Not near as bad as assuming that counting up begats in Genesis will give an accurate age of the Earth. Multiple samples and using multiple radioisotopes reduces the error to 30 to 50 million years over a 3 billion year period. Even the error in the sample is many times longer than your young earth assumptions. And yes, there are wide divergences in the results of radiometric dating of similar rocks, but those divergences are still greater than your young earth assumptions, and the methods are based on physics that is proven. You cannot say the same about your bible based guesses for the young earth. You have absolutely no basis in physics.
Another is the undeniable proof from satellite data that the continents are moving and the high degrees of similarity in the geology of eastern South America to the corresponding areas of Western Africa and Scotland to the eastern US. This rate of drift corresponds to at least 200 million years since those areas separated.
I understand it well enough to know that evolutionists would like to cover-up millions of year old anomolies w/ Mt. St. Helens to call them xenoliths (or some such) and claim that it doesn’t expose radio-isotope dating for the fraud that it is.
The study that started this controversy was flawed. he used only one radioisotope that is not accurate for samples less than 10000 years old. Look at http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4146 for more information. When dating rock, as I said before, multiple samples and multiple methods are used to reduce error.
I understand Einstein’s work well enough to know the starlight shows apparent age now actual earth-days age.
So, you are saying that light coming from Alpha Centauri is not 4 years old or that from Andromeda Galaxy is not over 2 million years old? You again are showing your ignorance of physics.
I understand nuclear physics well enough to know that the power comes from splitting the uranium (or other radioactive) atoms rather than the radio-isotope decay rates for same.
Radioisotope decay is an observed phenomenom that can also be dericed from the basic equations of nuclear physics, the same physics that allows us to make nuclear weapons of varying explosive power and radiation output and nuclear power plants that can be run predictable and safely. You cannot separate the two different items and say one is false and the other is not. I understand when modern day scientists calls something that can not be observed nor repeated ‘science’
?????? what are you trying to say here??
I understand how to read and research both sides of an argument before I go spouting off and labeling others work as crap.
me too, which is why I called your arguments crap
Right - except you did not even bother to read any of the 101 evidences for a young Earth and universe. Instead you ssume my entire argument from the Bible. Which you apparently have also neither read nor tried to prove/disprove. Science stands on the shoulders of giants who mainly professed a belief in the Bible.
You are as full of assumptions as the theories you support. Are you sure the continents have always moved at a uniform speed?