[split] Radiometric Dating

[Losty]

I was led to believe people would debate civilly on this site.

By whom?

[Lemonvariable72]

I think you're just a sock for another recently banned jesus freak. You get no benefit of the doubt.

I can say that I have never been on this site until I was directed to it yesterday. But obviously that won't convince you. If you would like you can report me to the site to have my IP checked. I just want a debate where I can get real world experience. I'm getting ready to leave high school to pursue pastoral ministries, and I want more real world experience than what high school students can offer. If you can't answer just don't take part in it. I just want to know the arguments against my position.

How about a formal debate thread then? pm me and we can hammer out the details.

[Creatard]

1) you have to assume the absence of the daughter isotope at the start of process.

In deed that is a solidly and verifiably grounded assumption, if the substance at the start of the process is a liquid and any daughter element in it, by well known and substantiated chemical and physical property of the daughter elments, would either precipitate, or outgas out of the liquid before it solidifies. Thus solidification marks the last moment of near total absence of daughter element. This is a pretty good assumption by any absolute scale and infinitely better assumption than a bunch of impressionable iron age yokels would have had any of the wherewithall to really known it really was god when they heard of the rumor of a Jesus or when some voice is said by a bunch of priests to issue from a box,

Also a pretty good assumption if the substance formed part of a living organism that must carry on exchange of chemical elements with an external reservior of known or strongly predictable content as part of its metabolism, so you know exactly how much daughter element there must have been in the substance right up to the minute when metablic function stopped. Again a vastly better assumption that some silly iron age tract by the name of bible is the word of god - an identification which no one can be shown to have any credible wherewithall to make, or that some fantasy of hearing god that came to your eagerly wishthinking mind would happen to corresponding to any form of reality as might be understood by any slightly intelligent and critical person.

---

Yes, because mission projects in Africa and South America have done nothing to improve water systems and housing

And the knowledge that improving water system matters and how to improve it didn't come from your filthy bible or your good for nothing Jesus, and falsely selling the fruit of science in the name of your religion so you can trick more desparate gullible people to worship your "god" is no credit to what you are about to do.

Sorry, wrote that to the wrong person. Someone had posted that I needed to do something useful with my life.
You really like ad hominems an red herring don't you? If you assume a flood in the Bible, those daughter isotopes that would otherwise precipitate or outgas would be trapped in rapid burial causing the appearance of an older age.
The problem with your metabolic function is that the daughter cells are also taken up during its lifetime. Carbon 14 for example decays into nitrogen. We would not know how much nitrogen the animal would have taken in, so we would have to guess.
Anyways, last I checked evolution did not have a basis for fixing the water systems for those people. Im not saying atheists don't have morals, Im just saying that it did not come from evolution. 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. The difference between you and him is he got past his bias and read literature from the opposition.

[LastPoet]

[FatAndFaithless]

[pocaracas]

[Creatard]

I have a novel idea that might help you. Instead of desperately searching for gaps in the current scientific knowledge(which incidentally this is not really one of them) in a vain attempt to convince yourself that a well established theory has problems, why don't you provide the evidence you have for intelligent design. How about your first post be "Here is why intelligent design is correct and here is the scientific evidence that supports it." If your belief can be tested and proved let's see the affirmation. Stop wasting our time with this modified gaps argument and present the confirmation of intelligent design.

I posted my contentions against radioactive dating, because I was wanting to keep a narrow discussion topic. If you would like to discuss what you are suggesting you can PM me.

[popeyespappy]

The only people I will ever site will have Ph.Ds in their field.

Care to comment on the article I linked at the top of page 3? The one written by the Christian with the PHD in a relevant field that explains why starting ratios of daughter elements aren't a problem for potassium-argon and the associated argon-argon method, and how they deal with the same issue with the rubidium-strontium method?

[coldwx]

I have a novel idea that might help you. Instead of desperately searching for gaps in the current scientific knowledge(which incidentally this is not really one of them) in a vain attempt to convince yourself that a well established theory has problems, why don't you provide the evidence you have for intelligent design. How about your first post be "Here is why intelligent design is correct and here is the scientific evidence that supports it." If your belief can be tested and proved let's see the affirmation. Stop wasting our time with this modified gaps argument and present the confirmation of intelligent design.

I posted my contentions against radioactive dating, because I was wanting to keep a narrow discussion topic. If you would like to discuss what you are suggesting you can PM me.

No thank you. Create a thread like I suggested and we can discuss it out in the open so you can provide your evidence for all to see.

[Creatard]