[split] Radiometric Dating

[Esquilax]

Actually, I said there would be no difference between creator/no creator worldview in dating, because they would both come up with the same results.

Then this is a rather pointless conversation, isn't it?

With some instances in uniformitarianism (and this is just what evolutionists say, not what I agree with), daughter isotopes present at the initial stage would precipitate out of the sample allowing the isotope to decay as theorized. In flood geology, those isotopes would not be able to precipitate because of rapid burial, giving it an inaccurately high age according to radiometric dating.

So, do you always pay lipservice to science by cherry picking those instances of it you think you can spin to fit your beliefs, while rejecting everything that doesn't fit with those ("evolutionists")? Isn't it interesting that you toss around accusations of bias like candy, but you only respect the findings of science when it suits you?

Also, you did not consider that they found actual DNA within the fossil which cannot just be rehydrated.

No, they didn't. That was the third point in the link I gave you, that no DNA was ever found in these supposed soft tissues, but we've been able to extract DNA from sources upwards of ten thousand years old, putting the lie to this creationist nonsense that dinosaurs walked with man.

Attacks on character? I pointed out your articles presuppose materialist causes, and that was their bias.

Something that you cannot know, and have no evidence for, beyond that the articles didn't come up with conclusions that appeal to you. Don't bullshit me, newbie; you wouldn't have said one word if the same articles, written by the same people, came to conclusions that you actually liked. You have no possible way of knowing what presuppositions the writers, and us here too, do or do not have, and the fact that you immediately leaped to the accusation screams out loud that this was not a well founded observation of fact you're making, but a shrill defense mechanism thoughtlessly volleyed across the discourse because the actual real science doesn't agree with you on absolutely everything.

I pointed out that you won't even look at any articles I cite simply because they are written by creationists. If I did the same thing on this site, I would be considered even more ignorant.

Creationists have a long and storied history of dishonesty and misinformation. Citing them on their own isn't a trustworthy source, especially since the majority of creationist sources have a statement of faith on there indicating that they will reject out of hand any evidence that contradicts the bible. You might recognize that statement of faith as precisely the kind of presupposition you were accusing everyone else of having, but proudly stated up front. Interesting how you'll ignore it when it's right in front of your face, so long as the conclusions match what you want to be true. However, despite your hand wringing, unfounded moping about the materialistic biases of the mainstream scientific community, any sufficiently justified and demonstrated evidence would easily make it through the peer review process, so it could be published reputably. The fact that no creationist has ever managed this raises alarms to me, and your weeping about the conspiracy to keep creationism out of science rings false when you consider all the money, fame and awards a scientist would obtain for providing scientific evidence for the existence of god.

Your ad hoc rationalization, that the scientists are just all out to get you, relies on us believing that scientists aren't interested in research funding, Nobel Prizes, and world fame. I don't understand why you're asking us to believe that.

Anyways, last I checked evolution did not have a basis for fixing the water systems for those people.

Yeah it does: we're a cooperative species that evolved to form societies and work together. Better water systems for some of us allow them to better function as members of the group, which benefits us all. Do you actually know anything about evolution?

Im not saying atheists don't have morals, Im just saying that it did not come from evolution.

We have evolved to be cooperative, empathetic beings. Our morality comes out of that. If you want to claim it comes from elsewhere, then you need to be reminded that evolution is a demonstrated scientific fact, that morality has been shown to exist in our closest living relatives in roughly the same manner as in us, and that you have no indication at all that morality comes from some kind of god. You've got the burden of proof here; unjustified dismissals of verified facts don't count as much of an argument.

I would be careful using the word gullible. Half the doctors with the ministries I've seen were initially atheists who examined the evidence. See Dr. Emil Silvestru.

"I was once an atheist, but..." is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

The difference between you and him is he got past his bias and read literature from the opposition.

And we end on yet more bullshit.

How do you know any of us has a bias? Do you know us? Have you interacted with us before today?

And if not, then where exactly are you getting the idea that we're biased, since you have no good goddamn idea who we are as people?