[PapaBear3625]

The problem for Creationists is that it doesn't matter if a dating method is off by 10% or even 50%. Anything which shows the Earth as having been created much earlier than 4,000 BC throws the creation timeline out the window.

If something is really 100 million years old, instead of 200 million years old, it still invalidates the Creation timeline.

[Verginius Rufus]

There was a thread earlier today about NGC 2903, a beautiful spiral galaxy in Leo, which is believed to be 20 million light-years distant. That is, what we are seeing is how it looked 20 million years ago when the light from that galaxy started traveling our way.

Are we supposed to believe that that is an illusion, that NGC 2903 is much closer, or that it was there 20 million years ago, but that the earth didn't come into being until 4004 B.C.?

[tjd1454]

If something is really 100 million years old, instead of 200 million years old, it still invalidates the Creation timeline.

One could just as easily argue that any methodology that has been found to be off by 100% is unreliable.

Suppose that the rocks were found to be only 1 million years old, would you use the same argument, viz, that therefore the Creation timeline is wrong - even though the methodology used to discredit it was found to be off by 19,900%?

All dating techniques other than Carbon 14 which can be historically validated necessarily employ built-in assumptions which - in this case - have already been shown to be wildly inaccurate.

[Sherman Logan]

Sorry, only the Young Earth Creationists are affected as you say. Not all Creationists are of that particular sect.

[Agamemnon]

If something is really 100 million years old, instead of 200 million years old, it still invalidates the Creation timeline.

Actually, the larger problem is for evolutionists who every day are discovering a far more complex universe than an evolutionary dogma can account for with only the alleged 4.5 billion year time frame they have boxed themselves into long ago.

So now radiometric dating that you have relied on so compulsively actually now cuts the amount of time you think you have to account for some very extraordinary things which are already statistically impossible by factors of hundreds to have occurred by chance at all.

No, the conundrum is all evolutionists

If you don't have the time you don't have the premise. Trouble is you are losing evidence of any time by your own measures you thought you had (and desperately needed to somehow make it all work).

The impossibility of evolution becomes only that much more illogical an explanation for anything and those who rely on it only look that much more silly for continuing to hold on to it.

FReegards!

[SeekAndFind]

RE: If something is really 100 million years old, instead of 200 million years old, it still invalidates the Creation timeline.

You are half right. It’s true that cutting 100 million years in half wouldn’t fit a Biblical time frame.

The problem for me lies in your last sentence: “If something is really 100 million years old.…”

How would someone ever know that, without trusting in an indirect dating method? No human ever experienced a million years, let alone a hundred million. Over and over, we have seen “unknown unknowns” arise that cast doubt on widely-trusted radiometric dating methods.

This article reported a recent case, where scientists were misled by assuming they knew how much daughter material was present when the clock started. What other unknown unknowns and unknowable unknowns are there?

I would suggest we not put false confidence in things they cannot know about initial conditions and processes.