Posted on 07/30/2009 10:42:38 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods
--snip--
This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
You make a valid point. There’s nastiness on both sides.
And yes, I’m new to the “crevo wars”. It’s fascinating in a train wreck kind of way. ;-)
There isn’t. This “fight” is a political fight dreamed up by an extremist crackpot minority of religious zealots.
Despite their arrogant claims to represent the “Christian point of view”, the creationists and their fundamentalist friends constitute a very tiny minority in mainstream religion. They are an abomination.
In essence, the fundamentalists and their creationist allies want to do for the United States what the fundamentalist Taliban did for Afghanistan and the Ayatollahs have done for Iran—they want to run the country in accordance with their interpretation of “God’s will”.
Every mainstream Christian denomination in the United States rejects the paranoid and ultra-literalist world-view of the creationists, and sees no conflict at all between Christian faith and modern science.
They should crawl back to their caves and huddle around their book burnings; they are the true enemy of Christianity.
You are 1000% correct!! Bookmarked!!
Well, I see you have attracted the usual ad hominem attacks, “this is not science” diatribes, and other vicious and nasty responses from the thoughtful, rational, self-appointed guardians of the Temple of Standard Science. I wonder when they are going to call you into the Inquisition and demand that you recant?
The irony that they have switched positions with the religious leaders of the middle ages is apparently lost on them. While they rant about how Christians are going to take away their freedom to believe in “true” science, they will do whatever it takes to silence the people who make them so uncomfortable.
I for one have no desire to take away their freedom to believe a lie. How about you?
Or I should have dated carbon. One of the two.
Ahhhhhhhh, Piaget!
Indeed! A gold star for you, Sir.
BA, Psy.
You nailed it. That’s why I call them the Temple of Darwin. They are an anti-scientific religious cult that brooks no dissent. And you are quite right, I’m all for their freedom to believe their own lies...BUT I DON’T FEEL I SHOULD HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, NOR SHOULD MY CHILDREN BE FORCED TO LEARN ABOUT IT WITHOUT THE MAIN COUNTER-ARGUMENTS IN SCHOOL. In fact, except for national security and patents, I’m for a complete separation of science and state!
These evolution vs creation threads always amuse me. If a creator is assumed, and accepted on Faith, then He is the Creator. If He wanted to put a 65,000,000 year old rock on a 6,000 year old Earth he could easily do it. After all, He created both and can arrange them as He sees fit.
How can science contradict the Original Scientist, the Creator?
We all know that our understanding of science, or of nature, expands daily. As we learn more we build on it to make further assumptions. Then we “test” those assumptions, sometimes physically, sometimes mathematically. If they stand up, for now according to our present understanding, we add them to our storehouse of lore and attempt to build further on them.
Basically, evolutionists are on a learn as they go course. Creationists are already where the evolutionists seek to go.
Trying to disprove the Creationists view of the age of the Earth is a fools game, with the basic goal to disprove God being the prize. Can’t be done!
No evolutionist will be converted by scientific explanations nor will any Creationists be dissuaded by such.
Continue to amuse yourselves while trying out new ideas on each other but there is no prize at the end, at least not one that isn’t already possessed.
Well said. One of the most fascianting aspects to me is the way the evos circle the wagons for the NEA state run gubmint “keep God out of any discussion” failed public schools and pretend this is the somehow neautral position, ignoring the vast history before the 60’s and 70’s when children and adults FREELY discussed these ideas in science class.
I agree. And believing stupid crap with no supporting evidence (like creationism) because it feels good is pure, 100% unadulterated liberalism.
Creationism liberal??
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
This smacks again of the ‘algore’s “debate is over” global warming cult; Chrissy Fit Matthews’ “settled science” types being nothing more than right-wing Christians’, nonsense.
Are you also in competetion for the sir-project-alot award Filo?
It’s painfully plain to see that anyone that stomps out debate, supports the secular humanist NEA, sues dissenters into silence, etc. etc. etc. is on the liberal (i.e. wrong) side of this debate!
But since when have any of the evo-cultists let the evidence stand in the way of their godless science quests???
You are referring to the incorrect Bush administration.
John H. Marburger III., was appointed by George W. Bush.
You know a little research on a topic before you respond is a good thing. It keeps one from looking foolish.
Uhhhh, no actually I WAS referring to W.
Your projections are what’s making YOU look foolish.
Well of course not!
SiS:
I have a problem with all human-developed dating methods.
Head-in-sand-boy:
I have the same problems with human-developed language systems.
Humans invented the texts, so humans invented the interpretation of the texts, so the result can mean anything humans decide they mean. It’s not like when we arrived on earth we found an owner’s manual waiting for us with a chapter on interpreting texts that we humans developed.
Until somebody can resolve that for me, I will be skeptical of any human developed “text” that claims to communicate anything.
Me too and anyone with their head in the sand...well, frankly is to be taken with a very small grain of salt. :)
Thanks. So far no response from those I addressed.
As far as the NEA, we know those folks, and many others, are set on the destruction of our society and destroying our religious heritage is just part of it. The State or the Party must be the god and they will brook no competition.
In essence, the fundamentalists and their creationist allies want to do for the United States what the fundamentalist Taliban did for Afghanistan and the Ayatollahs have done for Iran—they want to run the country in accordance with their interpretation of “God’s will”.
I agree there are a few like that and they are a tiny minority as you say. However, I don't think all who believe in creation are that way. Most Christians, including creationists, are very tolerant of others. They prefer to persuade rather than mandate, knowing full well that mandated belief is shallow and false and perhaps not a belief at all.
However, you are citing a frequent liberal, Leftist argument - that Christians want to impose their will and their values on all others. That is typical liberal hypocrisy, blaming their own intentions on others. Simply fundamental misdirection.
Most Christians I know welcome scientific education and they attempt to reconcile it with their particular beliefs. Even in the most difficult moments in that effort I have never known one to discard their Christianity as a result. They just chalk it up as something God will reveal and explain later.
Conversely, most evolutionist are the opposite, insisting that the Truth, through the means of science, is on their side. They ridicule creationists and Christians in general as superstitious fools who reject "Truth."
Christians believe Truth is revealed by God, that science is an interesting and necessary tool to understand physical reality but physical reality is only part of the equation. The other part of the equation, an equal part, is Spirituality. Spiritual reality is just as real as physical reality, it just reveals different things.
Post #132 is my view of this.
Wait a minute, let's continue the article quote just where you cut it off:
you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.
Ah! So that what's makes it "religious/philosophical" and "not scientific," eh?
Then I'm sure you'd also admit that any murderer found guilty without eyewitnesses was illegitimately convicted on unscientific "religious/philosophical" grounds and should be released?
Often you post articles that are at least interesting, GGG, however much misconceived, misrepresented or misinterpreted; but this one's just pathetic: The "we can't know anything if we didn't see it ourselves" reasoning is about as trite, superficial, childish, counter-factual and stupid as you can get.
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.