Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[james bond]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Actually, this post belongs in the "Religion" section. This is the "Science and Technology" section and there is absolutely NOTHING scientific about superstition.

You're right about the religion and S&T section, but who is using superstition? The secular scientists? Evolution vs the supernatural, as relating to God's creation (origins science), are different things.

What we established is that evolutionists who believe humans descended from monkeys or apes do not have any kind of observational science that is observed, testable and falsifiable. The creation scientists have that. The humans from apes section believes their hypothesis based on historical or forensic science. Forensic science is usually used in crime scene analysis, but it picks up pieces from what happened in the past to analyze and gather evidence to form an opinion of what happened. Then it's up to a jury of peers whether to believe it or not. Capice?

What they conclude isn't always right as observational science would override it. In this thread, we discovered that no has been able to get an ape to walk bipedal today. We can get it to do sign-language like Koko the Gorilla who died recently and communicate in basic sentences. RIP Koko. Forbidden scientists have hybridized an ape and a human and it only lived one generation. It could not reproduce. The observable, testable and falsifiable science disproves this evolution hypothesis. Thus, all these silly people who believe we came from apes are wrong using their historical science. It is what I call pseudoscience and can be dismissed.

 

[james bond]

We have radiocarbon still left in diamonds. These are diamonds that your own evo scientists claim are one to two billion years old based on the layer they were found. All of the carbon-14 should be gone if this is correct since carbon-14 decays rapidly compare to uranium or other radioactive elements. However, this is not the case and RATE scientists dated them as much earlier around 55K years.

Or what about the recession of the moon? Moon's gravity affects the tides of the earth. It is observed that the moon travels further away each year due to this effect. If the earth was 4.5 B years old, then it should be much further out and we'd be SOL. Instead, a young earth better fits how far the moon is from the earth now.

Tidal acceleration - Wikipedia

Finally, the one I've been investigation currently. The earth's decaying magnetic field. If the earth is a dynamo, then this should not happen, but it has been decaying as predicted by Thomas Barnes and Russell Humphreys. In 2013, the ESA launched several satellites to study the earth magnetic field and decay called SWARM. If the earth were not around 6,000 years old, then there would be no magnetic field left and earth would be subject to excess cosmic radiation, solar winds and eventual extinction.

Honeywell Helps “Swarm” Study Earth’s Magnetic Field

Let me get this straight. You actually believe the world is about 6000 years old?

Another question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid?

I don't know about the diamond issue. Something is wrong with the analysis or your understanding of it. Do you have a link?

As far as your moon orbit theory, you are not correct. Recession is about 4cm a year. Over four billion years, that works out to about 100,000 miles. The moon's orbit is OK with a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Is the Moon moving away from the Earth? When was this discovered? (Intermediate) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

As far as the dynamo and magnetic field - the earth's core is constantly in flux. The polarity of the magnetic field has flipped many times and there are periods where the field drops to near zero as this happens.

So many misconceptions and you suggest that I'm ignorant and do not understand science.. Evolution has mucked up your brain.

The moon's recession is 3.8 cm/yr, but it would have had to be kissing the earth around 1.2 billion years ago to be where it is now. Thus, how do you explain what happened in 4.5 billion years? If the earth and moon were together, then it should be further away. Are you going to tell me that rate isn't constant while rate of decay of radioactive elements are?

The magnetic field flip is hypothesis based on studying magnetite in igneous material from Bernard Brunhes and Motonori Matuyama. However, if we look at how magnetism affects magnetite in liquid materials, then we find proximity affects it the most and it lines up either in a NSNS or NSSN direction due to its polarity. This is demonstrated in the vid below and shows the earth's poles did not reverse polarity. It's how magnetism works. You can buy actual magnetite and do this experiment. I do admit that creation scientist, Dr. Russel Humphreys, believes the same as you. That said, I have not seen the reverse polarity data and what patterns is seen such as NSSN and NSNS patterns. If it's the NSSN and NSNS patterns, then it's like based on proximity and magnetism principles. It's curious because what the geophysicists based it on was the seafloor spread and in the igneous materials below.



What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?

The earth being 6,000 years old is based on those things I've already mentioned and more. This is based on observational science that is observable, testable and falsifiable.

You believe it isn't because it is what was taught you in school and the myriads of news and articles that state the earth and and fossils found are billions and millions of years old. The age of the earth is based on radiometric dating used by blank-blank. It finally gave the evos enough time to work their voodoo magic. You can't even name who this person was.

The basic assumption of evo scientists is that the rate of radioactive decay has remained constant over time. The rate of decay using half-life is pretty accurate. However, it may or may not be applicable. As I have been pointing out the rate of bombardment is based on our magnetic field. If the magnetic field is weakening, then rate of cosmic bombardment goes up and we would get differing results. Furthermore, I have been pointing out that our atmosphere was different in the past than it is today. Vastly different.

The other assumption is knowing the initial conditions of the rock sample. How do you know what it was in the past? The analogy creation scientists use to understand radiometric dating assumptions is the hourglass. We enter a room and see that an hourglass is set on the table. We see that it has more sand in the bottom than on top. Based on the rate of sand we see falling to the bottom, we can figure out when the hourglass was turned over and calculate how long it has been running. The problem is we do not know how much sand was at the bottom before turning over. It could have been some or none. Second, we do not know if the rate of sand falling has been constant as we only observed that it was constant after it was running. It could have tipped over and someone righted it again. Thus, we make assumptions in order to ascertain how long it has been running in order to calculate when it was first turned over.

Yet, evos have maintained that the rate of decay has remained constant over time. This is part of their uniformitarianism beliefs. Not facts, theories, but beliefs. Uniformitarianism is more faith-based than actual science. This belief also affects their evolution science. The other belief they have is that of an old earth. This is necessary for evolution to occur over long time. There is few observational science, but mostly historical science. The above two faith-based beliefs are necessary for evolution to exist and supplant a creator. There is no question this is at the heart of creation science vs evolution science.

What do you have to back up that the polarity of the earth's poles flipped many times and the field drops to near zero?​

Sea floor magnetic anomaly reversals paired off on either side of a spreading center

As far as the moon's distance is concerned, you have some math errors. Distance would have been about half of what it is now, 4.5 billion years ago at a 4cm/year rate. And I actually rounded up from 3.8 so it was probably further away.

And I really want you to tell me what this "observable science" is that says the world is is 6000 years old, because that is bullshit. There is just such an overwhelming amount of data that suggests a much older world that the 6000 year number is laughable.

And you say you believe the theory of quantum mechanics and the Bohr atom model, but somehow you don't accept radioactive decay, which is solid, well understood science. You are very screwed up.

And you didn't answer my question about plate tectonics. How do you square continents moving apart with your 6000 year old world?

You present nothing concrete on seafloor magnetic anomaly. Where is the evidence? I am looking for patterns that they see and already in the solidified magma. I even gave you the patterns NSSN and NSNS in the experiment vid. If that's it, then the experiment shows that it's not pole reversals but properties of magnetism and proximity. I provide science that works and is backed up by scientific reasoning. You provide evo fodder talk.

Show me the errors in the math then.

I just provided you three solid pieces of evidence not based on radiometric dating. Besides, you could not refute the big one against radiometric dating. .Already provided the weaknesses with it. As for the diamonds, they were natural diamonds that were formed due to intense pressure.

One evidence is diamonds found in kimberlite. In this one case, they found an unpetrified piece of wood 300 m deep in the kimberlite. These are like fresh pieces of wood, so the diamonds would not be millions of years old. Secular scientists believed that the kimberlite was 53 millions years old, but if it was, then the would have not been there. Cellulose breaks down rapidly.

Pristine Early Eocene Wood Buried Deeply in Kimberlite from Northern Canada.

Today, scientists can grow diamonds artificially using the same temperature and pressure and carbon in short time. It doesn't take millions of years to form a diamond from carbon. Thus, it wasn't surprising to find C14 still remaining in the natural diamonds. It just goes to show that evos assume that the diamonds are millions of years old. How can one create synthetic diamonds in months using the same temperature and pressure as natural diamonds?

The Difference Between Natural and Synthetic Diamonds

How to Tell If A Diamond Was Grown In A Lab

Source for RATE finding C14 in diamonds
Thousands... Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth by Don DeYoung. Master Books, 2005, 190pp.

The evidence is overwhelming
Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds

Evidence for magnetic anomalies

Plate Tectonics

They are real, detectable, measurable, whatever term you wish to use. You can see the patterns in the picture in the link. You provide nothing that negates the current geophysics theory on anomalies and their formation.

Earth to moon distance - recession now 3.8 cm/year

Moon Fact Sheet

That works out to 171000km over 4.5 billion years. Thats 106,500 miles, less than half the current distance. And as was earlier pointed out recession velocity would be higher after the moon formed, but it would in no way imply a 6000 yo earth.

You need to read your link about the wood in the kimberlite. The wood ended up in the kimberlite at the time of the eruption. The kimberlite and any diamonds therin are ancient. The wood was on the surface, very modern. They are two different things and will date very differently. And of course, the authors date the kimberlite eruption to 53 million years ago which kind of puts a hole in your 6000yo earth ytheory.

We report exceptional preservation of fossil wood buried deeply in a kimberlite pipe that intruded northwestern Canada’s Slave Province 53.3±0.6 million years ago (Ma), revealed during excavation of diamond source rock. The wood originated from forest surrounding the eruption zone and collapsed into the diatreme before resettling in volcaniclastic kimberlite to depths >300 m, where it was mummified in a sterile environment​

Your links do nothing to refute the validity of radiometric dating.

And the Don DeYoung book is the same type of crap you spew here.

And you still haven't answered my question. Do you believe the theory of plate tectonics is valid? Yes or no? Simple answer.

I'm not going to read an argument based on links. What does plate tectonics have to do with magnetic field in your argument?. Why don't you explain briefly an argument that it's suppose to back up?

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Your argument is the moon being half the distance to the earth when it started 4.5 billion years. I think this is impossible and would destroy the earth. The tidal bulges would be enormous. Creation science states that the earth and moon are in perfect distance away from each other to have gravitational effects that makes earth habitable. The distance from the earth and moon was the same around 6,000 years ago. This is also part of the argument why we do not find life on other planets which brings in the fine tuning parameters.

If the moon was around half the distance to where it is now, the closeness and the gravitational pull of the moon would have devastating effects. We would not be able to survive due to the bulging tides. Are you saying that it was catastrophic when the earth and moon was formed or when the solar system was formed?

I have a hard time believing that the wood was "mummified" as they claimed. The wood would deteriorate quickly and wouldn't look that way after 53+ billion years or after several years even with mummification. Also, I presented additional argument and evidence of how synthetic diamonds are grown today using temperature, pressure and carbon. It does not take billions of years for diamonds to form. I notice you conveniently avoid experimental evidence when it disproves your long-time theories. The same as when confronted with how humans came from apes. No bipedal ape exist today. Can they even be taught to walk bipedal?

You're using assertions to back up your precious radiometric dating and I was right you do not know who estimated the earth to be 4.5 B years old.. We do not know what the initial conditions were and assumptions have to be made that we do. Even C14 dating has its problems. To be sure, one has to have something in which the age is known to compare it to. Thus, in that regards, we can have known samples of trees using tree rings. Tree rings aren't full proof either and can be misleading, but we can take a large enough sample size of them. Even if we took the comparison rocks the radiometric analysts use, we would find that C14 still remains in rocks millions and billions of years old when it isn't suppose to. These radiometric analysts were amazed, but were not convinced. These are the oldest rocks on earth, but yet they have C14 remaining in them. It's similar to finding soft tissue in dinosaurs.

Oldest Rocks on Earth Found

Don DeYoung is Chairman of the Department of Physical Science at Grace College, Winona Lake, Indiana and creation physicist. He can only state that he is a creation physicist because he works there. He would not be able to get a job at public universities by stating his beliefs. How fair is that? Today, evolution scientists have completely disregarded what real science, i.e. observational science, is because of evolution and evolutionary thinking. You would think Satan was behind evolution.

Finally, you ask me stupid farking questions like do I believe in plate tectonics? Ever heard of continental drift? That started off with a Christian scientist hypothesizing that the continents weren't separated in the past. Immediately, he was ignored. Only when plate tectonics were discovered that his ideas were accepted. Thus, you can take your lack of logical reasoning and stick it up where the sun don't shine you dumbarse ha ha! Furthermore, we find that plate tectonics is one of the things necessary for life. Other planets do not have it. I know these things and yet you don't. Clair Patterson was the first one who claimed the earth was 4.5 B years old.

Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson

I think now the atheist scientists are claiming the earth is actually 4.6 billion years old. They can't make up their mind. I'm willing to wager the age of the earth will go up once the James Webb telescope comes online and we find universe is 15.6 billion years old. The planets at the edge of our universe would need more time to have formed. What's another two billion years ha ha. A few already claim this now.

ETA: Instead of trying to belittle creation science, it would probably be helpful to learn of it and do the comparisons yourself. Otherwise, you could end up like Mr. Billion of Years in the next life. He will experience drudgery for that long in order to understand and observe what his thinking entails.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

I'm not going to read an argument based on links. What does plate tectonics have to do with magnetic field in your argument?. Why don't you explain briefly an argument that it's suppose to back up?

LOL You won't read an argument based on links? Yet you post links to creationist pap that supports your whacko age of the earth theory.

And I never said anything about plate tectonics having anything to do with the magnetic field. But the magnetic field reversals do show up in the oceanic crustal rocks which is confirmation of sea floor spreading. And the reason I keep asking you if you agree with the theory of plate tectonics is because it is verifiable and measurable. Continental drift is measured continuously by a network of hundreds of GPS receivers and accurate vectors of plate motions have been determined. And it all blows a huge hole in your creationist BS.

I'm done with you. You are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand real science. I've wasted enough time here already.

 

[james bond]

I'm not going to read an argument based on links. What does plate tectonics have to do with magnetic field in your argument?. Why don't you explain briefly an argument that it's suppose to back up?

LOL You won't read an argument based on links? Yet you post links to creationist pap that supports your whacko age of the earth theory.

And I never said anything about plate tectonics having anything to do with the magnetic field. But the magnetic field reversals do show up in the oceanic crustal rocks which is confirmation of sea floor spreading. And the reason I keep asking you if you agree with the theory of plate tectonics is because it is verifiable and measurable. Continental drift is measured continuously by a network of hundreds of GPS receivers and accurate vectors of plate motions have been determined. And it all blows a huge hole in your creationist BS.

I'm done with you. You are either too ignorant or too brainwashed to understand real science. I've wasted enough time here already.

It's not pap, but creation science. Furthermore, you could not refute the radioactive carbon, C14, left in the diamonds nor oldest stones. If they are billions of years old, then the C14 would be gone. The atheist scientists just assumed they were gone and never tested. Furthermore, I provided an housglass analogy that shows radiometric dating advocates made assumptions beyond what one can make. Clair Patterson probably got some kind of recognition and award for his work. Like I said, I studied evolution using my alma mater's website on it. I also have been comparing it to what creation scientists have been saying and I decided they were more right than the atheist scientists. What was galling was how systematically the creation scientists were eliminated from secular science. That's why I seek to tell the truth. There is God urging me on or providing the motivation, but I gravitated towards the science right away. It was like opening a new worldview into my existence. I could've just sat back and accepted Christianity without focusing on the science, but the religion is more difficult than the science. I focused on the science parts first and put aside the people parts until later.

I think the magnetic pole reversals have been misread. We know that magnetite in the lava is affected by proximity to other magnetite first. Thus, they would line up in the NSNS or NSSN pattern and the weaker bond between NS-NS and NS-SN. When the ocean's crust hardens, we see these patterns in the rocks and scientists thought the polarity had reversed. My view is in the minority, but I can explain it. I can't explain magnetic field dynamo based on heat convection from radioactive decay. The decay doesn't happen rapidly enough and is uneven. What I think how the magnetic field works is related to gravity. Here's a couple of videos you can investigate if you're interested in this stuff.



Well, several physicists think plate tectonics help with the heat convection which powers the dynamo. You did not explain how the magnetic field dynamo works. I'm working on my own findings.. I'm not sure about if the dynamo is true if countries send satellites to monitor, track and study it. They are concerned the magnetic field is weakening.

I am sure that plate tectonics help trap CO2. That's why PT is necessary to sustain life. Many planets do not have it like Venus.

Instead of judging my creation science, why don't you critique the atheists? I still don't know how GPS receivers blow a hole in creation science.

Moreover, you can't explain the recession of the moon and distance between earth and the moon either. Neither can the atheist scientists. I understand.

At one time, I believed the earth was 4.5 B yrs old, but what bothered me was the news kept reporting this. Why keep reporting what was a fact? Then, I realized that some richer and higher powers wanted the masses to believe this. Probably to sell GMO or mutations down the road. Remember, the atheist scientists say that GMO foods and GM humans are perfectly safe. They will want you to buy mutation products for longer and healthier life. Wait until their cells start to react over time. Mutations are not usually positive, but evos believe they are natural because they are the basis for macroevolution. We do not observe macroevolution. Otherwise, someone would have been able to produce and evolve a tetrapod from fish.

I think you should find out stuff for yourself since you seem to have an interest in science. Don't just believe what the atheist scientists tell you like humans from apes or the earth produces its own magnetic field via dynamo and the pole reverses. Have you ever seen a pole reverse on an electric motor? It's not straightforward on how to do this.

 

[Syriusly]

I am going to declare victory and bow out of this discussion.

James rejects science in favor of his faith- which is his choice.

But there is no arguing with a person who rejects all of the real science and believes in quack theories pretending to be science.

So I will let him continue to believe his fairy tales in peace- at least in this thread.

Ha ha. How can you declare victory when you spewed nothing but assertions? I provided all the evidence while you provided nothing, as usual. For example, how can an ape-human who has the same cranial capacity as a chimp learn to walk upright? If your ape-humans had larger cranial capacity, then it would be taken more seriously by creation scientists. BTW, it's not just a few skulls that are small.

 

[DOTR]

I am not sure why you wish to conflate school shootings with Creationists or what 'culture' has been destroyed.

I dont conflate school shootings with creationists. I am warning you not to. When creationists held sway in our schools there were far fewer school shootings.

 

[DOTR]

I shouldnt bring this up..because the point of this post is that I *cant* back it up.

I saw an article a few years back that listed the way the various forms of dating dovetailed with each other. it was a brilliant explanation of how everything from ice cores to tree rings to molecular clocks and dozens more dating systems all agree.

I wish I had saved the article.

 

[DOTR]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

By the way it isnt "coincidental. Both cats and seals are therian mammals with a common ancestor which did have whiskers. Some mammals, like humans, have lost them.

 

[james bond]

Welp, let's stick to the topic and we find no peer-reviewed paper on monkeys/chimps/apes to humans or monkeys/chimps/apes to ape-humans. Thus, it's victory for the creation scientists.

ETA: You haven't been listening. Creation scientists can't get their papers reviewed by secular scientists because of prejudice and discrimination. That isn't science. They have to get other creation scientists to peer-review their work. Anything that disproves evolution will not be peer-reviewed per atheist scientists.

Here is an example
More Peer-Reviewed Papers Critical of Evolution

 

[james bond]

Here's the peer-review by real scientists. Evolution debunked. Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize. The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination. Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.

Assessing the RATE Project
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf

End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That is not peer reviews science, liar. That is an opinion piece written by a charlatan, and it is an opinion rejected by the scientific community. You really are some kind of fraud.

 

[james bond]

That is not peer reviews science, liar. Thtat is an opinion piece written by a charlatan, and it is an opinion rejected by the scientific community. You really are some kind of fraud.

First, there is no peer reviews science. It's scientific papers that are peer reviewed or scientific peer reviews of new discoveries. I asked for a peer review of apes to humans and no reply. Thus, it was another victory for creation science and the thread has come to a forgone conclusion.

You should just stick to your comfort level of internet atheist, one of the lowest level of atheist there is. They want testable and falsifiable science and when they get it, they realize that it's the Christians who have it and the evolutionists don't. Why don't you stick with playing pigeon chess? Join a pigion chess club. At least, you'll get out of the basement of your parents house, get some fresh air, exercise and you may shed some of that adipose tissue.

You really can't put 2 + 2 together can you? (Don't worry. You'll have billion of years to figure it out.) Not only did you not understand the link I posted, but you didn't read it. And why are you trying to read a peer-review paper? It will just go over your head. It's not for uneducated internet atheists like you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

First, there is no peer reviews science. It's scientific papers that are peer reviewed or scientific peer reviews of new discoveries

Which is peer reviews science

Oh look, 1000 pages of verbal.masrurbation...and you're still on the worng side of history and of all the evidence. How frustrating it must be for you!

 

[Syriusly]

I am not sure why you wish to conflate school shootings with Creationists or what 'culture' has been destroyed.

I dont conflate school shootings with creationists. I am warning you not to. When creationists held sway in our schools there were far fewer school shootings.

And more typewriters also.

 

[Syriusly]

Here's the peer-review by real scientists. Evolution debunked. Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize. The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination. Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.

Assessing the RATE Project
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf

End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING

1. There is overwhelming evidence of more
than 500 million years worth of radioactive
decay.
2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific
studies indicate a young earth.
3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have
been accelerated by approximately a factor
of one billion during the first three days of
creation and during the Flood.

LOL

 

[james bond]

First, there is no peer reviews science. It's scientific papers that are peer reviewed or scientific peer reviews of new discoveries

Which is peer reviews science

Oh look, 1000 pages of verbal.masrurbation...and you're still on the worng side of history and of all the evidence. How frustrating it must be for you!

smh. You are a hopeless case Mr. BOY as you do not even understand basic English. No sense staying here I have moved on.

 

[ChesBayJJ]

Reliability of radiometric dating
So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].

Reliability of Geologic Dating

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.​

 

[james bond]

Here's the peer-review by real scientists. Evolution debunked. Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize. The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination. Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.

Assessing the RATE Project
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf

End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING

1. There is overwhelming evidence of more
than 500 million years worth of radioactive
decay.
2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific
studies indicate a young earth.
3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have
been accelerated by approximately a factor
of one billion during the first three days of
creation and during the Flood.

LOL

It wasn't just dirt (carbon). We had to have God's breath of life. And to carbon we will return. Isn't this hypothesis based on observation? Can humans create just a body from carbon?

Speaking of carbon, you could not explain why C14 remains in fossils and diamonds.which were 53+ million of years old. I'm sure that fossils are found in older rock layers with same as stated. Furthermore, #3 is why radiometric dating does not work as you think. It's difficult for you to believe because as I stated many times your "faith" in uniformitarianism. I've already pointed out rapid changes in natural selection and earth showing stratification such as Mt. St. Helens. You're sill using the same dodgy and faulty arguments. Even secular scientists are admitting to the power of catastrophism.

I also observe that the atheist holding the sign has some adipose tissue. Fort Fun Indiana didn't deny. Are you also? Maybe going on religious fasts will do you wonders and be a healthy endeavor for body and soul.

With this, I have moved on.

 

[Syriusly]

I shouldnt bring this up..because the point of this post is that I *cant* back it up.

I saw an article a few years back that listed the way the various forms of dating dovetailed with each other. it was a brilliant explanation of how everything from ice cores to tree rings to molecular clocks and dozens more dating systems all agree.

I wish I had saved the article.

I think that there are several articles like that.

Here's the peer-review by real scientists. Evolution debunked. Unfortunately, creation scientists will never be in the running for a Nobel Prize. The dream of getting one isn't real because secular science will never peer-review or publish their papers due to prejudice and discrimination. Somehow, I think it will work out well for them in the end.

Assessing the RATE Project
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2007/PSCF6-07Isaac.pdf

End of Long Age Radiometric Dating article
THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING

1. There is overwhelming evidence of more
than 500 million years worth of radioactive
decay.
2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific
studies indicate a young earth.
3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have
been accelerated by approximately a factor
of one billion during the first three days of
creation and during the Flood.

LOL

It wasn't just dirt (carbon). .

 

[james bond]

Reliability of radiometric dating
So, are radiometric methods foolproof? Just how reliable are these dates?
As with any experimental procedure in any field of science, these measurements are subject to certain "glitches" and "anomalies," as noted in the literature. Skeptics of old-earth geology make great hay of these examples. For example, creationist writer Henry Morris [Morris2000, pg. 147] has highlighted the fact that measurements of specimens from a 1801 lava flow near a volcano in Hualalai, Hawaii gave apparent ages (using the Potassium-Argon method) ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years, citing a 1968 study [Funkhouser1968]. In the particular case that Morris highlighted, the lava flow was unusual because it included numerous xenoliths (typically consisting of olivine, an iron-magnesium silicate material) that are foreign to the lava, having been carried from deep within the earth but not completely melted in the lava. Also, as the authors of the 1968 article were careful to explain, xenoliths cannot be dated by the K-Ar method because of excess argon in bubbles trapped inside [Dalrymple2006]. Thus in this case, as in many others that have been raised by skeptics of old-earth geology, the "anomaly" is more imaginary than real. Other objections raised by creationists are addressed in [Dalrymple2006a].

Reliability of Geologic Dating

Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.​

Again, the main argument for radiometric dating is the faith-based theory of uniformitarianism and the long, long, long ages necessary for evolution. You admit that radiometric dating does not work in water and that it would be reset in a local flood. Thus, why not a global flood?