(August 20, 2013 at 12:08 am)Godschild Wrote:

(August 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: There are other kinds of dating besides carbon dating. All have different timespans where they are useful. Example - Uranium-lead dating has a range of 1 million to about 4.5 billion years ago.

That is supposed, it's not reliable.

GC

Your statement that is is not reliable carries no weight. Dating methods using radioactive decay are reliable, the science is sound.

And carbon dating doesn't "fall apart" after 50,00 years - it has a measurable range. If you actually understood the physics, you would know this. But no, you spout AIG crapola.

(August 20, 2013 at 9:37 am)Faith No More Wrote:

(August 20, 2013 at 8:42 am)Texas Sailor Wrote: I'm over it. I'm ready for some new God claims that haven't been---> ! I wish William Lane Craig would get himself an account here! Imagine the fun!

What makes you think he would bring anything new to the table?

Wishful thinking I suppose.

(August 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm)Chas Wrote:

(August 20, 2013 at 12:08 am)Godschild Wrote: That is supposed, it's not reliable.

GC

Your statement that is is not reliable carries no weight. Dating methods using radioactive decay are reliable, the science is sound.

And carbon dating doesn't "fall apart" after 50,00 years - it has a measurable range. If you actually understood the physics, you would know this. But no, you spout AIG crapola.

No I sight reputable nuclear engineers and scientist, some who are known around the country and scientific community.

GC

---

(August 20, 2013 at 12:37 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I'm asking you though. You need to realize that fossil composition has nothing to do with the fact they exist.

Listen, I'm not stupid, I know it pleases you to believe that but, like the stupid girlfriends you date your stupid in believing I'm stupid, so just back off. I have owned fossils, I understand fully what they are and how they were formed.

You know that is possible to date higher ranges with other elements right? Carbon dating fits the range very well to falsify religious 'artifacts' like the shroud that they claimed it was from jeebus. To things of higher ages like the age of the earth, other elements are used. Do yourself a favour and grab a science book, in this case, a good physics one.

But please cite those scientists and their credentials.

(August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: No I sight reputable nuclear engineers and scientist, some who are known around the country and scientific community.

Sources please.

GC Wrote:

(August 20, 2013 at 12:37 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: I'm asking you though. You need to realize that fossil composition has nothing to do with the fact they exist.

Listen, I'm not stupid, I know it pleases you to believe that but, like the stupid girlfriends you date your stupid in believing I'm stupid, so just back off. I have owned fossils, I understand fully what they are and how they were formed.

You're stupid for bringing it up because you got railed on for throwing an obvious red herring out there.

Now that you've admitted to the existence of fossils, explain how they're not older than 6000 years.

(August 20, 2013 at 12:08 am)Godschild Wrote:

(August 19, 2013 at 2:55 pm)Psykhronic Wrote: There are other kinds of dating besides carbon dating. All have different timespans where they are useful. Example - Uranium-lead dating has a range of 1 million to about 4.5 billion years ago.

That is supposed, it's not reliable.

What's the basis for your claim of unreliability?

What about samarium-neodymium?
Potassium-argon?
Rubidium-strontium?
Uranium-thorium?
Argon-argon?
Iodine-xenon?
Lanthanum-barium?
Lead-lead?
Lutetium-hafnium?
Neon-neon?
Rhenium-osmium?
Uranium-lead-helium?
Uranium-uranium?

All unreliable, yes?

What about fission track? Luminescence?

How about Isochron dating?

They're all unreliable because... because Godschild says so?

(August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(August 20, 2013 at 1:45 pm)Chas Wrote: Your statement that is is not reliable carries no weight. Dating methods using radioactive decay are reliable, the science is sound.

And carbon dating doesn't "fall apart" after 50,00 years - it has a measurable range. If you actually understood the physics, you would know this. But no, you spout AIG crapola.

No I sight reputable nuclear engineers and scientist, some who are known around the country and scientific community.

Then please cite a couple. Otherwise, your statement is without merit.

(August 20, 2013 at 4:28 pm)Chas Wrote:

(August 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Godschild Wrote: No I sight reputable nuclear engineers and scientist, some who are known around the country and scientific community.

Then please cite a couple. Otherwise, your statement is without merit.

Yes, please - cite a few, including their specific claims and reasoning. Otherwise, it's nothing but an appeal to some anonymous authority.

Every time I've examined a creationist claim about radiometric dating, the claims were without merit.

Every response to Godschild this time so far has been a request to cite sources...is he going to think we're all just ganging up on him, or is he actually going to realize that we are merely submitting the required response to a claim?

...

Naaaahhhh....he's going to think we're ganging up on him.

(August 20, 2013 at 5:02 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Every response to Godschild this time so far has been a request to cite sources...is he going to think we're all just ganging up on him, or is he actually going to realize that we are merely submitting the required response to a claim?

...

Naaaahhhh....he's going to think we're ganging up on him.

You bet I do, why, because it is one of your strategies in debating Christians, do you think we are to dumb to see through your childish ways. I will not put their names on this or any open forum, that would be unethical and you know it, disclaim what I say if you desire it want change the truth. This is my answer to one and all.

GC