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]

@GodSpeed63

You've misunderstood the point.

The fact that oil companies are so concerned with making money shows that radiometric dating is a reliable and accurate means to show the age of the earth because if it were not then it wouldn't dependably lead them to oil.

...but it does.
So your choice is either to deny that radiometric dating works and imagine that all these oil companies or betting billions of dollars on it anyway....or you need to accept the truth that radiometric dating is accurate and all that, that means.

@Pikachu
Nope, radiometric dating is not a reliable source, let a lone accurate. It's off by billions of years where the age of the earth is concerned. The Truth is, that the earth is still young and the oil companies are more concerned about make money than they do the age of the earth.

@GodSpeed63


Then how are oil companies using it so reliably to find oil?

[quote] oil companies are more concerned about make money than they do the age of the earth.[/quote

Absolutely.
But in order to make money they need to reliably find oil and they employ radiometric dating to help them.
Which brings us back to the first point.
If radiometric dating is unreliable, then how are oil companies using it so reliably to find oil.

That was a straight question. Time for a straight answer....if you can manage it.

@GodSpeed63
So I take it you can provide a source to support that statement. I think we'd all like to see it.

But I'll start. Here's two sites that talk about the accuracy and some issues with radiometric dating: https://ncse.ngo/radiometric-dating-does-work and https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/reliability.php

The first one is interesting because it looks at the testing done on lava flows that have been independently dated.

@Pikachu @Bushranger
Good for them but it's still doesn't make it a reliable source to determine the age of the earth.

@GodSpeed63 Did you miss my post? Can you provide a source to support your claim? Confirming the results of radiometric dating with rocks of a known age doesn't count?

@GodSpeed63


This is a straight question so i'll expect you to give a straight answer:

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?

@Bushranger @Pikachu
Can you honestly say that, without a shadow of a doubt, with all your book learning, that radiometric dating is extremely accurate with no faults what-so-ever?

@GodSpeed63

I asked you a straight question, Godspeed. Where's your straight answer?

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?


Answer it or prove yourself a liar.


Radiometric dating is extremely accurate. That's why oil companies bet MILLIONS on its accuracy. There are several different radioactive isotopes that are used in radiometric dating and they confirm the accuracy of the others AS WELL AS corresponding to KNOWN ages.
Are there mistakes? Of course but bad news for young earth: the error margin is still well outside the 6-10 thousand years that your model demands.

*mic drop*

@Pikachu
True science says otherwise. Let it go at that.

@GodSpeed63

lololol Try again.

I asked you a straight question, Godspeed. Where's your straight answer?

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?


Answer it or prove yourself a liar.

@GodSpeed63
You made the statement that you probably understood science better than myself. I take it then, that you have had some sort of formal training in science. If so, you would have been introduced to statistics and experimental design. When samples of anything are tested, there are some differences in the samples and in the results of the testing. For example, many years ago research was done into how much people could remember (unfortunately I can't find a reference to this right now). It was determined that the number of items was 7 +/-2. In other words, 7 was the mean number and 5 and 9 were within the statistically acceptable range. Some people could only recall less and other more, but to the figures 5 to 9 were within the accepted significant differences.

Similarly, in the natural sciences, there can be differences in sampling and testing, but statistical analysis determines the appropriate mean and significant differences. Let's look at sampling lava flows. To be done correctly, random samples would be taken from a given flow. Samples containing xenoliths may be discarded for obvious reason, but samples would accepted provided they were selected randomly. During testing there will be differences in results due to numerous factors, so individual samples will be tested numerous times. The results of these tests would then be subjected to statistical analysis, providing the mean age and the range of ages determined by the results. Generally speaking, results within 2 standard deviations are accepted as significant. From memory, I think that this generally works out to about a 5% range of dates. So a rock dated at, say, 63,000,000 years could be between 59,850,000 and 66,150,000 years. But to make things easy, a Geologist will say the rock is 63,000,000 years old. Other geologists realise and accept that there is a range of ages possible for that given sample, as will anyone with any training in or understanding of science.

So I'll agree the accuracy may not be exact in laymans terms, but is statistically accurate. Have there been mistakes in dating? Sure, but they usually get found out and corrected by further testing. That's how science works, publish a result and be prepared to have them questioned and tested by others in that particular field. But having a good understanding of science, you already knew that.

@GodSpeed63
That doesn't sound like a straight answer.

@Bushranger It's a tacit admission he can't prove what he says so he's running away again.

@Sharon
@Bushranger

lol to the surprise of literally no one.

@Sharon @Pikachu I go to all the trouble of writing a response to our little friend while half-drunk, only to have him totally ignore it. Oh well, situation normal 🤣

@Bushranger You still make more sense when half drunk than he ever manages.

@Sharon Thanks, but I should really stop doing it. Responding when half drunk, not getting half drunk lol.

But it would be nice if he would participate in a reasonable debate.

@Bushranger

lol of of course. If it cant be answered by "prove yahweh doesn't live" or "won't wash" then he retreats.

@Pikachu I'm sure he's got a spreadsheet of responses. Just has to copy and paste to respond. Like you said, though, when it gets out of his acceptable parameters, he's lost. Perhaps we could help him out by inventing some new responses for him, lol.

@Bushranger

I find it more fun to use his own responses against him lol

@Pikachu Yes, but they are getting just a touch repetitive, lol. Mind you, I don't seem to get a lot of responses from him, lol.

@Pikachu It's funny how he claims his own words "won't wash" when they're used against him.

@Pikachu @Bushranger @Sharon
This only proves that you guys are deluded, you've been believing your own lies since I've known you. This also proves that you have nothing to show for all of your nonsense.

@GodSpeed63 Won't wash. Keep trying, Godspeed. 😎