"ZombieHunter said:"The scientific community points to numerous flaws in these experiments, to the fact that their results have not been accepted for publication by any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and to the fact that the creationist scientists conducting them were untrained in experimental geochronology"."DualReaver said:Link"DualReaver said:""Isaac said:Radiometric is fairly accurate, you compare the ratio of Isotopes with their byproducts and with what we know about how isotopes decay nowadays we can get a fairly accurate date of how old something is."DualReaver said:Actually I was being an idiot it is Radiometric dating not carbon. >_<""Isaac said:"DualReaver said:Well it is more than 4 billion years old."Isaac said:"Karmum said:Yes........... Science did that quite awhile ago...""Isaac said:"Dakota said:When you can prove to me the world is 6,000 years old, is when the Bible is factual evidence.""I don't believe there is evidence. One book that shows some scientific revelation by those who wrote the bible is not enough to consider anyone who is logical in their beliefs."
The Bible is the word of God. Through the people who physically wrote it. The evidence is right in front of you. Just try to give it a thought."
Can you prove it is 4 billion?"
Show me."
I can't really show you but we've carbon dated lets say Dinosaur fossils and they're more than 65 million years old.
That pretty much kills the whole the world is 6000 years old thing."
How do you know Carbon dating is accurate?"
Doesn't give exact dates but enough to know the difference between something that is 6,000 years old and 65,000,000 years old."The Facts
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.
Steve Austin, PhD geology, and member of the RATE team, had a rock from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens dated. Using Potassium-Argon dating, the newly formed rocks gave ages 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. 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.
"
http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm
Log in to comment