[split] Radiometric Dating

[Esquilax]

I don't know enough to say how radioactive decay would be different with/without a creator, but I don't see your argument there. I know it does explain phenomena puzzling secular scientists. For instance the presence of Carbon-14 in diamonds and coal that are supposed to be billions of years old, the presence of soft tissue in fossils supposed to be millions of years old, and other examples.

As as been pointed out before, this is an argument from ignorance: "Scientists can't explain this, god does, therefore god is more likely." But also, on the soft tissue claim, that was fossl tissue that had been rehydrated, not naturally occurring soft tissue. You've fallen for a creationist exaggeration there.

By sacrifice do you mean that you would have to give up a materialistic bias or are you intending something different altogether?

You know, for someone who complains about the tones others use as much as you do, you really are being horrifically rude when you accuse someone you've never met and have only started interacting with today of bias. I know it might make you feel better to pretend the only reason we don't immediately agree with every point you make is because of some in-built bias that just makes us unreasonable, but you don't know us, you've never met us or spoken to any of us. You have no basis for saying that, and these kinds of reflexive, unthinking attacks on our character to cover for the inadequacy of your own points are dishonest and hostile to the tone of the conversation. Do try and avoid double standards in future.

On to the actual meat of your point, I see an issue nobody else has really addressed yet, so I figure I'd throw my hat into the ring. For the sake of discussion, let's say that radiometric dating is inaccurate and doesn't work at all. At best, what you have just determined is that we have an unreliable tape measure for indicating the age of the earth. What you haven't done is gone even one step toward demonstrating that the old earth proposed dates are wrong, or that your young earth dates are correct. Your argument at its strongest only shows the inadequacy of our measuring systems, and yet you're here claiming to know the age of the earth absent an accurate measure; how is it that you're doing that?

And how does a young earth, even if you can demonstrate it, point exclusively to your specific version of whatever god you worship? You've started a conversation that would produce a very mild result if successful, and then you're bootstrapping on a huge number of other claims that you seem content to keep hidden. Frankly I'm surprised my fellows here have let you get away with this kind of argument from ignorance for as long as they have.