Posted on 06/07/2019 7:36:34 AM PDT by fishtank
The Truth about Radiometric Dating
June 2019
Prove it. That’s the challenge biblical creationists often face when discussing the scientific validity of the Genesis creation account with skeptics. Many people leave the church, especially young adults, when they think that the Bible and science can’t be harmonized. But what if incredible harmony actually exists?
Those who believe in millions and billions of years often point to radiometric dating as indisputable scientific proof that Earth is old. Since the biblical timeline indicates a young earth that’s only about 6,000 years old, creation scientists must address the radiometric dating issue. We need someone with great expertise to take a critical look at these methods and pull all the findings together.
ICR Research Associate Dr. Vernon Cupps’ new book Rethinking Radiometric Dating: Evidence for a Young Earth from a Nuclear Physicist fulfills this need.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
My son and I are both happy with our 6 figure jobs.
Creationism is fundamental for Christians. WE ARE NOT DEISTS! God created and God is involved with His creation. You have to believe that in order to have a healthy Christian worldview. That is different from young earth creationism.
I do subscribe to a relatively young earth, but this belief comes from my belief that old, old earth is a concoction of evolutionists in order to shore up the the huge amounts of time which would be required in order to make evolution viable. I believe that the earth is probably less than a million years old.
I attended a debate at the University of Oklahoma between relatively young earth creationists and evolutionists. One of the debaters holding to evolution was the current head of the geology department at the university. He conceded early in the debate that geology is a different kind of science since it does not deal with repeatable experiments. Instead, geologists build models. He stated that there are old earth models and young earth geologic models. He, personally, subscribed to the old earth models due to his belief in evolution. So he was admitting that if there was no need to shore up evolutionary theory, then a young earth was feasible from a geological viewpoint. He did not state how young this might be. I suspect he was probably thinking a few million years.
As a high school student who was taught evolution, it was easy for me to see that through the 1950's and 60's the earth got much older. The earth "aged" as evolutionists determined that evolutionary processes required much longer than they originally anticipated.
“God marked the days before he placed the sun. Therefore his days are NOT equivalent to our solar days.”
That’s called a “non-sequitur”.
If “evening and morning” are not the same as solar days, then why is the exact same formula used after the sun and moon are in place to describe each day? Why even use that verbiage in the first place, if not to tell us specifically that these were equivalent to solar days?
There is really only one explanation that makes any sense at all.
They can decide when they are older.
One night when his charge was pretty high, Micro Farad went to see if he could find a cute little coil to let him discharge.
He picked up Milli Amp, and took her for a ride on his Megacycle. They rode accross the wheatstone bridge, along the sine wave and stopped at a magnetic field flowing with current.
Micro Farad soon had her resistance at a minimum level. They laid against ground level. Micro Farad then inserted his probe in MilliAmps socket. "Ohm, Ohm, give me Mho!", she said.
They fluxed all night, trying out various connections. Afterwards Milli Amp tried self-induction and damaged her probe. They then changed polarities and blew each other's fuses.
” Since the biblical timeline indicates a young earth that’s only about 6,000 years old...”
It doesn’t actually. I use to have people get out a piece of paper and pen and actually write down what was created in the six days period.
The only things that was created were life forms.
Everything else was merely a re-arrangement, as in, “Let the dry land appear,” or the very scientific “gather the dry land into one place” or the super-continent Pangaea.
Too many cases where its been proven inaccurate.
Funny, both of my sons believe in creation, and both make excellent wages as managers at a large investment accounting firm. Both son graduated at 20 with a four year accounting/economic degrees, and younger son is barely 23.
Yeah... I, a life-long creationist, have two college science degrees and was making well into six figures before I retired in 2015.
CC
Creationism isn’t fundamental to me. Actually seems kind of narrow minded and pharasiacal. Putting limits on the Almighty.
CC
‘Yes your brainwashed Lyle-Darwinianism has dominated our teaching centers for a 100 years.’
spot on, quite unlike the previous thousands of years when brainwashed organized religions were dominating our teaching centers...
““Where did the evening and morning come from?”
From God. When God says it is evening, it’s evening. Just like when God says “let there be light”, there is light.”
So, evidently, it wasn’t just as we know it. The first day could have been millions of years. :) (just being ornery here)...
‘I believe that the earth is probably less than a million years old.’
hmm...well, okay then...
Radiometric dating involves MANY other isotopes than just carbon, and there are also non-radiometric methods with similar ranges. Sorry, folks, but the young earth idea simply doesn't wash.
Not "young earther", (To God a day is like a thousand years),
A lot of truth to that! Galileo was almost executed for his sun-centered view of the solar system. The inquisition took care of dissidents while Popes populated the Vatican with bastard children.
My favorite truth about radiometric dating is this: it is calibrated by tree rings. If your lab tests were calibrated by such a subjective, completely unreliable way.. certain death.
That “science” would flunk you out of a basic lab program.
We have known since middle school that tree rings don’t form yearly, it is based on rain, soil, sun.. to many variables to be accurate by any measure.
Some trees have shown no growth during a year of volcanic erruption.
Our world began with all the land masses together with the fossil record showing ancestors many times larger than today’s insects and animals. Clearly today’s climate is completely different.
Junk science... completely ridiculous.
“Too many cases where its been proven inaccurate.”
Keep reading the fake news.
” then why is the exact same formula used after the sun and moon are in place to describe each day? “
Because the are the same. The solar day was invented by man, not God.
“The solar day was invented by man, not God.”
That doesn’t make any sense at all. God created the sun and the earth, and set them in their orbits, setting the length of a day. God says in Genesis chapter one that a day is “evening and then morning”, which is exactly how the Hebrews measured days. Even to this day, Jews observe Sabbath starting at sundown for exactly this reason.
To think that God used that expression to mean something other than the “evening and morning” days that we are all familiar with is akin to saying that God is trying to deceive us, which is an absurdity.
I sometimes think that if God had written “and twenty fours hours later, was the next day”, some people would argue “well, hours to God don’t mean the same thing as hours to us”.
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.