Posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.
Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Considering that the Catholic Church recognizes TE, and many others recognize some sort of ID, I can easily see this.
Yes, I was just noting that your statement of your opinion was not in any way strengthened by your claim that you were a Christian.
Are the claims of YECs strengthened by their professed Christianity?
That's not what I said.
"You seem to be positing that the energy output can vary independently of the decay rate - that the decay rate can be speeded up or slowed down while the observable energy output remains constant. Hypothetically, you could have free energy - producing energy without any decay at all."
What keeps electrons in orbit around the nucleus? Why don't they radiate energy and spiral down into the nucleus? QM says they don't, period.
Assumption 2: The rate of change was constant. Scientists assume that radioactive atoms have changes at the same rate throughout time, ignoring the impact of Creation or changes during Noah's flood.Both Creation and Noah's flood are supernatural forces, and those are the only two examples the article gives as to how the radioactive rate of decay may have changed.
Again, you certainly can disagree that these forces exist or that they could change the rate of decay, but the authors were in no way trying to hide what they were saying her, nor did you have to "infer" it.
BTW, if you don't want to click on the link, the figure in which this assumption is spelled out was posted in this thread, so you can search up and look for it. The words are in the figure so you can't search for them, but it's pretty hard to miss.
“QM says they don’t, period.”
Has quantum mechanics always said that, or has QM changed over time, like decay rates?
“Here’s some biased liberal background on the author”.
There, fixed it for you.
With regard to radiometric aging based on uranium decay, for the estimates to be consistently off as a result of the original composition would mean that for multiple samples from multiple locations the same amount of lead would have to have been added to each one in direct porportion to the amount of uranium present.
Have you always said that, or have you changed over time, like decay rates?
It’s a legitimate question, and I’m curious as to your position. Posters here have asserted that decay rates have changed over time. If decay rates can change, can the principles of QM also change?
“Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible.”
I asked how they were “a perfect fit” and Buck W. explained it was like heart surgery and strawberry farming, “a perfect fit”!
If that’s not crystal clear you’ll have to ask him about it.
Heart surgery and strawberry farming......amazing.
In this case the author is implying that the Biblical account of Creation and the Flood is established and empirically verifiable fact that the scientists have failed to account for in their calculations.
I see that you haven’t heeded my advice to abide by the wisdom of your own tagline.
Typical leftie quote mining tactic. May I suggest that you consider the value of context? That way, you won’t appear so intentionally deceptive. Par for the creation rationalization course, though.
Worse, there is nothing in the passage in Romans to suggest it has anything to do with scientific observation.
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;Paul is saying that the very existance of man shows that God exists "is manifest IN THEM". And that the existance of what we see around us MANIFESTS (makes known) the "invisible" things, meaning the nature of God which we cannot see. We cannot see God, but we can see his creation, and through that we have no excuse not to believe in the Creator.19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Of course, evolutionists look around and see natural processes in which there is no Creator. Theistic evolutionists have to jump through hoops to give God something to do in the evolutionary process. But God says that there is a reason some people don't see the creation as evidence of the Creator:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,Having their foolish hearts darkened, they would easily fall prey to falsehood, and firmly believe it to be true:
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
The worship of the creature, rather than the Creator, leads, according to Paul, to many of the evil we see in modern society:
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
How can you believe the Bible when it comes to the Salvation story?
What says that the energy output of radiometric decay varies while the observed decay rate remains constant?
> Actually, from all the polls I’ve seen, I’d say that
> Christian evolutionists greatly outnumber atheist
> evolutionists.
Please share those polls with us.
> And also, Christian evolutionists most likely outnumber
> Creationists.
Argumentum ad populum. Meaningless. Truth does not depend on consensus or majorities.
> Darwinism has been used to argue for capitalism far more
> than it’s been used to argue for Communism.
I don’t believe I’ve ever encountered references to Darwin in any of my studies of Capitalist theory. And I certainly have not seen Darwin employed to justify any of the fundamental principles of Conservatism.
On the other hand, even the most cursory survey of letters, articles, and books by communists and fascists will encounter frequent references to Darwin in order to justify the ruthlessness with which they must act to foster their vision.
Capitalism is fundamentally an Economic system, and does NOT directly encompass social or religious aspects of civilization.
Communism and Fascism, or any totalitarian statist system, are complete ideologies that intentionally and directly encompass the social and religious aspects of a civilization.
Do you buy all of your slaves from the nations near you?
Yes, and on that matter, if you don’t believe those things it would make sense to ignore them when discussing radiological dating.
The point though is that, logically, if one presumes there is a Creator, it is then logical to presume that the Creator could have impacted the dating methodology. So a scientist could not claim that the dating methods disprove the young-earth-creation theory, since the young-earth-creation theory presupposes a Creator and the flood.
There are a lot of arguments in this area that merely go to defending one side against the “refutations” of the other.
Do you have any evidence? What I've noticed is the liberals swarm and then die down after conservatives run them off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.