised it? Either you must believe they are all idiots, or you must believe they have all agreed to engage in a vast conspiracy of silence about the issue.

Which is it?

 

[metis]

All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false as they vastly vary in measuring the age of the same thing – part 2

From part 1 of this series or threads, the evidence shows that radioactive dating of things with a known young age yield vastly large and inconsistent dates. So, the technique is unreliable. In these cases, the error range is as large as the measured value which means an age 6000 years or less is within the error range. Some of these measurements have a percent error approaching 40 billion percent.

But the evidence also shows that radioactive dating using either the same isotope or different isotopes, even using isochrons, yield very different dates on same things.

Here is the evidence.

Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?

Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray

Radioisotope Dating of Rocks in the Grand Canyon

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology

The Faith of Radiometric Dating - Creation Moments

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1430&context=icc_proceedings

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context=icc_proceedings

The Question of Time

These sites also show vastly varying dates but from known historical events.

The Iconic Isochron: Radioactive Dating, Part 2

Radioactive dating anomalies

"Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks

More and More Wrong Dates

The rock layers cannot be dated by these techniques and using the fossils they contain, including index fossils, is just pure circular reasoning with no data at all. The rock layers are dated by the assumed age of the rock layers and the assumed age of the fossils they contain. And the fossils are dated by the assumed age of the rocks that contain them.

As long as you only use creationist sources, you will never know the truth.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I like how they created their own fake peer reviewed 'journal" because real science journals wouldn't even publish their material!

 

[Left Coast]

If this were true, how likely is it that all the professional scientists that rely on these methods would not have realised it? Either you must believe they are all idiots, or you must believe they have all agreed to engage in a vast conspiracy of silence about the issue.

Which is it?

He'll say they're all deceived by Satan en masse or something.

 

[exchemist]

He'll say they're all deceived by Satan en masse or something.

Well far better that than this pseudoscience cock he has been regaling us with. At least it would be honest.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

If this were true, how likely is it that all the professional scientists that rely on these methods would not have realised it? Either you must believe they are all idiots, or you must believe they have all agreed to engage in a vast conspiracy of silence about the issue.

Which is it?

the answer to that question is a simple one and you should already know it. In as many world views as i can think of, individuals (in this case the scientists) only consider evidence valid when it supports the hypothesis...all else is discarded citing failure to prove the original theory.

Modern individuals are great at finding workarounds...and science is full of them. Obviously, you will deny this because your worldview is based on an evolutionary model. However, i present criminal law matters as a prime example of proof of my claim. The example i am thinking of is a very famous case in Australia back in the early 1980's (Lindy Chamberlain and the "Dingo took my Baby" case). I knew the Chamberlains in the aftermath of the above case, the Late Michael Chamberlain's second wife (Ingrid) is one of my mum's close friends and i taught Lindy's youngest daughter in one subject area for 1 year in 1999.

Anyway Joy Cool, a forensic scientist, tested samples taken from the car and camera case and found that those samples proved the existence of fetal blood in both. The Chamberlains were convicted largely on theory and this evidence.

Imagine the surprise years later when, by sheer chance, a British tourist went missing in Australia at Ayres Rock (now known as Uluru) and in the search for said tourist, the missing matinee jacket was found. At about the same time, the company that originally manufactured the testing equipment Joy Cool used, withdrew that product from the market citing its inability to actually work as intended. The equipment was producing unreliable and indeed false results.

So in the end, Lindy's conviction was quashed because of terrible scientific method and unsound evidence. So, as i said, science is not infallible and that is because the issue isnt the science, its the method and interpretations used in order to support pre existing hypothesis that is the problem. In the case of the Chamberlains, all evidence to the contrary of convicting her was disgarded and the result was a guilty verdict in 2 different court hearings.

Look at the end of the day, none of the above even matters. For Christians we must trust the bible.

God has already revealed Himeself to us through the writers of the Bible. They have already done the interpreting. The Bible interpretes itself, and those who claim otherwise are deluding themselves.

We can easily test bible theology and doctrine internally from cross referencing the bible with its own contained books. Thats the whole idea of using a concordance and scholarly commentary! When the concordances/commentaries agree with doctrine, its almost certainly sound. If the science matches that, then the science is also likely to be sound. Its that simple!

I do not take my scientific interpretation from the likes of Hawking who, like many other secular individuals claims "there is no room for God in science"!

 

[exchemist]

the answer to that question is a simple one and you should already know it. In as many world views as i can think of, individuals (in this case the scientists) only consider evidence valid when it supports the hypothesis...all else is discarded citing failure to prove the original theory.

Modern individuals are great at finding workarounds...and science is full of them. Obviously, you will deny this because your worldview is based on an evolutionary model. However, i present criminal law matters as a prime example of proof of my claim. The example i am thinking of is a very famous case in Australia back in the early 1980's (Lindy Chamberlain and the "Dingo took my Baby" case). I knew the Chamberlains in the aftermath of the above case, the Late Michael Chamberlain's second wife (Ingrid) is one of my mum's close friends and i taught Lindy's youngest daughter in one subject area for 1 year in 1999.

Anyway Joy Cool, a forensic scientist, tested samples taken from the car and camera case and found that those samples proved the existence of fetal blood in both. The Chamberlains were convicted largely on theory and this evidence.

Imagine the surprise years later when, by sheer chance, a British tourist went missing in Australia at Ayres Rock (now known as Uluru) and in the search for said tourist, the missing matinee jacket was found. At about the same time, the company that originally manufactured the testing equipment Joy Cool used, withdrew that product from the market citing its inability to actually work as intended. The equipment was producing unreliable and indeed false results.

So in the end, Lindy's conviction was quashed because of terrible scientific method and unsound evidence. So, as i said, science is not infallible and that is because the issue isnt the science, its the method and interpretations used in order to support pre existing hypothesis that is the problem. In the case of the Chamberlains, all evidence to the contrary of convicting her was disgarded and the result was a guilty verdict in 2 different court hearings.

Look at the end of the day, none of the above even matters. For Christians we must trust the bible.

God has already revealed Himeself to us through the writers of the Bible. They have already done the interpreting. The Bible interpretes itself, and those who claim otherwise are deluding themselves.

We can easily test bible theology and doctrine internally from cross referencing the bible with its own contained books. Thats the whole idea of using a concordance and scholarly commentary! When the concordances/commentaries agree with doctrine, its almost certainly sound. If the science matches that, then the science is also likely to be sound. Its that simple!

I do not take my scientific interpretation from the likes of Hawking who, like many other secular individuals claims "there is no room for God in science"!

So you, at any rate, think it’s a vast conspiracy by scientists.

And nobody sees the chance of making a name for himself by breaking ranks and calling it out.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

So you, at any rate, think it’s a vast conspiracy by scientists.

And nobody sees the chance of making a name for himself by breaking ranks and calling it out.

I believe that Satan has deceived many into believing evolution and billions of years.

 

[exchemist]

I believe that Satan has deceived many into believing evolution and billions of years.

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that option. Thanks, that makes things a lot clearer.

But what are you achieving with your posting of misinformation about science, then? Is not posting misinformation something that Satan inspires?

 

[leroy]

If this were true, how likely is it that all the professional scientists that rely on these methods would not have realised it?

Lets say that the probability is 1 in 100 billions....

perhaps we live in a multiverse with potencially infinite bubble universes..... given this , no matter how unlikely, it is expected that in some universes simply by chance all scientists happened to be wrong. // perhaps we simplly happen to live in such universe.


Or perhaps you are just in a dream , you live in a young universe , but in this moment you are having a dream where you have false memories of having read that the universe is old.

After all in multiverse teory, young universes are bastly more common than old universes.

An other alternative would be to claim that multiverse theories are wrong (or atleast wrongly applied by me) .... but there is trap if you do that .

 

[leroy]

.

For Christians we must trust the bible.

Why?

Why should Christians trust the bible? (Beyond reasonable doubt)

Christianity is grounded in
1 the existence of God
2 the resurrection

If 1 and 2 are true, then christianity is true........ regardless if the whole bible is true or not.

So why is trusting the bible so important?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why?

Why should Christians trust the bible? (Beyond reasonable doubt)

Christianity is grounded in
1 the existence of God
2 the resurrection

If 1 and 2 are true, then christianity is true........ regardless if the whole bible is true or not.

So why is trusting the bible so important?

Well your post is pretty good as the existence of God and the truth of the resurrection are 2 of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
But they are not the only doctrines and we trust in all that the word of God says.

 

[leroy]

Well your post is pretty good as the existence of God and the truth of the resurrection are 2 of the most fundamental doctrines of Christianity.
But they are not the only doctrines and we trust in all that the word of God says.

How do you know that the 66 books that where chosen by the church fathers (the bible) is the word of God?


To me the doctrine of biblical inerrancy if true, would be like a nice bonus , but I dont see that dictrine as a cornerstone .... what is your opinion on that ?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How do you know that the 66 books that where chosen by the church fathers (the bible) is the word of God?


To me the doctrine of biblical inerrancy if true, would be like a nice bonus , but I dont see that dictrine as a cornerstone .... what is your opinion on that ?

Well the books were chosen by the apostles which includes Paul.
Many refer to each other especially when the NT quotes the OT.
Of the 27 NT books all are written by an apostle except Mark, Luke and Acts.

 

[leroy]

Well the books were chosen by the apostles which includes Paul.

That is news to me, evidence?

Many refer to each other especially when the NT quotes the OT.

Sure but
1 that would only account for the minority of verses of the OT....to conclude that therefore the 39 books of the OT are the word of God seems like a big strech for me.

2 the quotes from the OT where not claimed to be the word of God in the NT.

Of the 27 NT books all are written by an apostle except Mark, Luke and Acts.

Sure, but none of the apostoles claimed to be writing the word of God, none of them claimed to be inspired when they wrote those books. ... how do you know that Paul was inspired?

Perhaps Paul and the other authors of the NT where just early Christians that where very exited about Jesus, and descided to wrote about him , without any divine inspiration..... why do you find this posibility unlikely ?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I believe that Satan has deceived many into believing evolution and billions of years.

Perhaps Satan deceived you into being foolish? You probably don't even realise how what you are doing makes it less likely for so many to accept Christianity - when some seem to try so hard to preach a message but inevitably make fools of themselves - because believing literally in some old text is literally the stupidest thing to do when one has no verifiable provenance of such a text.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

the answer to that question is a simple one and you should already know it. In as many world views as i can think of, individuals (in this case the scientists) only consider evidence valid when it supports the hypothesis

That is incorrect.

...all else is discarded citing failure to prove the original theory.

That is incorrect.

Modern individuals are great at finding workarounds...and science is full of them.

What does this mean? What is your evidence that science is full of these things. One story is not a body of evidence and does not cripple all science.

Obviously, you will deny this because your worldview is based on an evolutionary model.

What does this mean. Rejection of your claims so far are based on the evidence and your failure in presenting these claims as universal facts without support.

However, i present criminal law matters as a prime example of proof of my claim. The example i am thinking of is a very famous case in Australia back in the early 1980's (Lindy Chamberlain and the "Dingo took my Baby" case).

Then not present, but historical criminal law. Are you an expert in criminal law?

I knew the Chamberlains in the aftermath of the above case, the Late Michael Chamberlain's second wife (Ingrid) is one of my mum's close friends and i taught Lindy's youngest daughter in one subject area for 1 year in 1999.

And this alleged relationship qualifies you as an expert to judge the findings of science?

Anyway Joy Cool,

Joy Kuhl. Details matter.

a forensic scientist, tested samples taken from the car and camera case and found that those samples proved the existence of fetal blood in both. The Chamberlains were convicted largely on theory and this evidence.

It was evidence and important, but not the only basis of conviction. I've been reading. Perhaps you should too.

Imagine the surprise years later when, by sheer chance, a British tourist went missing in Australia at Ayres Rock (now known as Uluru) and in the search for said tourist,

A climber that was killed on Uluru. The search was for missing body parts.

the missing matinee jacket was found. At about the same time, the company that originally manufactured the testing equipment Joy Cool used, withdrew that product from the market citing its inability to actually work as intended. The equipment was producing unreliable and indeed false results.

What company? What was the test?

So in the end, Lindy's conviction was quashed because of terrible scientific method and unsound evidence. So, as i said, science is not infallible and that is because the issue isnt the science, its the method and interpretations used in order to support pre existing hypothesis that is the problem. In the case of the Chamberlains, all evidence to the contrary of convicting her was disgarded and the result was a guilty verdict in 2 different court hearings.

No one claims that the conclusions of science are infallible. The explanations and conclusions of science are contingent. However, it takes more than the desire for personal belief to replace science to actually replace it. That is a bias as obvious as the Uluru.

Look at the end of the day, none of the above even matters. For Christians we must trust the bible.

It does matter. For all. Trust and what some Christian sects demand are not synonymous.

God has already revealed Himeself to us through the writers of the Bible. They have already done the interpreting.

Clearly not, since everyone still interprets the Bible.

The Bible interpretes itself, and those who claim otherwise are deluding themselves.

This is just your opinion and makes little sense.

We can easily test bible theology and doctrine internally from cross referencing the bible with its own contained books. Thats the whole idea of using a concordance and scholarly commentary! When the concordances/commentaries agree with doctrine, its almost certainly sound. If the science matches that, then the science is also likely to be sound. Its that simple!

That is just revisionism to rally a particular interpretation that someone else could see differently. It's a circle.

I do not take my scientific interpretation from the likes of Hawking who, like many other secular individuals claims "there is no room for God in science"!

So your bias is to ignore what is said in science and focus on irrelevancies about scientists as an excuse to ignore it. Got it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that option. Thanks, that makes things a lot clearer.

But what are you achieving with your posting of misinformation about science, then? Is not posting misinformation something that Satan inspires?

I would consider it so.

Seems like that would be a great achievement in deception for Satan. To get a believer to believe their own righteousness and misinformation and then preach it.

 

[metis]

I believe that Satan has deceived many into believing evolution and billions of years.

Common sense should tell one that material things typically evolve over time, and genes are material things.