Radiometric Dating Games

On my front page today (youtube front page) I was debating with along time rival evolutionist for quite sometime now.  He brought up the issue of give a fact that would falsify evolution.  There are a few things that would falsify evolution but the lack of critical thinking hinders the evolutionary mind that they can’t see pass the indoctrination of what they are lead to believe. 

So I brought up the issue of radiometric dating and the dating problems.  My long time debator is so sure that the dating methods are solid.  However they are not.  There is indeed rock that has been dated into the millions of years range, but the problem is the rock is only several hundred years old.

The way that my colleague and other evolutionist get away around that is to let the accusations fly.  They say things like “creationist don’t use the right tools,” or “creationist don’t know what they are talking about because they are ignorant,” yada, yada is what I say.

Here is the problem with the accusations in my opinion.  If you say a sample for example is contaminated which I have heard is the problem well that means the other samples can be contaminated as well to give a false reading of a million years, there is no difference.  If recent rock can date into the millions who’s to say that the rock that has been tested in the millions isn’t contaminated and simply is recent rock no older than a few thousand years?

I presented him with links to what the creationist have documented and they do get their results in some cases right from evolutionary info with the contradictions there, but the evolutionist will still be in denial.  Kinda like living fossils. 

If you have living fossils with incorrect dating methods what do you actually have?  You actually have living fossils that are not millions of years old because that would be a stretch of the imagination to see something virtually unchanged for millions of years like the environmental pressures wouldn’t change something with all that time to do so.  And the rock that dates into the millions only being a few hundred years old is actually young.  So put the two together and you actually have young fossils that are living and I hate that word living fossils, no they are animals or plants that have been hear a short time just like the rocks have LOL.

For more information on the research done that shows the problems with radiometric dating see the link:  http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating_problems

It’s a fact that they don’t tell you all the problems.  Just indoctrinate you.

Advertisements

One Response to “Radiometric Dating Games”

  1. egoeimi3 Says:

    LOL. I like the acusation without showing or linking us to who did the test to say we “deliberately use the tools wrong”

    That sounds more like something that would be thrown out in a court of law. Sorry, youngman, but creationist that have had public debates and if you do a little digging have sent many of the samples to evolutionary geological labs and had it tested. ANd we make a note that if you test rock by all the different methods that rock is tested by it gives a wide variety of data. They just pick the data that fits the wolrld view. For example, if you test rock with Kr-Argon and then by lets say Isochron dating and the Kr-Argon gave a date of 25 billion, but the Isochron gave a date of 2 billion, well they take the 2 billion b/c the earth isn’t 25 billion so they calibrate it to the age they want. ANd this is what they hid from the public. One method gives something outlandish and another gives what they want for example. And you can find many examples like that.

    “The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods

    By John Woodmorappe. 1999”

    Is a book done by the above man who of course has been crticized and said to not know what he is talking about b/c he speaks against geology in the evolutionary interpetation and yes he has a degree in geology. He gives the documentation using dates done by evolutionist not creationist LOL.

    And please publish in Nature magaizine for exmaple doesn’t make it obselete LOL. You are very naive if you think that Nature magazine or any peer review is law and can’t do any wrong and that there isn’t any bias. Please they are totally bias against an opposing worldview and they will vote down anything that competes with evolutionary worldview and therefore it’s all unscientific and the creationist scientist are censored. Therefore, if peer review shoot it down and the public hears this then it must be after all non-scientific. LOL talk about the dishonest ones.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: