Radioactive dating

[Revmitchell]

Not every difference. But when we attack and twist the truth about something just because we think it belongs to the other side of a different view, that is tribalism. When we do this, it is very difficult to see that we are doing it.

Who does this and how do you know that is their motivation?

 

[HankD]

Not every difference. But when we attack and twist the truth about something just because we think it belongs to the other side of a different view, that is tribalism. When we do this, it is very difficult to see that we are doing it.

OK yes, so there can be tribalism in the tension between theology and science.
It doesn't have to be war.

Faith versus the scientific imperatives (Hypothesis,Theory, Law).

Many atheist/agnostic folks are now accepting the theory of intelligent design (ID).
Do a google.

Here is a good place of common ground to have discussions with your friends of the other "tribe".
Irreducible Complexity (IC) - research it, scan the web for "examples of irreducible complexity"

you don't need to be a brain surgeon (but it would help).
then present it to your other tribe friends.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Who does this and how do you know that is their motivation?

Creation science websites. ICR, AIG.

Their twisting of the truth is very easy to see if you look at their sources. They state their motivations on their websites.

The Big Bang

AIG states right off the bat that the Big Bang is based on naturalism and secularism when lemaitre, the discoverer of the Big Bang was a catholic who believes the opposite.

 

[Revmitchell]

Creation science websites. ICR, AIG.

Their twisting of the truth is very easy to see if you look at their sources. They state their motivations on their websites.

The Big Bang

AIG states right off the bat that the Big Bang is based on naturalism and secularism when lemaitre, the discoverer of the Big Bang was a catholic who believes the opposite.

OK you have not proven you know their motivation. It appears that you have assigned this motivation so as to place them in the worst possible light. Further, your constant misuse of the word "tribalism" does you no good toward your credibility.

 

[Gold Dragon]

OK yes, so there can be tribalism in the tension between theology and science.
It doesn't have to be war.

Faith versus the scientific imperatives (Hypothesis,Theory, Law).

Many atheist/agnostic folks are now accepting the theory of intelligent design (ID).
Do a google.

Here is a good place of common ground to have discussions with your friends of the other "tribe".
Irreducible Complexity (IC) - research it, scan the web for "examples of irreducible complexity"

you don't need to be a brain surgeon (but it would help).
then present it to your other tribe friends.

Yes. I am very aware of ID and irreducible complexity for over 20 years. And while I agree with the more general premise of complexity and creation as a whole pointing to an intelligent designer, I disagree with their belief that the mathematical concept of irreducible complexity (which is more philosophical than mathematical) is somehow proof of that and that the complexity could not have arisen via natural selection (theistic or non theistic). I applaud their effort, however flawed their conclusion may be.

 

[Gold Dragon]

OK you have not proven you know their motivation. It appears that you have assigned this motivation so as to place them in the worst possible light.

Their motivation is understandable and apparent. To attack something they believe to be a challenge to theistic creation. Unfortunately that belief is a falsehood.

 

[Revmitchell]

Their motivation is understandable and apparent.

I am quite sure at this point it is what you want it to be but that doesn't make it truth.

 

[church mouse guy]

Exactly. Just like creation ex nihilo. That is why atheists didn't like the Big BangTheory originally proposed by a Catholic priest. It sounded too much like Genesis.

It is ironic now that some Christians are trying so hard now to discredit the Big Bang theory because they think it doesn't sound like Genesis which is the opposite of the truth.

This is tribalism. Christians attacking the Big Bang theory because they see it as belonging to the tribe of atheist when we should actually be celebrating it as one of the strongest scientific supports for Genesis 1 and was discovered by someone from our tribe (the theistic creation one).

Where do you get all this tribe stuff? You seem to be saying that if you belong to a certain ethnic group, you think a certain way. That is like the old idea that you can tell a criminal by the shape of his head. No one remembers the history of Big Bang but it is true that some major scientists find it to be illogical. And it does contradict Scripture.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Where do you get all this tribe stuff? You seem to be saying that if you belong to a certain ethnic group, you think a certain way. That is like the old idea that you can tell a criminal by the shape of his head.

The word tribe used to refer only to ethnic groups but is now used more genericly to refer to a group of people who share culture, beliefs, customs, identities. The concept of online digital tribes may be helpful as most of the groups we are talking about rarely actually meet in person but communicate online with each other.

Tribe (Internet) - Wikipedia

The concept of tribalism is loyalty to the tribe. Loyalty is a good thing that builds trust in communities and allows them to work together to achieve more than they could alone. However it can also be a bad thing in how it perceives and treats outsiders.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I am quite sure at this point it is what you want it to be but that doesn't make it truth.

I'm not sure why you think it isn't true as it is explicitly stated in their website. They believe the Big Bang Theory comes from naturalistic philosophy that removes God from creation. Isn't that what you believe too?

Are you saying that they believe the Big Bang Theory is compatible with the Bible? If that is the case then great. That is my view too as well as the view of its originator George's Lemaitre.

However that is not AiG's view as stated on their website. That is the reason they attack the Big Bang Theory.

 

[church mouse guy]

I'm not sure why you think it isn't true as it is explicitly stated in their website. They believe the Big Bang Theory comes from naturalistic philosophy that removes God from creation. Isn't that what you believe too?

Are you saying that they believe the Big Bang Theory is compatible with the Bible? If that is the case then great. That is my view too as well as the view of its originator George's Lemaitre.

However that is not AiG's view as stated on their website. That is the reason they attack the Big Bang Theory.

Eric Lerner, Big Bang Never Happened, has about 400 scientist in agreement with him according to Dr. Mortensen.

American scientists are under intense pressure to conform. At stake is employment, tenure, and ability to be published. That may explain why Australians have been a little freer to express contrary scientific views.

 

[canadyjd]

Is it scientifically possible for radioactive dating to lead to radar love?

So, what's the source of the statement that studies of the Mt. ST. Helen's eruption showed radioactive dating of 1500 years?

 

[Reynolds]

Radioactive dating is bad science.

1. It assumes that all of the daughter atoms were derived from the parent atoms. No one knows the history of the sample being tested.

2. Noah's Flood or some other geological event could have contaminated the sample. It assumes that uniforitarianism is true and there was no possibility of contamination.

3. It assumes that the slow rates of radioactive decay as measured today were always the same. No one can prove that the rates of decay have been constant since the beginning of the world because there is no observation or record that old.

(Based upon comments by Dr. Andrew Snelling in an AiG video entitled "Age of the Earth.")

Misapplication of radioactive dating is bad science.

 

[MartyF]

Hello all,

Wow, no scientists here. . .

I remember reading an article years ago in Scientific American "C is not a Constant" (The speed of light is actually variable).

You have to be careful about newspapers and magazines such as Scientific American. They love to post fake news about physics.

The speed of light is “slower” in different mediums. It why your glasses work. Basically, the light interacts with the atoms of the medium and the light has to wait for the interaction to complete to continue its journey.

Scientists didn’t try to prove that the speed of light was constant. In trying to find Newton’s Ether, they tried to find the relation of the Earth to this Ether. They repeated the experiment every way possible and only found one result - the speed of light is constant in vacuum.

It was the first fundamental constant measured. What you may not understand is not only is the speed of constant - it has to be constant. If the speed of light changes, everyone dies. Its more catastrophic than that, but I don’t want to get into the details. Space and time will actually bend and warp to keep the speed of light in vacuum constant.

God has set the speed of light and it’s not going to change unless He either performs a “miracle” defying the current laws of his creation or He really wants to mess things up.

Marty

 

[church mouse guy]

Is it scientifically possible for radioactive dating to lead to radar love?

So, what's the source of the statement that studies of the Mt. ST. Helen's eruption showed radioactive dating of 1500 years?

The answer to your first question seems to be yes, radioactive dating does lead to radar love, love at first sight!

On the second question, here is some info of how ten-year-old rocks from Mt. St. Helen's tested millions of years old:

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.

Sample Age / millions of years
1 Whole rock 0.35 ± 0.05
2 Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
3 Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
4 Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
5 Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6

Radio-dating in Rubble - creation.com

 

[HankD]

Hello all,

Wow, no scientists here. . .



You have to be careful about newspapers and magazines such as Scientific American. They love to post fake news about physics.

The speed of light is “slower” in different mediums. It why your glasses work. Basically, the light interacts with the atoms of the medium and the light has to wait for the interaction to complete to continue its journey.

Scientists didn’t try to prove that the speed of light was constant. In trying to find Newton’s Ether, they tried to find the relation of the Earth to this Ether. They repeated the experiment every way possible and only found one result - the speed of light is constant in vacuum.

It was the first fundamental constant measured. What you may not understand is not only is the speed of constant - it has to be constant. If the speed of light changes, everyone dies. Its more catastrophic than that, but I don’t want to get into the details. Space and time will actually bend and warp to keep the speed of light in vacuum constant.

God has set the speed of light and it’s not going to change unless He either performs a “miracle” defying the current laws of his creation or He really wants to mess things up.

Marty

true Scientific American had scant proof for their article but then neither do you Marty.

 

[MartyF]

true Scientific American had scant proof for their article but then neither do you Marty.

Seriously,

Did you read my post? I gave you tons of of evidence. I can’t even find your article.

Marty

 

[HankD]

Seriously,

Did you read my post? I gave you tons of of evidence. I can’t even find your article.

Marty

evidence? - you said - "I don’t want to get into the details.".

The Scientific American article I mentioned is about 20 years old. One of my sons and i subscribed,
I am a pack rat and possibly I have that issue somewhere I'll look on occasion.

Here is another article

Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say

 

[Yeshua1]

Hello all,

Wow, no scientists here. . .



You have to be careful about newspapers and magazines such as Scientific American. They love to post fake news about physics.

The speed of light is “slower” in different mediums. It why your glasses work. Basically, the light interacts with the atoms of the medium and the light has to wait for the interaction to complete to continue its journey.

Scientists didn’t try to prove that the speed of light was constant. In trying to find Newton’s Ether, they tried to find the relation of the Earth to this Ether. They repeated the experiment every way possible and only found one result - the speed of light is constant in vacuum.

It was the first fundamental constant measured. What you may not understand is not only is the speed of constant - it has to be constant. If the speed of light changes, everyone dies. Its more catastrophic than that, but I don’t want to get into the details. Space and time will actually bend and warp to keep the speed of light in vacuum constant.

God has set the speed of light and it’s not going to change unless He either performs a “miracle” defying the current laws of his creation or He really wants to mess things up.

Marty

We have NO way to know if the speed of light was always the same, and we do knwo extreme gravity can do strange things to it...

 

[Yeshua1]

The answer to your first question seems to be yes, radioactive dating does lead to radar love, love at first sight!

On the second question, here is some info of how ten-year-old rocks from Mt. St. Helen's tested millions of years old:

It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.

Sample Age / millions of years
1 Whole rock 0.35 ± 0.05
2 Feldspar, etc. 0.34 ± 0.06
3 Amphibole, etc. 0.9 ± 0.2
4 Pyroxene, etc. 1.7 ± 0.3
5 Pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6

Radio-dating in Rubble - creation.com

The main reasons things get dated to what they do is the bias towards it must be that age!