the earth is 13,000 years old not 6,000 right

[ChristineM]

. . . don't hold your breath.

I won't.

 

[leroy]

Atheists have a method?!
Skepticism-- good.
Avoiding the burden of proof? How does that apply to atheists? It's the theists and creationists making claims.
Why do you doubt radiometric dating? Please crash it. I'd like to see.

Because there is no evidence for the accuracy of radiometric dating.

 

[ppp]

Because there is no evidence for the accuracy of radiometric dating.

Except for all of the cross verification of dating by other methods.
And the evidence of how radiometric dating works.

 

[shunyadragon]

And there's a star older than the universe. That should blow your mind. *grin*

Interesting and informative video.

My hypothesis is the multiverse. Most representations of a multiverse indicate discrete separate universes illustrated as bubbles. My view is a bit messier. Universes begin and form overlapping other universes. When black holes get huge enough to collapse (to a singularity?) and expand to form another universe. Some stars we may genuinely find are older than our universe as our universe expanded through the remnants of older universes.

 

[shunyadragon]

Because there is no evidence for the accuracy of radiometric dating.

Oh yes there is. We have determined objectively the radiometric decay rate of the elements involved in the radiometric dating methods, and have comparative verified these dating methods with other ways of consistent dating going back incremental steps in the ancient sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic deposits here on earth. One of the ways is comparing seasonal lamella hundreds of thousand of years old. This dating has been incrementally verified even in older deposits back to Zircons over 4 billion years old.

 

[Father Heathen]

FYI, belief in god doesn't require accepting literal interpretation of scripture or rejecting science.
No such being would be beholden to our religions, nor would we be gifted with the ability to reason along with the expectation that we forgo its use.

 

[leroy]

Oh yes there is. We have determined objectively the radiometric decay rate of the elements involved in the radiometric dating methods, and have comparative verified these dating methods with other ways of consistent dating going back incremental steps in the ancient sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic deposits here on earth. One of the ways is comparing seasonal lamella hundreds of thousand of years old. This dating has been incrementally verified even in older deposits back to Zircons over 4 billion years old.

Nope..... Just assertions..... No evidence so far

 

[leroy]

Except for all of the cross verification of dating by other methods.
And the evidence of how radiometric dating works.

And where is that evidence?..........BTW .I wont accept sources written by an old earther

 

[Valjean]

So you refuse to consider "evidence" unless it already agrees with you?
"There are none so blind....."

 

[ppp]

And where is that evidence?..........BTW .I wont accept sources written by an old earther

Well, there's the evidence that it works right there.

 

[leroy]

Well, there's the evidence that it works right there.

Where?

 

[leroy]

So you refuse to consider "evidence" unless it already agrees with you?
"There are none so blind....."

Yes, that’s correct……..as I said before I am using the atheist method……………If atheist reject sources written by apologetics by default and without any justification……………why can’t I reject sources written by old earthers without any justification?

 

[Valjean]

Yes, that’s correct……..as I said before I am using the atheist method……………If atheist reject sources written by apologetics by default and without any justification……………why can’t I reject sources written by old earthers without any justification?

Not this "atheist method" stuff again.
I think either your understanding of atheism or your usage of logic -- likely both -- is a little off.
Atheists reject christian apologetics not by default, but because the facts are wrong or the reasoning faulty. We explain why we reject what we do, but apparently you've missed that.

 

[leroy]

Not this "atheist method" stuff again.
I think either your understanding of atheism or your usage of logic -- likely both -- is a little off.
Atheists reject christian apologetics not by default, but because the facts are wrong or the reasoning faulty. We explain why we reject what we do, but apparently you've missed that.

not according to my experience (see this thread)
Fine Tuning argument / The best argument for the existence of God

 

[leroy]

Oh yes there is. We have determined objectively the radiometric decay rate of the elements involved in the radiometric dating methods, and have comparative verified these dating methods with other ways of consistent dating going back incremental steps in the ancient sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic deposits here on earth. One of the ways is comparing seasonal lamella hundreds of thousand of years old. This dating has been incrementally verified even in older deposits back to Zircons over 4 billion years old.

@Valjean already has a refutatoin for that

Consider: Roll a dozen dice, and the chances for twelve sixes is exactly the same as any other configuration. Every combination is equally "unlikely."

So basically the possibility of having 2 or 3 or 10 independent dating methods showing the same result (same age) by chance is extremely small……..but any other combination of ages is equally unlikely.

For example having 2 dating methods that show that a rock is around 4 Million years old…..is as unlikely as having 1 method showing 10 million and an other 1 million……………..2 dating methods showing the same age is as unlikely as any other specific combination of values.

So there is nothing to explain, independent dating methods happen to converge simply by chance,

 

[Valjean]

Sheesh! Again, your reasoning is way off base.
So if the dating is repeated, by different labs, over and over, you'd expect different results, inasmuch as the original correspondence must needs be a statistical fluke?
That doesn't happen.

 

[leroy]

Sheesh! Again, your reasoning is way off base.
So if the dating is repeated, by different labs, over and over, you'd expect different results, inasmuch as the original correspondence must needs be a statistical fluke?
That doesn't happen.

Again multiple labs having the exact same results is as unlikely as any other specific combination of results…………….if you can use this nonsense to “refute” the FT argument I can do the same with radiometric dating.

It´s the anthropic principle, if multiple labs wouldn’t get the same results, we wouldn’t be asking ourselves “why do they all have the same results”

Multiverse: There are infinite universes, infinite possibilities, so we are warrantied to have some universes where the dates converge to the same age simply by chance

We dont know:
Hey the answer is “we don’t know” just because we don’t know why is it that all ages converge , that doesn’t mean that “old earth did it” is the answer.




Wow it´s very easy to win using the atheist method, now I understand why is it so popular in forums

 

[shunyadragon]

@Valjean already has a refutatiin for that

Refutation not provided, please address the problem. @Valjean only refuted your anti-science dishonest line of thinking

Again . . .

Oh yes there is. We have determined objectively the radiometric decay rate of the elements involved in the radiometric dating methods, and have comparative verified these dating methods with other ways of consistent dating going back incremental steps in the ancient sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic deposits here on earth. One of the ways is comparing seasonal lamella hundreds of thousand of years old. This dating has been incrementally verified even in older deposits back to Zircons over 4 billion years old.

So basically the possibility of having 2 or 3 or 10 independent dating methods showing the same result (same age) by chance is extremely small……..but any other combination of ages is equally unlikely.

For example having 2 dating methods that show that a rock is around 4 Million years old…..is as unlikely as having 1 method showing 10 million and an other 1 million……………..2 dating methods showing the same age is as unlikely as any other specific combination of values.

So there is nothing to explain, independent dating methods happen to converge simply by chance,

ALL 10 labs get the same results.

Totally bizarre, and does not make sense in any language surely not English, When all the different ways of dating of millions of dating events and confirm the date there is no chance involved.

 

[leroy]

Refutation not provided, please address the problem. @Valjean only refuted your anti-science dishonest line of thinking

Again . . .

Oh yes there is. We have determined objectively the radiometric decay rate of the elements involved in the radiometric dating methods, and have comparative verified these dating methods with other ways of consistent dating going back incremental steps in the ancient sedimentary, igneous and metamorphic deposits here on earth. One of the ways is comparing seasonal lamella hundreds of thousand of years old. This dating has been incrementally verified even in older deposits back to Zircons over 4 billion years old.

I already answered to that claim, I won’t repeat the same answer again because you are going to ignore it anyway

ALL 10 labs get the same results.

Totally bizarre, and does not make sense in any language surely not English, When all the different ways of dating of millions of dating events and confirm the date there is no chance involved.

Yes 10 labs having the same result is as unlikely as any other specific combination of results ……. Improbable things happen all the time……..consider the probability that you and I were born and having this conversation……….so having multiple independent labs + multiple independent dating methods showing the same age can be explained by chance alone……nothing special

 

[Valjean]

Leroy, you don't understand how to evaluate data, nor do you understand data. May I suggest you take this course? Statistics and Probability | Khan Academy

You're assuming the lab results are a roll of the dice. If that were the case you'd be right. But they're not. They're real observations of a measurable quantity. That's why the results don't exhibit the randomness you suggest they would.