(November 13, 2016 at 5:05 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

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

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?

[*]
Would bursts of excess radiation from the sun or the cosmos around affect radiometric dating?  Like when the earth's mag field drops/flips.

I don't know.
How would that work on buried rock?

How do we know that the Earth's magnetic field has flipped?
Do tell me how the two (magnetic field and cosmic radiation) relate to skew any and all radiometric dating.

(November 13, 2016 at 5:29 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 5:28 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I already did that schtick last time. Like I said back in the day, do not put the Lord thy God to the test.

Why believe in a god if you can't test him/her/it?

Jacob allegedly wrestled with God/an Angel/The Lord and didn't let go, even when he was asked to, even after God "wounded him in the inner thigh" (kicked Jacob in the balls). God said "Jesus Christ man! What will it take for you to let me go, I've got shit to do!" Jacob just said "Bless me." And so God gesundheit-ed the rest of his generations.

Pretty sure there was some of this too...

to OP

Provide some real, tangible, detectable, scientific evidence of just one single god. Just some would be enough.

(November 13, 2016 at 5:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 5:05 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: [*]
Would bursts of excess radiation from the sun or the cosmos around affect radiometric dating?  Like when the earth's mag field drops/flips.

[*]

I don't know.
How would that work on buried rock?

How do we know that the Earth's magnetic field has flipped?
Do tell me how the two (magnetic field and cosmic radiation) relate to skew any and all radiometric dating.

It wouldn't have been buried at the time.

Evidence: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141110-...flips-more These shifts leave traces in rocks. When lava cools, metal oxide particles within the rock become frozen in the direction of the prevailing magnetic field. So scientists can work out the historic positions of the magnetic poles by examining and dating lava samples.

The theory would be that when the mag field drops, the incoming solar and cosmic radiation accelerates radioactive decay and skews readings to appear much older.

Dunno about the rest of you, but I'm going to start scouring my neighbourhood for donations to built the Tabernacle Of Stimbo The Beneficent. It hasn't been proved that Stimbo isn't God, therefore, he is God, QED.

Boru

(November 13, 2016 at 6:02 pm)Arkilogue Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 5:31 pm)pocaracas Wrote: [*]

I don't know.
How would that work on buried rock?

How do we know that the Earth's magnetic field has flipped?
Do tell me how the two (magnetic field and cosmic radiation) relate to skew any and all radiometric dating.

[*]

It wouldn't have been buried at the time.

Evidence: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141110-...flips-more These shifts leave traces in rocks. When lava cools, metal oxide particles within the rock become frozen in the direction of the prevailing magnetic field. So scientists can work out the historic positions of the magnetic poles by examining and dating lava samples.

The theory would be that when the mag field drops, the incoming solar and cosmic radiation accelerates radioactive decay and skews readings to appear much older.

Erm, I'm no physicist, but I'm fairly sure that radioactive decay rates are a constant, and not shown to be influenced by external factors. If they were, then nuclear-powered space probes wouldn't work.

Boru

(November 13, 2016 at 6:08 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 6:02 pm)Arkilogue Wrote: [*]

It wouldn't have been buried at the time.

Evidence: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141110-...flips-more These shifts leave traces in rocks. When lava cools, metal oxide particles within the rock become frozen in the direction of the prevailing magnetic field. So scientists can work out the historic positions of the magnetic poles by examining and dating lava samples.

The theory would be that when the mag field drops, the incoming solar and cosmic radiation accelerates radioactive decay and skews readings to appear much older.

[*]

Erm, I'm no physicist, but I'm fairly sure that radioactive decay rates are a constant, and not shown to be influenced by external factors.  If they were, then nuclear-powered space probes wouldn't work.

Boru

Good point but they are affected by external factors. The rotation of the sun's core for one.

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augus...82310.html

(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.

[*]

Heres another reason why atheism is false.

Quote:The Christian Perspective
by Timothy McCabe
If Atheism is true, then Everything is ultimately the direct result of purely random, uncoordinated and undependable accidents. Note that "Everything" includes Our Conclusions.

If Our Conclusions are ultimately the direct result of purely random, uncoordinated and undependable accidents, then Our Conclusions are entirely random and undependable.

No Atheist believes that his own conclusions are random and undependable, so no Atheist really believes in Atheism.

What we have seen here is that if Atheism is true, there is no possibility of knowledge. However, knowledge is possible; therefore Atheism is certainly not true.

This is interesting...points to a slowing down of decay rates!


http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augus...82310.html

On Dec 13, 2006, the sun itself provided a crucial clue, when a solar flare sent a stream of particles and radiation toward Earth. Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins, while measuring the decay rate of manganese-54, a short-lived isotope used in medical diagnostics, noticed that the rate dropped slightly during the flare, a decrease that started about a day and a half before the flare.

If this apparent relationship between flares and decay rates proves true, it could lead to a method of predicting solar flares prior to their occurrence, which could help prevent damage to satellites and electric grids, as well as save the lives of astronauts in space.

The decay-rate aberrations that Jenkins noticed occurred during the middle of the night in Indiana – meaning that something produced by the sun had traveled all the way through the Earth to reach Jenkins' detectors. What could the flare send forth that could have such an effect?

Jenkins and Fischbach guessed that the culprits in this bit of decay-rate mischief were probably solar neutrinos, the almost weightless particles famous for flying at almost the speed of light through the physical world – humans, rocks, oceans or planets – with virtually no interaction with anything.

(November 13, 2016 at 5:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Edward John Wrote: The question is a silly question in of itself.

Irrelevant; and not your call to make. At least you recognise the inherent silliness of your question.

(November 13, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Edward John Wrote: If you are God guess what I am thinking?

Were I to know what you are thinking, how would that prove I am God as opposed to merely telepathic?

I'll turn water into wine for you, if you like.

(November 13, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Edward John Wrote: [*]We know you're just a person

[*]

No you don't. All you see is a collection of alphanumeric characters. You know nothing about what may be behind the forum account under this name.

(November 13, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Edward John Wrote: [*]Your not in the Bible

[*]

[*]

Irrelevant; we're not talking about books. Regardless, you don't know any of this; you're merely assuming. I am claiming to be God, so by default I am in the bible.

And it's "you're".

(November 13, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Edward John Wrote: [*]You have no powers

[*][*]


[*]

I already gave you the Universe, not to mention raising myself from the dead for your sins. Isn't that enough to convince you?

(November 13, 2016 at 3:56 pm)Edward John Wrote: [*]I could go on

[*][*][*]



[*]

Of that I have no doubt; but there's no useful information in white noise.

So in summary:

I - and others - would be satisfied with one, simple, concrete and compelling piece of evidence for your god that is unambiguous and not explained by, or explicable of, anything else; whereas you want a magic trick and confirmation of a fairytale.