Why do creationists think that Cabon 14 dating and radio isotopic dating are the same thing??

Question

One is for organic material the other inorganic. Its a vey simple concept.

Answer 1

Your continued postings about this prove evolutionists are intellectually dishonest.

Answer 2

Both in fact can be used for dating organic materials but only isotopic dating can be used for inorganic materials. I think the creationists will miss your point-it may not be common knowledge but only creationists are setting themselves up as an authority on the matter and claiming that it is definitely flawed.

Answer 3

As mentioned by Bender, it's not exactly common knowledge.

However, for one to make claims about the veracity or lack thereof of a procedure, they'd best make sure they have their facts straight first--or else their argument will often, and with good cause, not even be considered.

ETA: Gary, actually I think someone repeatedly posting about the fine points of a concept is someone trying to logically work something out.

Answer 4

Somewhere along the way, the uninformed (ignorant?) cretinists - oops, creationists - mistakently (ignorantly?) began to confuse (probably because they are confused) or deliberately pervert the saying "ignorance is bliss" with "the ignorant are blessed".


.

Answer 5

i think of there is sturdy rationalization for that, specifically as a results of presupposition or assumptions that underline those relationship technique. a million. That the preliminary circumstances of the rock pattern are wisely basic. 2. That the quantity of make certain or daughter components in a pattern has not been altered via tactics different than radioactive decay. 3. That the decay value (or 0.5-existence) of the make certain isotope has remained consistent as a results of fact the rock became formed. each and all of the above are actually not verifiable via any potential. So how scientific are those assumptions if technological expertise via definition is empirical. have you ever seen why a relationship technique such as radiocarbon relationship (carbon 14) is seen sturdy basically for relationship samples below a hundred,000 years previous? If the pattern is yet to be dated the place from the a hundred,000 3 hundred and sixty 5 days decrease. you spot, it somewhat is a presupposition it somewhat is dropped on the technique. a similar is the case for samples reserved for uranium-lead isotopes; coming near the info from the unverified assumption that the pattern should be tens of millions of years previous. Evolutionist scientists draw those presuppositions from the geologic or stratigraphic column. regrettably info of the geologic column is yet to be contemporary in one place. the countless layers interior the composite column have been compiled from different components. you would be able to additionally want to ask how the date ranges assigned to the layers interior the column have been arrived at. And the respond lower back factors to the presupposition underlining of naturalism(it somewhat is a worldview) that the earth should be billions of years. This explains why the evolutionist and the creationist tout a similar info and yet stay on different factors of the aisle. Its a conflict of worldviews in case you will, and each worldview comes with beginning presuppositions/biases out of which stems its interpretation of actuality. The Christian Worldview starts off with "interior the initiating God" whilst the Naturalistic Worldview starts off with 'interior the initiating rely(nitrogen gasoline) and potential' (which via the way violates the regulation of the conservation of mass) the ideal question then is which worldview is consistent and coherent with actuality, the Naturalistic Worldview or the Christian Worldview? And in case you have appeared into this question objectively you may locate the Naturalistic Worldview very lacking certainly.

Answer 6

So they can discount the validity of both in the same sentence, regardless of scientific data to the contrary.

Answer 7

because both of these are not an exact science, and alot of what you are basing your facts on come from thories not facts.

Answer 8

Why do Evolutionists think that we evolved from Monkeys? No proof has surfaced to prove that theory. I would think that if there were man/ape species walking the Earth for 100,000's of years that we would have found at least one bone by now. But all that has been discovered so far are human remains, monkey remains, and forgeries.

Even the much celebrated "Lucy" ended up being a Chimpanzee.

Answer 9

Yeah thats common knowledge. I'm sure my Mom knows that as well. Let me give her a call and see if she knows.

Answer 10

Because they know nothing about science.