The Lie: Radioactive Dating Is Trustworthy - The Truth: Radioactive Dating Is not Trustworthy

What makes me laugh about you insane people is that you push your ludicrous anti-science agenda using devices that are wholly the result of science. Next time, why not put your phone down or switch your computer off and transmit your post by prayer, then simply have faith that we'll all receive it...?

I really love this post! The straightforward reading of Scripture, reveals that the days of creation (Genesis 1) were literal days, and that the earth is just thousands of years old and not billions. There appears to be a fundamental conflict between the Bible and the reported ages, given by radioisotope dating. Since God is the Creator of all things (including science), and His Word is true (“Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth,” John 17:17), the true age of the earth must agree with His Word. However, rather than accept the biblical account of creation, many have accepted the radioisotope dates of billions of years and attempted to fit long ages into the Bible. The implications of doing this are profound, and affect many parts of the Bible.

Did you think all the evidence for the age of the Earth came from carbon-14? Let me tell you, our world is filled with many different kinds of

[sep][sep][center]CLOCKS[/center][sep][sep]
Visit any limestone cave. Stalactites grow at a rate of about 1mm per 10 years. So a 10 meter stalactite has been growing about 100,000 years. And close examination of cross sections shows the year by year layering (where rainfall is seasonal). These stalactites can be found all over the world. The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating.

Tree rings are clocks. The oldest living tree goes back about 4800 years. But wood from dead trees can contain records of volcanic events, thus extending the record back much farther.
[quote] Originally developed for climate science, the method is now an invaluable tool for archaeologists, who can track up to 13,000 years of history using tree ring chronologies for over 4,000 sites on six continents.[/quote]The ages are corroborated by radiometric carbon dating (establishing age by measuring ratios of radioactive vs stable isotopes).

Seasonal snowfall on glaciers accumulates to form countable layers. Greenland ice sheet layers can be counted back about 110,000 years. The ages are corroborated by radiometric dating. Other glaciers go back as far as 700,000 years, but on those the older data is mostly radiometric dating.

Salt flows from rocks into lakes and the ocean. If no salt left the ocean, that would give an age of 50 million to 70 million years. However, various geologic processes cause salt to leave the ocean at about the rate it's entering, so 50 million to 70 million years becomes a minimum estimate of the age of the earth.

Layering of sedimentary rocks - such as in the Grand Canyon - forms a series of clocks. These layers correspond to different stages in the evolution of life on the planet. The layers can be dated by positional order (bottom layer formed first), sedimentation rate, age of fossils found in the layer, and of course, radiometric dating. There are five main isotope pairs used for dating sedimentary rocks as well as the 'fissile track' method; you can read about it all here:
https://australian.museum/learn/minerals/shaping-earth/radioactive-dating/


Then there's all the fossils of extinct animals found in the rock layers. They're not exactly a clock, but they are an indicator of the vast amounts of time over which evolution occurs.

Of course outer space offers many clocks. Accumulation of craters on airless bodies like the Moon forms a clock. Shells of glowing gas left over from novas and supernovas form clocks (the Lambda Orionis Ring is about 1 million years old). The redshift of light from galaxies billions of light years away form clocks. The Hubble expansion of the universe forms a clock. The frequency shift of big bang radiation to form the cosmic microwave background is a clock.

No one clock is perfect, but they all corroborate each other pretty well, and they ALL give life FAR MORE than 6000 years to evolve.

If you argue "God hid those dinosaur bones (and all the isotopes used for dating) in the rocks" I can't disprove it. If you argue "God built all those layers into the glaciers and into stalactites, made the nova remnants appear millions of years old, etc." I can't disprove it. But you've got to ask yourself, why would God put all these inter-corroborating clocks all over the Earth and all thru the galaxy if they were all false???

It's "radio[i]metric[/i] dating" and the rate of isotope decay is very consistent, and is not affected by environmental changes like heat, temperature, and pressure. This makes radiometric dating quite reliable. An error margin of 2–5% has been achieved. Radiometric dating of rocks and minerals using naturally occurring, long-lived radioactive isotopes is troublesome for young-earth creationists because the techniques have provided overwhelming evidence of the antiquity of the earth and life (NCSC, Chemical Geology).

Brent Dalrymple, a premier expert in the field., wrote [Dalrymple2004, pg. 80-81]:

"These methods provide valid age data in most instances, although there is a small percentage of instances in which even these generally reliable methods yield incorrect results. Such failures may be due to laboratory errors (mistakes happen), unrecognized geologic factors (nature sometimes fools us), or misapplication of the techniques (no one is perfect).

"We scientists who measure isotope ages do not rely entirely on the error estimates and the self-checking features of age diagnostic diagrams to evaluate the accuracy of radiometric ages. Whenever possible we design an age study to take advantage of other ways of checking the reliability of the age measurements. The simplest means is to repeat the analytical measurements in order to check for laboratory errors. Another method is to make age measurements on several samples from the same rock unit. This technique helps identify post-formation geologic disturbances because different minerals respond differently to heating and chemical changes. The isochron techniques are partly based on this principle.

"The use of different dating methods on the same rock is an excellent way to check the accuracy of age results. If two or more radiometric clocks based on different elements and running at different rates give the same age, that’s powerful evidence that the ages are probably correct."

Any argument that uses misinformation, chicanery and outright lies is itself a unfounded and not sound.

[quote]She left because she didn't want debate with someone whose intellect was going hay-wire.[/quote]

Exactly. And because of his name-calling from the beginning. He wasn't interested in anything but calling people names, even to you. Every reply of his was an obvious attempt at argument. I have no interest in that and told him so. You know I've never backed down from answering questions, but this guy was just rude. Notice he couldn't answer my questions/statements, so he resorted to saying I couldn't keep up with him intellectually, as my reason for leaving. I think it's quite the opposite, but I wasn't going to be pulled into his ignorant accusations, so I let it go. I don't know where these guys come out of the woodwork like this and think they can talk to people anyway they like. Such arrogance. I don't reply to nor entertain trolls like him, who have no respect for others. Had he addressed me properly without name calling and accusing me of being delusional, (which is nothing but childishness), I would have been happy to give him the same respect that I showed him from the beginning, but he should be old enough to realize that when you don't respect others' feelings and comments without the necessity of attempted bullying and calling names, you get nothing in return.

I believe it is man's own pride that keeps him in unbelief. There is no evidence good enough for those who have already determined to pre-judge God.

Arrogant man, says to God: "SHOW ME me, and THEN I'll believe!"
God says: "Believe, and THEN I'll show you."

And He certainly does.

Radioisotope dating clearly does not always work, because we have tested it on rocks of known age. One such test was ran in 1997.

Actually his Word does not give testimony to him creating the Earth 6,000 years ago.

Nowhere in scripture does it say the Earth is 6000 years old.

It is the assumption of the translators and pass down through the centuries that God created the Earth 6,000 years ago and Adam's sinned basically within days after God formed and placed him here.

They don't know how long Adam was here before he sinned. Adam could have been here a 1, 2, 3 hundred thousand years or even a million man's time.

Adam had access to the Tree of Life, then they'll say he never ate from it - how do they know, they wasn't there. Then they'll say the Bible doesn't say he did - there's a lot of things the Bible doesn't say. God told him when he put him in the garden he could eat of every tree except the fruit of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life was in the midst of the garden.

Please where in the Bible God's Word say he created the Earth 6,000 years ago.

Amen, seems that a few on SW want to do everything they can to comment on their disbelief. Sadly all we can do is feel sorry for them and continue to seek God's spirit.

Nowhere does it say in the Old Testament that the Earth was formed 6000 years ago.

Aww, LadyGrace blocked me and hid her comments because I posed a question she was incapable of answering. I guess I should count that as her graceful submission...😏

What has this dribble to do with spirituality?

The writers of Genesis knew nothing about radioactivity.

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡


https://ncse.ngo/radiometric-dating-does-work

[media=https://youtu.be/w5369-OobM4]