Now, I am not a scientist, and most scientific discussion makes my eyes glaze over. My brain is wired for literature, poetry, and Biblical Studies.
- Post navigation.
- cnn dating sites;
- devotee dating.
- Creation Science Rebuttals?
- dating woodland hills.
- !
As I watched this short video, though, a few thoughts popped into my head that I just have to share. As you can tell, for about the first 1: Up to that 1: AiG gave a straightforward explanation regarding radiometric dating and half-life. Thanks AiG, for admitting that and for giving scientists a certain amount of credit and respect.
You knew it was coming. Somehow, someway, AiG was going to smuggle in at least one of their talking points. Sure enough… historical science. Oh of course not…if that was all there was to it, AiG would have to issue a retraction to everything it has ever said ever, and then shut the whole organization down.
- freddie stroma who is he dating?
- infp dating website.
- Navigation menu!
- dating site for sperm donors.
There has to be a way to discredit the whole radiometric dating thing of by their own admission observational science. And how AiG introduces it is breathtaking:. Do you see what AiG did there? They just threw that assertion out there—and this is problematic for two reasons:. AiG Sides with Hume! AiG is the reincarnation at an organizational level of David Hume. You see me throw a ball throw a window and the window shatters—but how do you really know it was the ball that shattered the window?
You might also like
How do you know for certain? Were you able to observe every split second from every angle for all time? Or simply put, the basic assumption scientists make is that the natural universe is pretty orderly. In fact, that is the assumption the original medieval scientists had as they began to investigate the natural world—and why did they assume that?
Based on that assumption, scientists study things like half-life and the speed of light, and come to the conclusion based on the testable things they observe in the natural world! Those calculations are possible because we live in an ordered universe, created by God. In this silly little video, AiG denies the basic assumption that inspired the original Christian scientists to go out and study the natural world. AiG is denying the fundamental assumption that God is a God of order, and that the nature universe reflects that very thing.
AiG has an assumption all its own: Never mind that at no time in Church History before the 20 th century was that claim ever made. No, the assumptions of AiG are not even based on anything observable. Quite the contrary, they are literally based on nothing.
And that was the point—even though pagan temples had physical idols, in reality those idols represented nothing that corresponded to reality in any way. In a similar way, AiG actually prides itself…on nothing. Such is idolatry—the worship of an image that ultimately corresponds to nothing that is real. This is to get the average, or, most accurate date possible, within the margin of error that you allow. Are there scientists out there that will swear up and down that their dates are completely accurate?
Sure, they exist, but are probably in the minority. Unfortunately, these are the ones that the young earth creationist will single out and attack, because of their assumptions that the techniques are perfect. Most geologists understand the dating techniques, and accept their limitations. Okay, on with the article. The author gives a very good description of Carbon, except the flood part. He assumes the coal beds were all laid down during the Flood, but I have already disproved that theory read here. In his conclusion, he states "It Carbon does not give dates of millions of years.
We know the limitations of Carbon The next section is Other Radiometric Dating Methods. Yes, its true, the person using these dates must make unprovable assumptions, such as the three listed. But, the young earth creation scientist also makes unprovable assumptions, when he starts with the assumption that the earth is only 6, years old, which is unprovable.
Okay, we are both guilty of assumptions. Let's move down the article to "Bad Dates. Does that mean the earth is young It means the geologist has to do the best he can with the tools available to date the objects. I'm not going to try to defend these bad date examples.
Answers in Genesis
I can't without the original articles. The creation science author is correct in calling this the "dating game. The author uses the verse from Job, 'Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? To the author I say, "Where were you when God laid the foundations of the earth? So you can't "assume" a 6,year-old earth, just like we can't "assume" a What we have to decide this issue is the evidence from God's creation, and not our assumptions. How Long is a Day. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that the days of creation are hour days.
Young earth creation science advocates will argue over the correct translation of "day. If you are in the middle of space, what is a "day. Are we going to have clocks in heaven?
Answers in Genesis - RationalWiki
Wow, there goes another million years! Only human arrogance would insist on limiting God, an infinite being, to a finite hour day. Before we go on Keep considering the rock layers, which can't be laid down in a global flood. Keep thinking about starlight, which traveling at the speed of light, took millions of years to get here.
It could not be created with the "appearance of age". Appearance of age means that the created object lies about its true age, and since God is Truth, He cannot lie. Remember, context, context, context. The next section is Testing Radiometric Dating Methods. For example, the author gives examples of lava flows that were less than 50 years old, but dated radiometrically from , to 3. After a short argument, the author gives another example, that of lava from the Grand Canyon, giving an error of million years.
This is an excellent example. Geologists say the lava in question is 1. To us, this means be careful when dating lava! It doesn't mean "all dates are wrong. Coal is used next as an example. They claim no source of coal has been found that completely lacks C I can buy that, after all, what is coal? It is made of carbon