ok radiometicdating is bull?

Question

Grrrr many of you have told me what i already know. There are maany facts explaining the original subtance and the Daughter outcome. BUT even with new technology you have to take into account that it CANNOT be possible to CREATE ANY TRUTH in radiometric dating because the demensions are wayyy off. Im am now and forever a Christian. There are some questions needing to be answerd but creating speculations is really just wasting life itself. IF I DIED TO DAY AND FOUND OUT THERE WAS NO GOD AND RELIGION WAS ALL BULL I STILL WOULD RATHER LIVE A CHRISTIAN LIFE THEN any other life. questions.comments.ideas.

Answer 1

Here is an article on radiometric dating from a christian who is a scientist. I think you will find that radiometric dating can be compatible with christianity. This is a well developed science with a lot of data to back it up.

Answer 2

First, there's nothing wrong with radiometric dating - your claim is bull.


Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).
Links:

Thompson, Tim, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list. http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html

Wiens, Roger C., 1994, 2002. Radiometric dating: A Christian perspective. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html
References:

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 2000. Radiometric dating does work! Some examples and a critique of a failed creationist strategy. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 20(3): 14-17. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_content/vol20/6061_radiometeric_dating_does_work_12_30_1899.asp
Harland, W. B., R. L. Armstrong, A. V. Cox, L. E. Craig, A. G. Smith, and D. G. Smith, 1990. A Geologic Time Scale 1989. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilgen, F. J., W. Krijgsman, C. G. Langereis and L. J. Lourens, 1997. Breakthrough made in dating of the geological record. EOS 78(28): 285,288-289. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eos96336.html
Lindsay, Don, 1999. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with each other? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/crater_chain.html
Lindsay, Don, 2000. Are radioactive dating methods consistent with the deeper-is-older rule? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/confirm.html
Meert, Joe, 2000. Consistent radiometric dates. http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm
Rubin, Ken, 2001. The formation of the Hawaiian Islands. http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/HCV/haw_formation.html
Thompson, Tim, n.d. Luminescence and radiometric dating. http://www.tim-thompson.com/luminescence.html
Thorne, A. et al., 1999. Australia's oldest human remains: Age of the Lake Mungo 3 skeleton. Journal of Human Evolution 36(6): 591-612.

If your religion forces you to ignore facts, something is very, very wrong with it.

Second, you're invoking Pascal's wager:

"If god exists, it's infinitely better to believe, since you get heaven instead of hell for eternity. If he doesn't, it doesn't matter since you're dead anyway. So overall it's better to believe"

This is, of course, false.

Some of the problems with the argument:

* The implied assumption that god may exist (with a 50% probability, no less!)

* The assumption that there is an afterlife with a heaven and hell

* The assumption that the god cares about belief in him/her above all else

* The assumption that if you believe in a god, it will definitely be the same god that actually exists.

* The assumption that you lose nothing if it's false. You have lost a great deal, from time praying to a nonexistent entity (some people pray several hours a day!!!) to morality (your god may ask you to hurt other people) and much more besides.

* The assumption that people can believe in something simply because it benefits them. Would you believe goblins exist for twenty bucks? Why not?

* The assumption that any god won't see through the "believing just to get into heaven" ploy.

For more:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/wager.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/wager.html

Answer 3

Your comments about radiometric dating are baseless. The physics is sound, as the residents of Hiroshima are entirely too well aware. And evolution is a proven fact; details available on request.

Answer 4

Here's a PhD in Physics (Xian)... - I T ... * W O R K S *.
"It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture..."
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Evolution is *FACT*! .. Even huge numbers of your Christian brethren understand that you are out-of-touch with Truth and Reality. ... As just one example, here’s >10,600 U.S. Clergy agreeing with Darwin's Theory of Evolution ( ToE ):
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/clergy_project.htm

One sentence of the CLERGY Open Letter reads:
“To reject this truth (ToE) or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children.”

You have been indoctrinated and your mind-set is being skewed to believe what is not there and disbelieve what is. I’m not trying to sway you about your ‘God’, but you OWE IT TO YOURSELF to study beyond whoever’s teaching you now. It took the Church an amazing 359 YEARS to fully atone that they were wrong about Earth being the center of the Universe. *YOUR* church/school appears to have an identical mind-set… to YOUR OWN DETRIMENT.

Answer 5

Why would you rather live a Christian life? Don't you realize you should be able to live by your own morals and choose your own path?

Answer 6

Calm down a bit. Extremism in any form is dangerous.

Answer 7

Well, good for you. While your faith makes religion possible, you faith that science doesn't have answers doesn't change the fact that dating is a solid science.

Answer 8

Switch to decaff.

Just a suggestion.

Answer 9

Put the bible down and read a newspaper.

Answer 10

You are pushing your dogma onto others don't be surprised when they push back..