“Is there any feature about any dating method that actually satisfies all the ordinary criteria of?

Question

real science?
During 1964 a threshold in my thinking was gradually crossed. Up to that year it had seemed to me that there was ample scientific evidence which demanded long ages. I imagined that such phenomena as C-14 decay, U-238 dating, the formation of coal, and the genesis of oil bore undeniable testimony to a vast prehistory for the earth. After crossing a mental “continental divide,” however, it became increasingly apparent to me that there is nothing in empirical science that compels anyone to embrace billions or even millions of years.

The U-238 method and other radiochemical “clocks” are based on unprovable assumptions, which in some instances have actually been falsified. There is no rock or any other object, for example, that says, “I am 40 million years old; use me as a calibration sample.”
C-14 dating has even led to truncating previous estimates for the elapsed time since the onset of the Ice Age. The disequilibrium between the measured rate of C-14 decay and the rate of its atmospheric production support an age of less than 10,000 years for the earth’s atmosphere. And so it goes. There is not even one scientific fact that furnishes an unequivocal demonstration of great antiquity. All the data find favorable alternative explanations within a recent creation position.

I knew if I tried, I could make the Atheists here happy by providing real pH.D's for them.
Dr Howe is professor, Division of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, the Masters College, Newhall, California. He holds a B.S. in botany from Wheaton College, an M.S. in botany and a Ph.D. in botany from Ohio State University, where he was a Charles F. Kettering fellow. He also completed post-doctoral studies in botany at Washington State University; in desert biology at Arizona State University; and in radiation biology at Cornell University. As well as publishing technical papers and books in the area of botany, he has published numerous papers in the area of creation versus mega-evolution, and philosophy of science. He served as president of the Creation Research Society from 1977 to 1983.

I hope these postings have given the Atheists what they wanted?..........Real scientists without mail order degrees.

Answer 1

1964 eh? hmm, no advances in instruments or methods since then i guess. hehe...

botany, for goodness sake. you lot quote physicists who don't like evolution and botanists who don't like physics. who are you going to quote next, automobile repairmen who doubt that nasa sent astronauts to the moon?

Answer 2

OK, so you can quote from the 0.0000000001% of 'real' scientists who believe in creationism. What about the 99.8% of scientists in a recent survey of the National Academy of Sciences who support evolution?

So, where's the hard scientific evidence for a woman being made from a man's rib? Skeletal evidence of a snake with a voice box? A virgin woman with two X chromosomes giving birth to a male with a Y chromosome? The sun standing still for a day and a half? At least evolutionists can back up their claims with fossils, DNA, and other evidence. All you creationists can do is try to nit-pick on evolution because you have ZERO real evidence for your claims other than 'da bible sez it'...

Answer 3

If you really think you have just provided sound reasoning against scientific dating methods, you are more of a fool and a liar than most religious fruitcakes of your ilk..

Science has very many disciplines, and I doubt a religious botanist would have any knowledge about archaeological dating methods, nor would he have any interest in ANY evidence that might contradict his creationistsic beliefs.

There are very many different and independant dating techniques, most of which a scientifically illiterate fool like you haven't ever heard of, and you should be asking yourself. "why do they all corroborate, despite being independant of each other..?"
Instead you can only misrepresent the truth, then attempt to discredit a ficticious scenario..

You have just made a complete fool of yourself, and exposed how ignorant and ill informed you really are..

Be ashamed, then be gone..!

Answer 4

A botanist, huh?


That's... a bit outside the mainstream of geoscience. Try again.