(November 13, 2016 at 4:13 pm)Edward John Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 4:06 pm)pocaracas Wrote: [*]

No answer, then... huh?

[*]

All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored.  Therefore completely useless.

(November 13, 2016 at 4:15 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 4:13 pm)Edward John Wrote: [*]

All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored.  Therefore completely useless.

[*]

Guys, I see we've found an expert!

Do tell us, poor ignorant idiot atheists: what are those assumptions and why are they false, again?
Maybe you should start by telling us how those methods are supposed to work...?

Also, how did you arrive at thousands of years?

(November 13, 2016 at 4:13 pm)Edward John Wrote: [*]
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored.  Therefore completely useless.

Quote:Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

Quote:

Quote:

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

(November 13, 2016 at 4:25 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 4:13 pm)Edward John Wrote: [*]
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored.  Therefore completely useless.

[*]

You fucking asshole.  Do you manage to successfully delude yourself all day long with this bullshit?

Here's one of your own telling you that you are a shithead.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Quote:Radiometric Dating

A Christian Perspective

[*]


They have to keep it simple.  That's all that christards like Eddie can handle.

(November 13, 2016 at 1:41 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 9:26 am)Whateverist Wrote: All you got to do is produce one god - just one - and I personally will concede the matter to you

Assuming this did happen, then how would we know that this life-form isn't just a more evolved and different life-form? If it conformed to humanity's preconceptions of what constitutes a god, then how would we know that it isn't just showing us what we want to see?  Would humanity accept such a life-form without  a god label?

(November 13, 2016 at 4:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's a simple concept alright, even if it's not old.