All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false as they vastly vary in measuring the age of the same thing – part 2

[Subduction Zone]

No.
They existed and were accepted before 70 AD.

What makes you think that? No one who has studied the Bible seems to think so.

 

[metis]

The early church histroy is in the 27 NT books.

You don't even understand what I've been saying in regard to the canon that you use or you are just skirting around it. I provided evidence-- all you provide are your twisted opinions minus any evidence whatsoever.

It's like talking to a wall.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

What does this have to do with science? two court hearings and a faulty product = science being wrong.

the science in Lindy Chamerban's (A dingo took my baby) court case was not wrong. She wasnt condemned because of that single piece of evidence from Joy Cool. The Royal comission showed that it was the interpretation of that science that was ultimately deficient (or wrong), individuals with held extremely important evidence to the contrary. Even without the eventual discovery of the missing matine jackert, there was a wealth of evidence that would have exhonerated her in the first trial but it was not allowed to be used and this is exactly my point. YEC science is not allowed to be used in the same way because it doesnt fit the narrative of evolutionary interpretation.

 

[Nimos]

the science in Lindy Chamerban's (A dingo took my baby) court case was not wrong. She wasnt condemned because of that single piece of evidence from Joy Cool. The Royal comission showed that it was the interpretation of that science that was ultimately deficient (or wrong), individuals with held extremely important evidence to the contrary. Even without the eventual discovery of the missing matine jackert, there was a wealth of evidence that would have exhonerated her in the first trial but it was not allowed to be used and this is exactly my point. YEC science is not allowed to be used in the same way because it doesnt fit the narrative of evolutionary interpretation.

I don't get the comparison, science is not done in the same way a court case is. There are no judges that decide whether something should be true or not.

Do you have an actual example of where science is wrong and hasn't been corrected when found out?

 

[sayak83]

All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false as they vastly vary in measuring the age of the same thing – part 2

From part 1 of this series or threads, the evidence shows that radioactive dating of things with a known young age yield vastly large and inconsistent dates. So, the technique is unreliable. In these cases, the error range is as large as the measured value which means an age 6000 years or less is within the error range. Some of these measurements have a percent error approaching 40 billion percent.

But the evidence also shows that radioactive dating using either the same isotope or different isotopes, even using isochrons, yield very different dates on same things.

Here is the evidence.

Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?

Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray

Radioisotope Dating of Rocks in the Grand Canyon

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology

The Faith of Radiometric Dating - Creation Moments

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1430&context=icc_proceedings

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context=icc_proceedings

The Question of Time

These sites also show vastly varying dates but from known historical events.

The Iconic Isochron: Radioactive Dating, Part 2

Radioactive dating anomalies

"Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks

More and More Wrong Dates

The rock layers cannot be dated by these techniques and using the fossils they contain, including index fossils, is just pure circular reasoning with no data at all. The rock layers are dated by the assumed age of the rock layers and the assumed age of the fossils they contain. And the fossils are dated by the assumed age of the rocks that contain them.

All these claims refuted in one article. Thanks
How reliable is geologic dating? « SMR blog

 

[SavedByTheLord]

All these claims refuted in one article. Thanks
How reliable is geologic dating? « SMR blog

Unfortunately historical recent events are dated as very old with many widely varying results.
So, the article is wrong.
and they have widely varying results dating the same things.

 

[sayak83]

Unfortunately historical recent events are dated as very old with many widely varying results.
So, the article is wrong.
and they have widely varying results dating the same things.

nonsense. There are no widely varying results. Just another creationist delusion as demonstrated by the article I linked.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

nonsense. There are no widely varying results. Just another creationist delusion as demonstrated by the article I linked.

I gave the links that proved this.

Unfortunately historical recent events are dated as very old with many widely varying results.
And they have widely varying results dating the same things.
And many clocks shows that the earth and universe and everything else is only about 6000 years old.

 

[sayak83]

I gave the links that proved this.

Unfortunately historical recent events are dated as very old with many widely varying results.
And they have widely varying results dating the same things.
And many clocks shows that the earth and universe and everything else is only about 6000 years old.

All false claims as shown by my link.

 

[Twilight Hue]

All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false as they vastly vary in measuring the age of the same thing – part 2

From part 1 of this series or threads, the evidence shows that radioactive dating of things with a known young age yield vastly large and inconsistent dates. So, the technique is unreliable. In these cases, the error range is as large as the measured value which means an age 6000 years or less is within the error range. Some of these measurements have a percent error approaching 40 billion percent.

But the evidence also shows that radioactive dating using either the same isotope or different isotopes, even using isochrons, yield very different dates on same things.

Here is the evidence.

Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?

Radiometric dating and old ages in disarray

Radioisotope Dating of Rocks in the Grand Canyon

Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology

The Faith of Radiometric Dating - Creation Moments

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1430&context=icc_proceedings

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1180&context=icc_proceedings

The Question of Time

These sites also show vastly varying dates but from known historical events.

The Iconic Isochron: Radioactive Dating, Part 2

Radioactive dating anomalies

"Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks

More and More Wrong Dates

The rock layers cannot be dated by these techniques and using the fossils they contain, including index fossils, is just pure circular reasoning with no data at all. The rock layers are dated by the assumed age of the rock layers and the assumed age of the fossils they contain. And the fossils are dated by the assumed age of the rocks that contain them.

Well you obviously backed yourself into a corner with this one.

Being you said all dating techniques , I suppose that the Bible is being used as a long aged dating tool so that's just going to have to be included on your list of having been proven false.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Well you obviously backed yourself into a corner with this one.

Being you said all dating techniques , I suppose that the Bible is being used as a long aged dating tool so that's just going to have to be included on your list of having been proven false.

Counting of years is exact.