Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Radiometric dating shows an ancient earth but Young Earth Creationists want to believe that is isn't reliable. Just guess. Well answer me this: [Spirituality & Religion]

[b]If radiometric dating isn't reliable the why does big oil use it in order to find oil?[/b]
These guys are very. very interested in making money. If it didn't work reliably then surely they wouldn't be using it.

Thoughts?
KuroNeko · 41-45, F
I think it's probably better to spend time not arguing with or getting mad over what fools think.
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]They're your imaginary friends[/quote]
LOL! What imaginary friends do you imagine I have? FYI, I have real friends so I don't need imaginary ones like you do.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Sharon [quote]What imaginary friends do you imagine I have?[/quote]

The ones that you lie about not believing in.
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]The ones that you lie about not believing in.[/quote]
Such as? Or were you lying again?
The only deposits are clearly labeled in the Bible. Along with the instructions for making antibiotics next to the passage about how to make stripped livestock.
You just need the right interpretation and only true belivers™ have that.
@canusernamebemyusername

lol objectively correct.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@canusernamebemyusername I'm gettin' me one of the stripey stick thangs. Want me some zebras.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
Making money isn't th same as learning the Truth. Even though they use radiometric dating, doesn't mean they're that interested in archeology. They're only purpose is to find oil and make money, like you said, instead of seeking the truth on the age of the earth.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Sharon [quote]No, he just sends them to Hell, to be tortured for eternity, because he loves them.[/quote]

Can't you get anything right, Sharon. Use your head besides a hat rack, will you?
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 [quote]Can't you get anything right,[/quote]
Prove me wrong then, or forfeit.
@GodSpeed63

[quote]They've already been answered.[/quote]

Hey there lil' buddy. Couldn't help noticing you responded to bushranger and sharon there but neglected to answer that question.

Try again:

[b][i]God as your witness, did you answer this question?

Question: in your mind, what is the difference between using radiometric dating to tell the age of a rock showing an old earth and using radiometric dating reliably tell the age of the rock which is demonstrably effective given its consistency for finding oil?
[/i][/b]

Or has that question got you by the short and curlies? 🤔
G00GLE · 22-25, M
People that still dispute scientific facts are beyond saving. Just let 'em die in their deluded beliefs.
@G00GLE

There are definitely people who are too enmeshed in their faith to ever acknowledge where science refutes their beliefs...but for the less entrenched this kind of thing might give them pause.
Sharon · F
@Pikachu [quote]but for the less entrenched this kind of thing might give them pause.[/quote]
I agree. The problem is that, if creationist BS isn't challenged, vulnerable people will be deceived and ripe for exploitation.
@Sharon

That's true. I think the willingness to deny science where it contradicts faith is not something we want to be teaching people.
CynicGirl · 26-30, F
wtf radiometric dating is extremely reliable.. dont discuss with idiots like this godspeed imbecile that dont understand it
@CynicGirl

lol maybe the question was actually just too and the more thoughtful YECs stayed away.
Budwick · 70-79, M
So, the ability to find oil, proves the Earth is old?

That's quite a leap of faith! LOL
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Pikachu It is entertaining, but disturbing, to read.
Sharon · F
@Pikachu [quote]it's a mistake we see a lot from YEC.[/quote]

@Bushranger [quote]Don't know why some people only seem to know about carbon dating[/quote]

It's because they're being disingenuous. They do the same with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. They can't refute the genuine theory so they produce their own, deliberately flawed, version and falsely present it as the genuine theory. They then proceed to rip it apart by pointing out all the flaws.

We know C-14 dating is no good for dating things more than a few tens of thousand years old, so scientists use other radio-isotopes instead. Often they use more than one method in order to corroborate the results. It suits the YECs purpose to falsely claim that scientists use inappropriate methods because, they can then argue that the results are invalid.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Sharon I think it Kent Hovind in one of his videos, who held up a piece of fossilised bone and claimed that it couldn't be radiocarbon dated. So if they couldn't radiocarbon date a bone, then it's obviously faulty. I know I don't have to point out the glaring faults in this, but I think it goes to your point. The gurus of YEC make these disingenuous comments, but their acolytes accept the comments without question.

Prior to the early 90s, this attitude could be understood. But, with our current access to the internet, it is unconscionable. We have ready access to more knowledge than at any time in our history and people are still unwilling to seek the facts.
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
They are a threat to society. They must be exterminated like cancer cells, bad apples, etc...
@Tastyfrzz

That seems a bit harsh. Also unnecessary because there are fewer and fewer young earth creationists year by year.
It just does not work as a model lol
Tastyfrzz · 61-69, M
@Pikachu I'm not kidding. They are the future Trumpists. Get rid of them.
@Tastyfrzz

Nah. Exterminating people based on religious belief is an unacceptable policy.
Viper · M
So does it show that everything ancient, or does is show some young and some ancient?

So where is the new earth growing?
@Viper

lol well aside from volcanic rock the "new" stuff is still very old and already claimed
Viper · M
@Pikachu darn it :(
@Viper you snooze you lose🤷‍♀️

 
Post Comment