Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[JM2C]

Xenocrysts are older than the rocks which contain them. So no, they would not yield the correct age if what you were looking for was the age of the solidifying of the flow. You need a sample without xenocrysts.

The same as the minerals in the phenocrysts, but we must not deviate from the main point of the argument, and that is, the rock itself. If the basic assumption is, the rock should set to zero and should start the decaying of potassium to argon, and it did, and within ten years it gave 350,000 years. So, the question is, is K-Ar dating method accurate? The answer is no.

 

[JM2C]

You could tell how much of the argon present in the mineral came from outside contamination and how much of it was produced by radioactive decay by looking at the ratios of different isotopes present. Argon-40 is the only isotope of argon produced when potassium-40 decays, whereas argon-36 and argon-38 also exist in air. It's just a matter of doing the math. We know that it's right because it matches up with other radiometric dating techniques which use elements with different decay rates and decay modes. If it was wrong, it wouldn't match. I showed this with the link I posted earlier.

The argon in the atmosphere is different from the radiogenic argon. The argon found in the atmosphere is cause by Nuclear Reaction and not by radioactive decay like the potassium to argon. Dr. Austin explained this in his ICR website. A geochron can sense argon in the atmosphere from the subsurface environment or the radiogenic argon.

 

[JM2C]

Yes, but not by much. We know that a huge number of species were killed off by that impact. A living dinosaur would simply represent a species that survived when it was otherwise believed that none did.

We don’t know that or nobody knows that except in theory.

 

[David M]

The same as the minerals in the phenocrysts, but we must not deviate from the main point of the argument, and that is, the rock itself. If the basic assumption is, the rock should set to zero and should start the decaying of potassium to argon, and it did, and within ten years it gave 350,000 years. So, the question is, is K-Ar dating method accurate? The answer is no.

The known physics (which you misrepresent as an "assumption") says that argon will escape from rocks that were molten during the eruption. Inclusions that were not molten at that time will contain Argon that started accumulating when they were last molten, which is before the eruption.

If you date only the parts of the rock that was molten for known eruption dates that are far enough back for sufficient argon to be detectable then the dates match, especially when using the newer and more accurate Ar/Ar dating is now the preferred method for dating such rocks. Tests using Ar/Ar dating have matched know eruption dates such as Vesuvius in 79 C.E.

So yes K-Ar dating as accurate and so is Ar/Ar dating. Of course this is when it is used properly rather than perverted by creationists.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again showing you have no idea what a scientific theory means thus your comment is irrelevant. Argument from incredulity thus a failure in logic.

Let's remind ourselves- multiverse theory, M theory, string theory.

A scientific theory is any idea that is utterly devoid of empirical evidence, but which fits the preferred conclusion of the scientists in question

 

[viole]

Let's remind ourselves- multiverse theory, M theory, string theory.

A scientific theory is any idea that is utterly devoid of evidence but which fits a preferred conclusion

Ergo, the Big Bang theory is not scientific. Correct?

Ciao

- viole

 

[outhouse]

We don’t know that or nobody knows that except in theory.

Based on facts

Your faith cannot stand up against factual knowledge.

 

[outhouse]

A scientific theory is any idea that is utterly devoid of empirical evidence,

Your factually wrong here. And Im guessing your making these statements on purpose out of desperation.


Honesty is required in these debates.


Funny coming from people who only have ancient mythology to support their position.

 

[Parsimony]

The same as the minerals in the phenocrysts, but we must not deviate from the main point of the argument, and that is, the rock itself. If the basic assumption is, the rock should set to zero and should start the decaying of potassium to argon, and it did, and within ten years it gave 350,000 years.

What study are you making reference to? Was it carried out in homogeneous rock? Was it carried out on undamaged/unweathered rock? Was it carried out by people who were properly trained to do this kind of work? Was the equipment used on it designed to test for ages as young as ten years?

So, the question is, is K-Ar dating method accurate? The answer is no.

If it was inaccurate, then it wouldn't match up with other dating methods. All of the dating methods would have to be wrong by the same amount, which is practically impossible given that the other elements have different half-lives, decay modes, solubilities, etc. from potassium-40. The fact that different methods are in consensus speaks towards their accuracy.

The argon in the atmosphere is different from the radiogenic argon. The argon found in the atmosphere is cause by Nuclear Reaction and not by radioactive decay like the potassium to argon. Dr. Austin explained this in his ICR website. A geochron can sense argon in the atmosphere from the subsurface environment or the radiogenic argon.

That's the point. It allows scientists to tell how much of the argon trapped in a rock is from radioactive decay and how much came from the atmosphere. This, in turn, allows for an accurate age calculation.

We don’t know that or nobody knows that except in theory.

All current evidence supports it. A vast number of species vanish from the fossil record above the K-T (or more accurately, K-Pg) boundary, indicating that some global event lead to their extinction. The fact that the Chicxulub impact crater has the same age (and that the K-Pg layer is rich in iridium) is strong evidence that an asteroid impact was at least part of the cause.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

In the six ' creative days ' of unknown length ( or even if all of the creative days were of the same or equal length of time or Not )
Even if God used some sort of evolution as part of creation, there was No evolution involved where mankind is concerned.
Adam was inanimate until God breathed the breath of life into lifeless Adam.
When Adam died Adam simply went back to the dust of the ground were Adam started - Genesis 3:19
Although animal kind was around before humans, mankind is Not of animal kind.

You don't think that man evolved from apes is what you mean? You accept evolution at least to some degree but just no with humans?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Trial by a Jury of your peers (i.e. the modern system) formally in the UK dates back to the very start of the 18th Century, so it was in place for at least a couple of generations before the American system was created.

The roots of the change to a trial by jury were enacted in 1641 in Britain with the Abolition of the Star Chamber.

[Wikipedia]

Neat. Thank you for the history lesson.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What the iron lady?

I don't know what you are referring to specifically? I goggled it and all I found was some crazy creationist lady that was having some kind of meltdown at a museum and was throwing around what seemed to be misinformation and common intentional ignorance. Link perhaps?

 

[Bunyip]

The same as the minerals in the phenocrysts, but we must not deviate from the main point of the argument, and that is, the rock itself. If the basic assumption is, the rock should set to zero and should start the decaying of potassium to argon, and it did, and within ten years it gave 350,000 years. So, the question is, is K-Ar dating method accurate? The answer is no.

Radioactive decay is so astonishingly accurate that we make the most accurate clocks in history using that principle. Clocks that lose a fraction of a second over millenia.
Decay rates are absolutely accurate, they can be correlated with number of other factors. Take for example the use of radioactive decay to date the age of the earth - it is one of some nineteen different methods, all of which give the same result.

So next time you wonder how accurate radioactive decay dating methods are - just think of the Olympics. They time the races that way

 

[Shad]

Let's remind ourselves- multiverse theory, M theory, string theory.

A scientific theory is any idea that is utterly devoid of empirical evidence, but which fits the preferred conclusion of the scientists in question

Let us remind ourselves the difference between a theoretical theories and those that have experiments. Let us remind ourselves what a hypothesis must meet to become a theory.

I guess you should stop talking about the Big Bang theory you love to beat like a dead horse. After all according to your own words it has no evidence.

 

[McBell]

Not according this guy You guys are not in sync, out of tune.

That is only because getting theists to agree on something is like herding cats.

 

[McBell]

IOW, only God can create anything out of nothing [ex nihilo] and not from a molecule to man, right?

Nope.
If there is nothing then there is no god to do anything.

 

[McBell]

Let's remind ourselves- multiverse theory, M theory, string theory.

A scientific theory is any idea that is utterly devoid of empirical evidence, but which fits the preferred conclusion of the scientists in question

Yes, that is one of the strawmen that creationists like.
Of course, it only makes them look like idiots.
Especially when they keep repeating it after been shown they are wrong.

but hey, it is like creationists do not care about their credibility.

 

[JM2C]

How about molecules to more complex molecules? That happens, right?


How about complex molecules to polymers? That happens, right?


How about polymers to cells? That happens, right?


How about cells to organisms? That happens, right?


How about organisms to more complex organisms? That happens, right?


How about man being a complex organism? That's true, right?


LOL. It's hilarious.

So why people die if all this complex organism does not become simpler but become more orderly and complex as we age? People should live forever if from inorganic to organic to man is the foundation of life or any life here on earth. Have you ever thought of that? Of course not!

Just imagine a human being, while alive, has about 100 trillion living cells. Now, if man came from a single dead molecule and produced 100 trillions of living cells and as we age it becomes more orderly and complex, then why do we die? Was it because cells die? I thought they become more orderly and complex from a single dead molecule?

A single dead molecule does not have any information but gave life to 100 trillions of cells with information.

It’s like a dead wood dummy teaching the ventriloquist how to talk, or a single dead molecule giving information to a living cell.

Have you seen something or anything that does not deteriorate in the orderly and complex world that you are living in?

Read what this guy wrote:

Even about abiogenesis, it is about something coming out of nothing. It is hypotheize that living matter was made out of non-living matters (inorganic matter), under the right conditions.

What “right conditions” was he talking about? Open system or closed system? Can you explain this?

 

[JM2C]

In the six ' creative days ' of unknown length ( or even if all of the creative days were of the same or equal length of time or Not )

Why the Jews are observing the Sabbath on the 7th day if the “six creative days” is not literal? Let’s for example say that the “six creative days” are 6,000 years, is that mean the Jews would have to observed the Sabbath after 6,000 years?

Even if God used some sort of evolution as part of creation, there was No evolution involved where mankind is concerned.

Adam was inanimate until God breathed the breath of life into lifeless Adam.

When Adam died Adam simply went back to the dust of the ground were Adam started - Genesis 3:19

Although animal kind was around before humans, mankind is Not of animal kind.

YES ”mankind in NOT of animal”

 

[JM2C]

I don't know what you are referring to specifically? I goggled it and all I found was some crazy creationist lady that was having some kind of meltdown at a museum and was throwing around what seemed to be misinformation and common intentional ignorance. Link perhaps?

Actually Dr. Mary Schweitzer is not a creationist. If you google Dr. Mary Schweitzer and iron you should be able to find it.