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]

@Sharon
Can't you get anything right, Sharon. Use your head besides a hat rack, will you?

@GodSpeed63 Prove me wrong then, or forfeit.

@GodSpeed63


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

Try again:

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?


Or has that question got you by the short and curlies? 🤔

@canusernamebemyusername

lol objectively correct.

@canusernamebemyusername I'm gettin' me one of the stripey stick thangs. Want me some zebras.

@GodSpeed63 LOL! What imaginary friends do you imagine I have? FYI, I have real friends so I don't need imaginary ones like you do.

@Sharon
The ones that you lie about not believing in.

@GodSpeed63 Such as? Or were you lying again?

@Pikachu It is entertaining, but disturbing, to read.

@Pikachu
@Bushranger
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.

@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.

@Viper

lol well aside from volcanic rock the "new" stuff is still very old and already claimed

@Pikachu darn it :(

@Viper you snooze you lose🤷‍♀️

@GermanAf

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.

@Pikachu 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.

@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

@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.

@CynicGirl

lol maybe the question was actually just too and the more thoughtful YECs stayed away.