Real Science Confirms A Much Younger Earth [Spirituality & Religion]

@newjaninev2 [quote]‘Real' science where this shyster says "don’t get bogged down in too many details"??!! and then immediately goes on to confound carbon dating and radiometric dating?[/quote]

Carbon dating and radiometric dating are not reliable sources to determine the exact age of our planet.

@GodSpeed63 because?

@newjaninev2 [quote]because?[/quote]

The use of carbon-14 dating is often misunderstood. Carbon-14 is mostly used to date once-living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can potentially be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds could contain carbon-14). Because of the rapid rate of decay of 14C, it can only give dates in the thousands-of-year range and not millions.

All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.

Does that answer your question?

@GodSpeed63 I don’t recall asking a question about this.

Nevertheless, you have indeed highlighted the error made from the outset in the video clip.

Perhaps you should note that the assumption made in radiometric dating is that the physical laws of the universe haven’t changed in the last 4.5 billion years.

Do you have some reason to think that they have?

@newjaninev2 [quote] I don’t recall asking a question about this. [/quote]

You wanted to know about carbon dating and radiometric dating and I told you.

@GodSpeed63 [quote]You wanted to know about carbon dating and radiometric dating[/quote]

Incorrect

I pointed out to you that the guy in the video [i]confounds[/i] carbon dating and radiometric dating.

As you pointed out above, they’re two different things, but because he’s a shyster who is deliberately misleading his audience he quite blithely goes ahead and pretends that they’re equivalent.

In reality, Andrew Snelling just another AIG hack

@newjaninev2 [quote]Incorrect[/quote]

Are you saying that science, itself, is incorrect? Read your text books, the information I gave you is correct.

@GodSpeed63 I’m quite certain that you don’t actually read other people’s replies.

Or you’re an astonishingly disingenuous coward.

Which is it?

Either way you’re certainly a poster-boy for creationist bewilderment 😀

@GodSpeed63 Perhaps you missed this... or, more likely, you didn’t;t bother reading it.

Here’s the reality check again:

I pointed out to you that the guy in the video confounds carbon dating and radiometric dating.

As you pointed out above, they’re two different things, but because he’s a shyster who is deliberately misleading his audience he quite blithely goes ahead and pretends that they’re equivalent.

@newjaninev2 [quote]I pointed out to you that the guy in the video confounds carbon dating and radiometric dating.[/quote]

How, according to you, does he do that?