Hawking

[Starman3000m]

From the Answers in Genesis organization website:

"We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.4 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated."

Yes, it is an organization promoting Creationism, but they have dozens of examples posted as to why radiometric dating should not be trusted.

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating.

BTW: I was fortunate enough to be an "eyewitness" of the events during the eruption of Mount St, Helens, Sunday, May 18, 1980. Still have some ash samples that fell when the ash cloud covered our city of Yakima, WA.
Quite an experience!

 

[wxtornado]

From the Answers in Genesis organization website:

"We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.4 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated."

Yes, it is an organization promoting Creationism, but they have dozens of examples posted as to why radiometric dating should not be trusted.

Your examples have already been debunked - google it if you're interested.

 

[Silver301]

From the Answers in Genesis organization website:

"We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3

A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years. These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated."

Yes, it is an organization promoting Creationism, but they have dozens of examples posted as to why radiometric dating should not be trusted.

There are many methods of carbon dating. The method highlighted by Answers in Genesis...Potassium-Argon dating...is not applicable to determining the age of a rock formed in 1986. Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough Argon 40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable. So clearly, whoever performed this experiment didn't know what they were doing. They didn't specify any other methods, so I'll have to assume that all of these tests were performed utilizing the wrong form of carbon dating.

 

[sleuth]

You respect the scientific method when it serves your purposes...when it says something contrary to your beliefs, you disregard it.

I'm an electrical engineer...that doesn't make me a man of science. What makes me a man of science is that I apply the scientific method to ALL things to which it will apply. It doesn't mean that I can't believe in things outside of what science has proven, but it certainly doesn't allow me to believe things that the scientific method contradicts.

:shrug: If you say so. But the scientific method is man's creation. Man has been proven imperfect. I think it arrogant and foolish to assume that the scientific method is perfect.

Is it useful? Yeah. Is it perfect?

 

[sleuth]

There are many methods of carbon dating. The method highlighted by Answers in Genesis...Potassium-Argon dating...is not applicable to determining the age of a rock formed in 1986. Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks more than 100,000 years old. For shorter timescales, it is likely that not enough Argon 40 will have had time to accumulate in order to be accurately measurable. So clearly, whoever performed this experiment didn't know what they were doing. They didn't specify any other methods, so I'll have to assume that all of these tests were performed utilizing the wrong form of carbon dating.

You can review Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics if you wish to review what other radiometric dating methods they explore.

 

[Silver301]

You can review Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics if you wish to review what other radiometric dating methods they explore.

The problem is that all of their examples have similar flaws...yet they ignore them...and so will you. They've got a point to prove, and they don't care how intellectually dishonest they must be to make it.

 

[Starman3000m]

The problem is that all of their examples have similar flaws...yet they ignore them...and so will you. They've got a point to prove, and they don't care how intellectually dishonest they must be to make it.

That could also be said of the secular research scientists who depend on their funding (monetary grants) to continue years of research only to come up with new directions and new theories. It really never ends. In all of this, There Is Only One Truth.

 

[Silver301]

That could also be said of the secular research scientists who depend on their funding (monetary grants) to continue years of research only to come up with new directions and new theories. It really never ends. In all of this, There Is Only One Truth.

Yes, but then they are judged based on the fruits of their research. What did they find? Can their results be duplicated? What effect will these results have on existing theories? It's a good process because everyone tries to disprove everyone else with prestige going to those who consistently get reproducible and honest results.

Science corrects itself with more science. Religion isn't corrected...some cling to their beliefs and use bad logic to utterly refute scientific knowledge while others turn scripture into "figurative" truth to avoid this direct confrontation (google cognitive dissonance)...but this isn't correction, it's denial.

 

[Starman3000m]

Yes, but then they are judged based on the fruits of their research. What did they find? Can their results be duplicated? What effect will these results have on existing theories? It's a good process because everyone tries to disprove everyone else with prestige going to those who consistently get reproducible and honest results.

Science corrects itself with more science. Religion isn't corrected...some cling to their beliefs and use bad logic to utterly refute scientific knowledge while others turn scripture into "figurative" truth to avoid this direct confrontation (google cognitive dissonance)...but this isn't correction, it's denial.

Speaking of "Denial"

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (Psalm 14:1)

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
(Psalm 53:1)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:8-9)

 

[Silver301]

Speaking of "Denial"

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (Psalm 14:1)

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
(Psalm 53:1)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:8-9)

The Bible really covered all of it's own bases there. It even foretold of my coming...prophecy! Although I must say that I take exception to the "none that doeth good" part... I know plenty of people who say that there IS a God who do more of what would be considered wrong in God's eyes than I do. Just look at Marie...she sends more people running away from the idea of God with her fanaticism than any atheist I've ever heard of!

Ultimately, all arguments with the religious retreat to this...the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. You guys always start out with philosophical and scientific "proof" which reinforces what and why you believe...yet when that "proof" is proven false and deceitful you turn against and mock the importance and/or relevance of the very philosophy and science that you unsuccessfully attempted to practice just moments before.

 

[Starman3000m]

The Bible really covered all of it's own bases there. It even foretold of my coming...prophecy! Although I must say that I take exception to the "none that doeth good" part... I know plenty of people who say that there IS a God who do more of what would be considered wrong in God's eyes than I do. Just look at Marie...she sends more people running away from the idea of God with her fanaticism than any atheist I've ever heard of!

Ultimately, all arguments with the religious retreat to this...the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. You guys always start out with philosophical and scientific "proof" which reinforces what and why you believe...yet when that "proof" is proven false and deceitful you turn against and mock the importance and/or relevance of the very philosophy and science that you unsuccessfully attempted to practice just moments before.

But, don't Atheists/skeptics do the very same thing? Retreat to arguments that they believe to be true and cite "written theories" regarding evolution, the age of the earth and the entire universe. Then the comeback is to call us religious folk "fanatics" or "superstitious" when you have no real proof that what you believe in is accurate in the first place!

The proof of God is experienced by those who really want to know God and are willing to open their hearts to seek a better way to live peaceably among fellow man. Science cannot deliver that. A spiritual, one-on-one personal relationship with God, through His Holy Spirit can. That's the difference. I will agree with many Atheists and skeptics that "religions" per sé have become corrupt with self-righteous and self-serving control over people. But, that is not the teaching of the New Testament Jesus, who actually chastised religious leaders of His time for doing things in a self-serving and deceptive way. Jesus is the True Prince of Peace for one's personal being and for understanding who God really is. It's a whole new change in life and attitude that makes a person better, stronger and more capable of handling all situations that come his/her way - something that science cannot find an answer for.

God gave us the ability to be creative, inventive and helpful toward mankind. This includes the knowledge of the medical and technical areas in which we have advanced. It is only when man's arrogance begins to believe that he/she can do it all and does not need the True God of Creation that conflicts arise that cause hatred, dissention and violence in this world. Science has contributed much but what good is it if one's heart is on the wrong path that leads to the destruction of the soul?

 

[wxtornado]

But, don't Atheists/skeptics do the very same thing? Retreat to arguments that they believe to be true and cite "written theories" regarding evolution, the age of the earth and the entire universe. Then the comeback is to call us religious folk "fanatics" or "superstitious" when you have no real proof that what you believe in is accurate in the first place!

Ok Starman, here is the scientific process:

1. Observe apple falling
2. Ask why apple fell
3. Ask whether all apples fall
4. Observe tree for repeated instances of apples falling
5. Conclude that statistically, this tends to be the case
6. Ask why apples fall
7. Hypothesize that fairies are responsible for apples falling
8. Seek to observe fairy causing apples to fall
9. After repeated failure to observe a single fairy causing apples to fall, abandon theory (at least temporarily) and seek new explanations
10. Determine that not only do apples fall, but shoes, feathers and buttered toast
11. Guess that all things fall
12. Test repeatedly and globally to take regional variations into consideration
13. Conclude that all things fall
14. Ask why things fall
15. Hypothesize existence of unseen force. Name it gravity.
16. Attempt to determine nature of unseen force
17. ...
18. ...
....
(n-1). ...

And so on, and so forth. The order of thought may vary, but the process is one of constant observation, questioning, and attempted explanation. The process is kinetic. It never ceases.

The religious process goes thus:

1. Observe apple falling
2. Ask why apple fell
3. Hypothesize that fairies are responsible for apples falling
4. Form world around this hypothesis, rename it belief, and regard that belief as eternal fact, refusing all other explanations


A hypothesis does not spring from air. It is the result of observation, and it is subject to constant adaptation, and disposal if necessary. Many religious beliefs also sprang from the wellspring of observation, but here constant adaptation was replaced with unyielding dogma.

 

[PsyOps]

Your examples have already been debunked - google it if you're interested.

You claim sleuth’s information has been debunked then demand sleuth go find the answer to your assertion. That’s just poor form; demanding someone else do your homework for you.

The question I have is, how can you or anyone actually prove that dating methods are even close to accurate except that you just believe they are? You pull a rock out of the ground, poke a meter at it and that meter tells you that it’s 100 million years old; all I have to say is your meter is wrong and you can’t prove differently. You’re believing a machine that was created by man to tell you the truth about something that happened millions of years ago. Sort of sounds like the same argument you guys use against those who believe in God

 

[wxtornado]

You claim sleuth’s information has been debunked then demand sleuth go find the answer to your assertion. That’s just poor form; demanding someone else do your homework for you.

Wow, really? I didn't "demand" him to do anything, and it wasn't an "assertion", smokescreen boy. And how do you know he didn't already read the "answer", and just didn't want to comment? Was finding this link really that difficult?

 

[wxtornado]

The question I have is, how can you or anyone actually prove that dating methods are even close to accurate except that you just believe they are? You pull a rock out of the ground, poke a meter at it and that meter tells you that it’s 100 million years old; all I have to say is your meter is wrong and you can’t prove differently. You’re believing a machine that was created by man to tell you the truth about something that happened millions of years ago. Sort of sounds like the same argument you guys use against those who believe in God

See post #157, and find it yourself

 

[thatguy]

You claim sleuth’s information has been debunked then demand sleuth go find the answer to your assertion. That’s just poor form; demanding someone else do your homework for you.

The question I have is, how can you or anyone actually prove that dating methods are even close to accurate except that you just believe they are? You pull a rock out of the ground, poke a meter at it and that meter tells you that it’s 100 million years old; all I have to say is your meter is wrong and you can’t prove differently. You’re believing a machine that was created by man to tell you the truth about something that happened millions of years ago. Sort of sounds like the same argument you guys use against those who believe in God

actually, for carbon dating there are several methods of "proof" for as far back as about 60,000 years. futher than that the figures are extrapolations of know scientific properties and formulas.

 

[PsyOps]

actually, for carbon dating there are several methods of "proof" for as far back as about 60,000 years. futher than that the figures are extrapolations of know scientific properties and formulas.

How many people do you know that are 60,000 years old? I know none.

 

[thatguy]

How many people do you know that are 60,000 years old? I know none.

how many people do you know that talk to god?


but nice way to dodge the ONE TRUTH, that there are other sources to substantiate the results of carbon dating back to 60,000 years.

 

[sleuth]

how many people do you know that talk to god?


but nice way to dodge the ONE TRUTH, that there are other sources to substantiate the results of carbon dating back to 60,000 years.

I talk to God daily, and know hundreds and maybe even thousands of others that do.

I also work with a guy here who may be approaching that 60,000 year mark.

 

[PsyOps]

Wow, really? I didn't "demand" him to do anything, and it wasn't an "assertion", smokescreen boy. And how do you know he didn't already read the "answer", and just didn't want to comment? Was finding this link really that difficult?

Gee, a little hot about this are we? Tone it down with the "boy" crap. It does nothing to better your argument. It only makes you look childish.