Can you refute this argument?
answersingenesis.org
Radiometric dating is unreliable
Hudson Long
Samuel Green
Tl;dr:
Jason Thomas
I've seen this mentioned in a theology book.
Really makes me wonder how old the Earth is.
Also makes me wonder about a lot of the alchemy and other material I've read where shamans have distorted time to make radiation clear up very fast, make trees grow in an instant, and other fuckery.
This world is more of a dream than we might think.
Ryan Moore
wouldn't that just prove the rocks might be even older? If it was additionally radiated somewhere in time then it would look even younger using radiometry
Wyatt Hernandez
It could just as easily have had a higher amount of radioactive material and been contaminated by something less radioactive. See: "we don't know the original composition"
Juan Peterson
FUN FAX ABOUT FUNDIES
FUN FACT #1:
Young-earth creationism, and religious opposition to evolutionary biology with it, barely date back to the 1920s. Back when discoveries like Abraham Gottlob Werner's in geology and Charles Darwin's in evolution were made, churches were largely ambivalent, and rapidly accepted scientists' findings with little objection. To this day, every major church (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.) holds mainstream science as official doctrine.
Instead, young-earth creationism and anti-evolution sentiment is primarily the doing of a small, kooky fundamentalist sect in burgurland called Seventh-Day Adventists, and in particular to a series of pamphlets written by George McCready Price in 1923. From there, it spread through other fundie sects in the Anglosphere by the 1930s, thence to the rest of the world, and by the 1960s had infected Muslims, who had no prior modern history of YEC or anti-evolutionary views:
biologos.org
FUN FACT #2:
Setting aside little trivialities like the age of the world or the origin of species, the bible says earth is a flat object with four corners centered on Jerusalem, the bottom of which contains the caverns in which the dead sleep, balanced on pillars, while the sky is a sheet of metal that God walks around on, held above the ground by columns, and the stars are holes punched in it, all of this being sealed against an external ocean which surrounds it in every direction, which is also the source of rain:
biologos.org
Calendrical timekeeping accurate to the day stretches back over 4000 years, and written human history about 8000 years, so the age of man-made objects is already known, absolutely corroborating radioisotope dates. There are also numerous natural phenomena that provide indisputable absolute dates, such as tree rings, sediment deposition layers, and ice cores, all of which agree with radioisotope dates:
en.wikipedia.org
Jason Brown
Theres still a lot of things that aren't refined at fucking all what so ever, but tards will claim they are as reliable as a Beretta 1935
If theres one thing we do know though, the earth is old as fuck
Justin Wood
When it comes to the bible, some things can't be taken literally
I'd say that the flatearth mention shouldn't
But for all I know God turned the earth round
That would throw a huge fucking ball in the equation & big if true
Sebastian Garcia
This is obviously b8, but fuck it, I'll take it;
Uniformitarianism is the position that shit that happened back then is the same as shit that happens today. Chemistry and physics are examples of this shit. If we assume that rates of radioactive decay were different (much faster, to support their little pet hypothesis of creationism) back then as opposed today would require to explain not only what the decay was back then, but why it's different today. Creationfags can't explain this and always convienently compress it into the 7-day creation week, ignoring that fact that the release of millions of years of radioactivity compressed into 7 days would produce enough energy to blow the fucking planet apart, since they cannot find a reaonable excuse for this they are left with their last and only excuse: "god did it; god released the radioactivity and held the earth together against the laws of physics, which he then decided to change much later for some reason." This is the kind of retard you turn into when you don't study science.
Creationfags are retarded. Did you really need an explanation for this?
Joseph Scott
Take a look at isochron dating.
Michael Price
You know not even the kikes believe in evolution right, they know it is bullshit since they invented it
Anthony Taylor
...
Angel Perez
u know kikes dont believe in jesuss divinity?
Eli Hernandez
theres no basis on which to say radioactive decay was different than now*
Gabriel Walker
ok, guys, thread over. OP got smashed so hard he needed to escape back to his basement
Matthew Brown
i dont take "god" literally. Why the fuck do u?
Aaron Ward
You know what else the kikes don't believe in? You being heterosexual. They know it's a lie since they invented it. You are a fag.
Lucas King
This is what we call BULLSHIT. I don't have to fucking point out why the existence of the bible is not proof of god, because the fact of the matter is, god's existence must be proven and it has not been. It is not for someone to disprove the existence of things, but for those positing the existence of things to show why what they are saying is truth. There's no example of a snake that can talk, no example of a human being who can live to be 934 years old (aka Methuselah), and we found out that human beings actually evolved in 5 separate locations all of different phenotypes, that then evolved on their own throughout the millennia (none of which, by the way, are "Native American, Native Americans are Tibetans who emigrated across the ice bridge during Pangaea). The point of these statements is to establish that there are things we never observed, but we can either determine are true or untrue based on scientific data. Understand?
He posits that "because we don't have a written biblical account and no one was there, then that must mean it can't be true!" But here's the facts: Half-Lives ARE precise. A half-life is exactly twice as long as the previous half-life. Uranium depletes, and we can observe its rate of decay.
If it takes 5 seconds for half of the uranium in a rock to decay, then the next half-life will take exactly 10 seconds, and the next 20 seconds, and the next 40 seconds, then 1 minute 20 seconds, then 2 minutes 40, and so on an so forth. Knowing that every half-life is double the length of the previous half-life to the second tells us the rate at which the uranium decays is mostly consistent. It actually slows down ever so slightly over time, but the half-lives are so few and far between nowadays that we as people can not actually observe a period of half-life because we will be dead before the next half-life happens. And so will our children, and our children's children, and so on and so forth… Your great grand children 52 times removed MIGHT be around for the next half-life cycle to begin.
So knowing this, radiometric dating can be used to determine the age of things because everything and I do mean EVERYTHING has radioactive material in it. You right now, reading this, have radioactive material in your body.
It's how we determined that the Shroud of Turin was created in the 1200s AD, over 500 years after the bible was written in 700 AD. Of course, the church doesn't want you to know that the Shroud (considered an artifact to prove the existence of Christ) is a fake, and they don't want you to think that the bible was written so late into the second era because people erroneously believe that the year 0 is somehow related to Jesus Christ, and that the bible is oh so old.
Radiometric dating is fairly consistent, what's inconsistent is the notion that "something we thought up might be true." This fucker wants to validate his grant money, because he doesn't want to lose his science grant. That's it. He doesn't even believe his own bullshit.
Bentley Jones
It's more reliable than online dating
Lucas Miller
...
Ayden Price
Based user , all your carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored, but thank you for saying the right thing
Jason James
citing yourself isnt wrong. Its wrong, if u r citing yourself, when u r wrong, as being right, and he is
Ayden Fisher
It's the very fucking definition of an echo chamber when your primary sources are yourself. You need to have sources that countermand your own hypothesis so you have something to go by and disprove the equity of, but if all of your sources are yourself and they all say "hey, he's right" based on your own theories, then yeah, it is wrong. You must prove what you're saying is true. Can you prove that uranium is depleting at inconsistent rates? Can A.A. Snelling?
Thomas Peterson
when was the last time u published a research?
Grayson Green
Even if I did tell you, I wouldn't give you exact dates, a name, name of essay, et al. I won't even give you the fucking subject. Was your whole idea here that I'd dox myself, or that you'd prove I didn't know how to write a paper? You don't know who I am, and I don't know who you are, all I know is you're saying something completely asinine and you don't know how to use the shift key.
Cooper Gonzalez
u dont know how to write papers, so stfu. Citing yourself isnt bad, especially, if your papers r peer-revieed
Jason Cruz
MY PENIS IS BIFURCATED
Austin Morales
You might want to go to the fucking doctor and get that looked at, dicks are supposed to be singular not in multiple pieces.
John Watson
Stop plagiarizing Tolkien. That's what happened in the backstory of his Legendarium, at the end of the 2nd Age when the flat world that once connected to the land of the angels by sea was "rolled up". Even after that, some few with divine invitations such as the Elves could still sail the seas "into the west" at what was essentially a mystical 4th spatial dimension, going perpendicular to the now-spherical world's surface.
Jace Thomas
Actually, i had to go to work. Will read thread when i get around to it.
Matthew Young
Your argument focuses almost solely on argument 3, which is kinda the weakest one.
but what about the first and second?
how do you calculate the age of something without knowing its original composition or what happened to it in its history?
Jonathan Cooper
this is a bullshit question backed by bullshit papers published by bullshit "scientists"
if radioactiv decay wasnt constant, we wouldnt have problems ith nuclar waste
we can account for contamination
isochron dating doesnt require any assumptions and allows to calculate abounts backwards
en.wikipedia.org
the retards mention this method themselves
Dominic Rivera
did you fucking read my post?
I literally just said argument 3 was the weakest of them and then you harp more about argument 3.
the only way you could do that is if you already knew the age.
Gabriel Sanchez
That's the point, isochron dating allows you to both calibrate radiometric dating with the actual age of a sample, and to know whether or not it was contaminated, as you know with absolute certainty what both the original composition of the sample was and what its current uncontaminated composition must be, due to chemistry. Here's a 13-minute video that explains it pretty clearly.
Nathan Morgan
didn't the elves on there have magic eyes that saw the earth as flat
Anthony Collins
Doesn't matter, there are tens of dating methods that all say the same thing
Josiah Watson
Underrated post