Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Youwerecreated]

An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis

 

[Boss]

Boss: I do believe in souls, and I think our souls are spiritual in nature, is this a "spirit?" I don't claim it can be seen or observed walking through the hallways after death, but I am also not saying this is impossible and cannot happen.

OP: You may not be willing to accept their proof, because it is spiritual and not physical, but that's your problem.

Spiritual nature governs physical nature ... I do believe in souls, and I think our souls are spiritual in nature, is this a "spirit?"

... is this a "spirit?"

assuredly so ... unlike your OP however the reverse is what has also been the allure of mankind - to see the physical proof of an Almighty to confirm the existence of their individual spirit / soul they hope may escape with their last breath.

or if the spirit of man has a physicality why would someone restrict an Almighty God from having a physical presence as well ...

Like Newton, spiritual evidence though compelling is not proof in itself of a Creator of the Universe.

The OP argument states that you have to believe in spiritual nature to evaluate spiritual evidence, it does not say that spiritual evidence alone, can prove God. The believing in spiritual nature is important because there is no other way to rationalize 'spiritual existence' ...since 'existence' commonly means a physical state of existence. Those who don't believe in spiritual nature, can't rationalize spiritual existence, the term doesn't make rational sense. I know I keep repeating this point, but it is vitally important here.

I have not stated that God, or any spiritual energy force, can't possibly manifest itself in physical form. I don't know this, and it's not my argument. I would imagine it possible, but I can't prove it. My argument is purely about human spiritual connection, and the fact that humans have always had this ability to connect with something greater than self, beyond 'physical' understandings (which are based on our five senses), and that this connection is not imaginary, but very real, and has produced results which billions of people are convinced were the result of spiritual forces.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You have consistently failed to show why the GTR time-space would avoid the first moment problem. My understanding of it is that it does not.

If you cant argue your case then fine, admit it and walk away, but don't blame me as though I am too dense to grasp what you refuse to essplain, dear.

Where was any implication made as to your level of intelligence? If you did gain that impression it was unintentional.

As far as the the fictitious "first moment problem" is concerned it does NOT exist. The reason it doesn't exist is because infinity does not only "begin" with "now" and go on ad infinitum into the future. Infinity reaches into the PAST as well as the future. With an INFINITE PAST there is no "first moment" ever.

Your "first moment problem" is because you are insisting upon driving a stake into the timelime and claiming that must be the "first moment". Given an infinite PAST there is no "first moment" ever. Space/time has ALWAYS existed in the PAST just as it will always exist in the future.

So you believe the universe is omnipotent

Typical infantile response. Your failure to comprehend what was actually posted is always on display. Since no claim was ever made that the "universe is omnipotent" YOU are caught LYING again.

and everlasting? Interesting. And you claim that our universe operates as a functional 'machine'

Yet another of YOUR LIES. Nowhere is the claim made likening the universe to a 'machine'. Then again you probably don't even comprehend what a 'machine' actually is, either.

to cycle through various stages to complete revolution and start over again? Hmm... But you SWEAR it is not possible that something greater than man, which we don't comprehend or understand, might have been responsible for this perpetual 'machine' known as the universe? Even when billions of people are telling you they connect to this spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have existed.

Here's the deal, Dorito... You don't believe in Gawd. You can't refute Gawd with science, every attempt fails, so what you have 'cleverly' done, is create an everlasting universe which doesn't require a Creator. In other words, you have simply replaced the word "God" for the word "universe" and this is what you've decided you believe in. That's fine, I have no qualms with you believing the universe is God.

Since YOU are NOT a man "of your word" there is never going to be any "deal", especially not on your bogus "terms". The onus will forever remain on YOU to prove the existence of your God first and foremost. This entire thread of yours is just a testament to YOUR EPIC FAILURE to do so.

As far as the universe goes no "belief" is needed. The universe EXISTS. The space/time continuum EXISTS. Clowns like you can pretend that a "creator" was necessary but there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any such "creator". Try dealing with REALITY instead. It is much healthier.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You have consistently failed to show why the GTR time-space would avoid the first moment problem. My understanding of it is that it does not.
If you cant argue your case then fine, admit it and walk away, but don't blame me as though I am too dense to grasp what you refuse to essplain, dear.

Where was any implication made as to your level of intelligence? If you did gain that impression it was unintentional.
As far as the the fictitious "first moment problem" is concerned it does NOT exist. The reason it doesn't exist is because infinity does not only "begin" with "now" and go on ad infinitum into the future. Infinity reaches into the PAST as well as the future. With an INFINITE PAST there is no "first moment" ever.
Your "first moment problem" is because you are insisting upon driving a stake into the timelime and claiming that must be the "first moment". Given an infinite PAST there is no "first moment" ever. Space/time has ALWAYS existed in the PAST just as it will always exist in the future.

So you believe the universe is omnipotent

Typical infantile response. Your failure to comprehend what was actually posted is always on display. Since no claim was ever made that the "universe is omnipotent" YOU are caught LYING again.

and everlasting? Interesting. And you claim that our universe operates as a functional 'machine'

Yet another of YOUR LIES. Nowhere is the claim made likening the universe to a 'machine'. Then again you probably don't even comprehend what a 'machine' actually is, either.

to cycle through various stages to complete revolution and start over again? Hmm... But you SWEAR it is not possible that something greater than man, which we don't comprehend or understand, might have been responsible for this perpetual 'machine' known as the universe? Even when billions of people are telling you they connect to this spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have existed.

Here's the deal, Dorito... You don't believe in Gawd. You can't refute Gawd with science, every attempt fails, so what you have 'cleverly' done, is create an everlasting universe which doesn't require a Creator. In other words, you have simply replaced the word "God" for the word "universe" and this is what you've decided you believe in. That's fine, I have no qualms with you believing the universe is God.

Since YOU are NOT a man "of your word" there is never going to be any "deal", especially not on your bogus "terms". The onus will forever remain on YOU to prove the existence of your God first and foremost. This entire thread of yours is just a testament to YOUR EPIC FAILURE to do so.

As far as the universe goes no "belief" is needed. The universe EXISTS. The space/time continuum EXISTS. Clowns like you can pretend that a "creator" was necessary but there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any such "creator". Try dealing with REALITY instead. It is much healthier.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Look the biggest problem with dating methods are the rate of decay of elements. They teach that the rate of decay has always remained constant and that is false. That will greatly affect dating methods.

bullshit !Stanford University News reports that the rate of radioactive decay on Earth may be affected by the sun. This should come as a surprise to you if you've taken science class where the rate of decay has been assumed to be constant. After all, a constant rate of decay is presupposed in order to perform carbon-14 dating or to calculate radioisotope dosage for cancer treatments. The effect is believed to be related to neutrinos from the sun. Since neutrinos aren't known to directly interact with radioactive materials, another (undiscovered) particle may be involved.
Don't expect the new findings to get you out of radioactivity calculations. The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute. You'll still need to know how to calculate rate of decay and carbon-14 dating for any chemistry or physics class you may take!
"The fluctuations in the decay rate are extremely minute."
Rate of Radioactive Decay May Not Be Constant

as always you're telling a half truth to bolster your nonexistent story.

You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

by Kyle Butt, M.A.


For decades the general population has been informed that numerous “scientific” evidences prove beyond all doubt that the age of the Earth should be measured in billions of years instead of thousands. We have been told that dating methods, such as the rates of decay of radioactive elements, force an honest observer to an old-Earth conclusion. The problems with this “evidence” are many (see DeYoung, 2005). One of the most glaring problems with such reasoning is that it is based on assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.

For instance, in order for the old-Earth clocks that are based on radioactive elements to be accurate, it must be taken as a fact that the decay rates of the elements are constant, and have been for the last several “billion years” (not that there ever really has been such time). For years, that assumption has been shown to have serious problems (DeYoung), and recent findings have made that assumption even more glaringly false.

On August 23, Dan Stober wrote an article for the Stanford Report titled “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements.” He reported on findings from researchers at Stanford and Purdue universities that suggest that the decay rates of radioactive elements can vary based on the activity of solar flares. The implications of such a discovery are profound. As Stober wrote: “The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts” (2010, emp. added). Stober’s implication is that if the decay rates are not constant, as we have been taught by the evolutionary community for decades, then their dating methods cannot be reliable, since they “rely” on a constant rate of decay.

Stober further commented that the constant-rate-of-decay assumption “was challenged” by Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue researcher, who found disagreement in measured decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes, “odd for supposed physical constants” (Stober, 2010). What was more, upon assessing further data, researchers noticed seasonal decay rate differences in certain isotopes, “the decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer” (2010). Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics Peter Sturrock stated: “Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we’re all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant” (2010).

Further research, however, suggested that the information was not an experimental mistake. In December of 2006, Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer at Purdue University, noticed that the decay rate of manganese-54 dropped slightly just before and during a solar flare. Jenkins and Fischbach argue that this variation in decay rates is caused by interaction between solar neutrinos and the radioactive elements being observed. Stober quoted Fischbach as saying that all the evidence assessed by Sturrock, Fischbach, and Jenkins “points toward a conclusion that the sun is ‘communicating’ with radioactive isotopes on Earth” (2010).

Strober admitted that no one knows how neutrinos could possibly ‘communicate’ with radioactive elements on Earth. Fischbach acknowledged that “it doesn’t make any sense according to conventional ideas.” Sturrock stated, “It’s an effect that no one yet understands…. But that’s what the evidence points to. It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.” More than that, though, it is a challenge for the dogmatic evolutionists who insist that their deep-time dating methods are accurate. This latest research brings to light the glaring flaw of such dating methods, showing that the core assumptions are not only questionable, they are verifiably false.

The suggestion that decay rates may be affected by neutrinos is nothing new. The TalkOrigins Web site cites a reference to Henry Morris mentioning the possibility as early as 1974 and Davis Young discussing it in 1988 (“Claim CD004,” 2004). The responses given by TalkOrigins do not include the new data from the latest research, and cannot dismiss the fact that the rates of radioactive elements are measurably variable, even though the neutrino interaction with them is little understood (2004). Since we can prove that certain radioactive elements have a rate that varies in the winter or summer, or during solar flares, then the assumption that decay rates are constant cannot honestly be maintained.


CONCLUSION

It has long been taught in classrooms across the world that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is a core assumption upon which old-Earth conclusions are based. Yet this assumption has been proven false, based on the fact that decay rates have been shown to vary. This information, according to scientists from Purdue and Stanford, goes against what has been “taught in classrooms” and against “what we’re all brought up to believe.” Does our society never tire of discovering that the “evidence” for old-Earth assumptions continues to disintegrate as more data is assessed? How long will it be, and how many more core evolutionary assumptions must be debunked, before those who insist on an Earth measured in billions of years acquiesce to the truth of a young Earth measured in thousands of years?


Apologetics Press - New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

You are wasting your time with daws. He isn't looking for facts about anything; he already knows everything.

 

[JimBowie1958]

experience has taught me to expect an atheist version of a Bowie response ...

go fuck yourself

 

[Boss]

Where was any implication made as to your level of intelligence? If you did gain that impression it was unintentional.
As far as the the fictitious "first moment problem" is concerned it does NOT exist. The reason it doesn't exist is because infinity does not only "begin" with "now" and go on ad infinitum into the future. Infinity reaches into the PAST as well as the future. With an INFINITE PAST there is no "first moment" ever.
Your "first moment problem" is because you are insisting upon driving a stake into the timelime and claiming that must be the "first moment". Given an infinite PAST there is no "first moment" ever. Space/time has ALWAYS existed in the PAST just as it will always exist in the future.

So you believe the universe is omnipotent

Typical infantile response. Your failure to comprehend what was actually posted is always on display. Since no claim was ever made that the "universe is omnipotent" YOU are caught LYING again.

No, I am not caught lying, I read what you posted about the universe always existing, never ending, and thus, it must be omnipotent. If it never ends or begins, it's power is unlimited. Now you can do your little tapdance if you like, and pretend you meant something else, but I am going by what you said.

and everlasting? Interesting. And you claim that our universe operates as a functional 'machine'

Yet another of YOUR LIES. Nowhere is the claim made likening the universe to a 'machine'. Then again you probably don't even comprehend what a 'machine' actually is, either.

World English Dictionary
machine (məˈʃiːn)
— n
1. an assembly of interconnected components arranged to transmit or modify force in order to perform useful work

It would appear, this definition fits your description of a perpetual universe.

to cycle through various stages to complete revolution and start over again? Hmm... But you SWEAR it is not possible that something greater than man, which we don't comprehend or understand, might have been responsible for this perpetual 'machine' known as the universe? Even when billions of people are telling you they connect to this spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have existed.

Here's the deal, Dorito... You don't believe in Gawd. You can't refute Gawd with science, every attempt fails, so what you have 'cleverly' done, is create an everlasting universe which doesn't require a Creator. In other words, you have simply replaced the word "God" for the word "universe" and this is what you've decided you believe in. That's fine, I have no qualms with you believing the universe is God.

Since YOU are NOT a man "of your word" there is never going to be any "deal", especially not on your bogus "terms". The onus will forever remain on YOU to prove the existence of your God first and foremost. This entire thread of yours is just a testament to YOUR EPIC FAILURE to do so.

As far as the universe goes no "belief" is needed. The universe EXISTS. The space/time continuum EXISTS. Clowns like you can pretend that a "creator" was necessary but there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any such "creator". Try dealing with REALITY instead. It is much healthier.

[/QUOTE]

Well you can bow up and be surly and snarky, I don't really care. I didn't say I wanted to make a deal with you, moron. I said clearly in the OP, that people who can't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, can't answer the question of god's existence, and by god, you've proven that true all through the thread. There is no "onus" on me to explain something to stupid people. You should have been able to read the OP and understand, you can't ever answer the question of god's existence, because you refuse to accept spiritual evidence. I can't make you do that, no matter how hard I try.

REALITY is you have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that the universe wasn't created. In fact, your theory of a perpetual universe, indicates you believe in God and the universe is God.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So you believe the universe is omnipotent

Typical infantile response. Your failure to comprehend what was actually posted is always on display. Since no claim was ever made that the "universe is omnipotent" YOU are caught LYING again.

No, I am not caught lying, I read what you posted about the universe always existing, never ending, and thus, it must be omnipotent.

Only someone who is utterly CLUELESS as to the meaning of the term "omnipotent" would make such a stupid assumption.

If it never ends or begins, it's power is unlimited. Now you can do your little tapdance if you like, and pretend you meant something else, but I am going by what you said.

No, YOU are actually going by your own ignorance and stupidity about the universe and the meaning of words in the English language.

It would appear, this definition fits your description of a perpetual universe.

to cycle through various stages to complete revolution and start over again? Hmm... But you SWEAR it is not possible that something greater than man, which we don't comprehend or understand, might have been responsible for this perpetual 'machine' known as the universe? Even when billions of people are telling you they connect to this spiritual nature, and have been doing so for as long as humans have existed.

Here's the deal, Dorito... You don't believe in Gawd. You can't refute Gawd with science, every attempt fails, so what you have 'cleverly' done, is create an everlasting universe which doesn't require a Creator. In other words, you have simply replaced the word "God" for the word "universe" and this is what you've decided you believe in. That's fine, I have no qualms with you believing the universe is God.

Since YOU are NOT a man "of your word" there is never going to be any "deal", especially not on your bogus "terms". The onus will forever remain on YOU to prove the existence of your God first and foremost. This entire thread of yours is just a testament to YOUR EPIC FAILURE to do so.

As far as the universe goes no "belief" is needed. The universe EXISTS. The space/time continuum EXISTS. Clowns like you can pretend that a "creator" was necessary but there is ZERO EVIDENCE of any such "creator". Try dealing with REALITY instead. It is much healthier.

Well you can bow up and be surly and snarky,

at the IRONY!

I don't really care. I didn't say I wanted to make a deal with you, moron. I said clearly in the OP, that people who can't accept or acknowledge spiritual evidence, can't answer the question of god's existence, and by god, you've proven that true all through the thread. There is no "onus" on me to explain something to stupid people.

That explains why can't even explain it to yourself either.

You should have been able to read the OP and understand, you can't ever answer the question of god's existence, because you refuse to accept spiritual evidence. I can't make you do that, no matter how hard I try.

REALITY is you have absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE that the universe wasn't created. In fact, your theory of a perpetual universe, indicates you believe in God and the universe is God.

The EVIDENCE is that the universe EXISTS and the Law of Conservation of Matter EXISTS. Together that NULLIFIES any need for YOUR superstitious "creation myth".

Why are YOU so DESPERATE to distort everything to fit your FUNDAMENTALIST CREATIONIST BELIEFS? Are you really that INSECURE in your own beliefs that you are forced to impose them on others?

 

[hobelim]

experience has taught me to expect an atheist version of a Bowie response ...

go fuck yourself

When you are on your knees in church, do you let the priest put the flesh of his mangod right into your mouth or do you hold it in your hand ??

Do you swallow right away or do you let is get all soft in your mouth first?

 

[Hollie]

You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Kyle Butt? What a joke!

As expected from YWC, his “source” is a religious fundie who has no formal training in any of the sciences he blathers on about.

Apologetics Press | Bible Contradiction |

Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. Currently, he serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc.

How does a degree in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament... qualify this loon as an authority on dating methods?

Is this a bad joke?

This is a typical pattern that oozes from the creationist ministries. It’s so often that phony creationist with phony degrees (or degrees not at all associated with the field of study they rattle on about), offer opinions that they have no business offering. It’s laughable that fundies will post these embarrassing lapses of credibility but as we know, fundies are far less interested in facts than they are pressing their dogma.

 

[Hollie]

An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis

Oh yeah. AIG. Now there's a reliable source.

From the "Statement of Faith" section on their website

Section 1: Priorities
◾The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
◾The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Section 2: Basics
◾The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

Remember, this is the organization fronted by Ken Ham who is the "Creation Museum" fraudster.

Yes, the "Creation Museum" where Ken Ham would have you believe that humans in buckskin outfits shared the planet with dinosaurs.


Behind the Scenes at the Creation “Museum”

Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb

One of the Creation “Museum’s” more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noah’s Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation “Museum’s” bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the “museum.” Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Kyle Butt? What a joke!

As expected from YWC, his “source” is a religious fundie who has no formal training in any of the sciences he blathers on about.

Apologetics Press | Bible Contradiction |

Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. Currently, he serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc.

How does a degree in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament... qualify this loon as an authority on dating methods?

Is this a bad joke?

This is a typical pattern that oozes from the creationist ministries. It’s so often that phony creationist with phony degrees (or degrees not at all associated with the field of study they rattle on about), offer opinions that they have no business offering. It’s laughable that fundies will post these embarrassing lapses of credibility but as we know, fundies are far less interested in facts than they are pressing their dogma.

Are you really this dense ? the facts are that the decay rate has been shown to be a faulty assumption which blows up the dating methods.

You can find anything you want to spin the evidence but you can't spin the facts on this.

Did you not consider his sources from two major universities that proved the decay rate is a bad assumption. Did you consider the ex-evolutionist that shared why he no longer holds the old earth view ? no,of course you havn't because you just refuse to accept it and choose to remain ignorant of the facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis

Oh yeah. AIG. Now there's a reliable source.

From the "Statement of Faith" section on their website

Section 1: Priorities
◾The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.
◾The doctrines of Creator and Creation cannot ultimately be divorced from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Section 2: Basics
◾The 66 books of the Bible are the written Word of God. The Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in everything it teaches. Its authority is not limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes but includes its assertions in such fields as history and science.

Remember, this is the organization fronted by Ken Ham who is the "Creation Museum" fraudster.

Yes, the "Creation Museum" where Ken Ham would have you believe that humans in buckskin outfits shared the planet with dinosaurs.


Behind the Scenes at the Creation “Museum”

Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb

One of the Creation “Museum’s” more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noah’s Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation “Museum’s” bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the “museum.” Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.

Kinda like your sources you copy and paste from to Ad nauseam. Hollie, take a hike dummy.

 

[Boss]

The EVIDENCE is that the universe EXISTS and the Law of Conservation of Matter EXISTS. Together that NULLIFIES any need for YOUR superstitious "creation myth".

Sorry, it doesn't nullify anything. Spiritual nature created both matter and the law of conservation of matter.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie, pandas thumb and talk origins lol.

Hollie surround yourself with defenders of the faith you become just as ignorant.

 

[Hollie]

You're wrong daws it has been proven radioIsotopes do not decay at the same rate there are variables.

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Kyle Butt? What a joke!

As expected from YWC, his “source” is a religious fundie who has no formal training in any of the sciences he blathers on about.

Apologetics Press | Bible Contradiction |

Kyle Butt is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. with a double major in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament. Currently, he serves in the Bible department at Apologetics Press and as editor of Discovery magazine. He speaks frequently around the country at youth rallies, lectureships, Gospel meetings, etc.

How does a degree in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament... qualify this loon as an authority on dating methods?

Is this a bad joke?

This is a typical pattern that oozes from the creationist ministries. It’s so often that phony creationist with phony degrees (or degrees not at all associated with the field of study they rattle on about), offer opinions that they have no business offering. It’s laughable that fundies will post these embarrassing lapses of credibility but as we know, fundies are far less interested in facts than they are pressing their dogma.

Are you really this dense ? the facts are that the decay rate has been shown to be a faulty assumption which blows up the dating methods.

You can find anything you want to spin the evidence but you can't spin the facts on this.

Did you not consider his sources from two major universities that proved the decay rate is a bad assumption. Did you consider the ex-evolutionist that shared why he no longer holds the old earth view ? no,of course you havn't because you just refuse to accept it and choose to remain ignorant of the facts.

Well sorry, dear, but your young earth creationist model is still a hoax.

Run along now and go play in the street. Your cutting and pasting from silly creationist sources has once again made you the Butt (Kyle Butt), of ridicule and derision.

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one."

 

[Hollie]

An evil ex-evolutionist shares why he rejects the old earth belief.

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth - Answers in Genesis

Oh yeah. AIG. Now there's a reliable source.

From the "Statement of Faith" section on their website





Remember, this is the organization fronted by Ken Ham who is the "Creation Museum" fraudster.

Yes, the "Creation Museum" where Ken Ham would have you believe that humans in buckskin outfits shared the planet with dinosaurs.


Behind the Scenes at the Creation “Museum”

Behind the Scenes at the Creation "Museum" - The Panda's Thumb

One of the Creation “Museum’s” more ridiculous claims is that dinosaurs and other Mesozoic animals survived Noah’s Flood via the Ark and lived until historical times, when they became known as fire-breathing dragons and other mythological creatures. Recently the Creation Museum put up various billboards of dinosaurs around the country and included one of a fire-breathing dragon. The image is now sold on T-shirts in the Creation “Museum’s” bookstore. Additionally, they sell an assortment of dragon and knight figures as toys in the bookstore, which has a dragon theme with a faux medieval look to it. Apparently this fantasy is being passed along to children and their parents by the “museum.” Obviously Answers in Genesis has not thought through the idea of putting fire-breathing animals on a wooden boat. Perhaps they need to tell everyone that Noah owned an asbestos mine.

Kinda like your sources you copy and paste from to Ad nauseam. Hollie, take a hike dummy.

As expected, you're hopelessly inadequate at actually defending your nonsensical young earth creationist drivel.

Did you see the part about Ken Ham proposing there was a fire breathing dragon on Noah's Ark????

It’s a simple matter to look at websites such as AiG and spot the fraud. They simply make up nonsense as they go. Every “theory” of ID/creationism is founded on fraudulent assumptions that the various bibles are absolutely true, basic misconceptions of bible stories and misrepresentations of science. None of the brain-dead Kool Aid drinkers who promote these sites wants to know anything about science because they are convinced that by remaining ignorant of science, their goofy creationist arguments are valid alternatives.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie, pandas thumb and talk origins lol.

Hollie surround yourself with defenders of the faith you become just as ignorant.

As expected, no defense of silly creationist claims to magic.

That would be due to the fact that magic is indefensible in the realm of reason and rationality.

So much for fire breathing dragons on Noah's Ark.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Kyle Butt? What a joke!

As expected from YWC, his “source” is a religious fundie who has no formal training in any of the sciences he blathers on about.

Apologetics Press | Bible Contradiction |



How does a degree in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament... qualify this loon as an authority on dating methods?

Is this a bad joke?

This is a typical pattern that oozes from the creationist ministries. It’s so often that phony creationist with phony degrees (or degrees not at all associated with the field of study they rattle on about), offer opinions that they have no business offering. It’s laughable that fundies will post these embarrassing lapses of credibility but as we know, fundies are far less interested in facts than they are pressing their dogma.

Are you really this dense ? the facts are that the decay rate has been shown to be a faulty assumption which blows up the dating methods.

You can find anything you want to spin the evidence but you can't spin the facts on this.

Did you not consider his sources from two major universities that proved the decay rate is a bad assumption. Did you consider the ex-evolutionist that shared why he no longer holds the old earth view ? no,of course you havn't because you just refuse to accept it and choose to remain ignorant of the facts.

Well sorry, dear, but your young earth creationist model is still a hoax.

Run along now and go play in the street. Your cutting and pasting from silly creationist sources has once again made you the Butt (Kyle Butt), of ridicule and derision.

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one."

There are more than one assumption that is in error.

Radiometric dating









Mass spectrometer used to determine the proportions of isotopes contained in a sample of igneous rock.

Radiometric dating utilizes the decay rates of certain radioactive atoms to date rocks or artifacts. Uniformitarian geologists consider this form of dating strong evidence that the Earth is billions of years old. But new research by creationists has revealed a large number of problems with radiometric dating. In some cases such as Carbon-14 dating, radioactive dating actually gives strong evidence for a young Earth. Other methods such as Potassium-argon dating and Isochron dating are based on faulty assumptions and so unreliable as to be useless.



Contents
[hide]1 Basic principles
2 Assumptions 2.1 Challenging the assumption of original composition
2.2 "Calibration" and disregarding "Out of Place Fossils"

3 Types of Radiometric Dating
4 Problems
5 Common Decay Series
6 References
7 Further reading
8 News


Basic principles



Parent and daughter isotopes commonly used to establish ages of rocks.

Many atoms (or elements) exist as numerous varieties called isotopes, some of which are radioactive, meaning they decay over time by losing particles. Radiometric dating is based on the decay rate of these isotopes into stable nonradioactive isotopes. To date an object, scientists measure the quantity of parent and daughter isotope in a sample, and use the atomic decay rate to determine its possible age.

For example, in the 238U-206Pb series, 238U is the parent isotope and the others are daughter isotopes. 206Pb is the final daughter isotope and the one assayed in radiometric dating.

In order to calculate the age of the rock, geologists follow this procedure:
1. Measure the ratio of isotopes in the rock.
2. Observe the rate of radioactive decay from the mother to the daughter isotope.
3. Calculate the time required for the mother isotope to produce all the observed daughter isotope, according to this formula:

t = \frac{1}{\lambda} \ln \left ( 1 + \frac{D}{P} \right )

where:
t is the age of the specimen;
D and P are the numbers of daughter and parent isotope today;
λ is the decay constant for the parent atom.

The decay constant has dimensions of reciprocal seconds. In the special case in which parent and daughter atoms are present in equal quantities, the age of the specimen is the half-life of the parent isotope:

t^{1/2} = \frac{\ln 2}{\lambda}[1]

Half-life (t1/2) is the amount of time required for one-half of the nuclei in a radioactive sample to decay into another kind of nucleus. [2]

Assumptions

The various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:
1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.[3]

Challenging the assumption of original composition

The first assumption, that the amount of the daughter isotope in the original rock is known, is the weakest assumption. For example, K-Ar dating assumes that there was no argon in the original rock. But if there was argon in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high.

To understand this, recall the above formula. The greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

The proportion of argon to radioactive potassium in the sample today is observable, and the decay constant of potassium is readily calculable by measuring the amount of argon produced from the decay of 40K after a specified time. But the age of the rock and the proportion of argon to radio-potassium in the sample originally are not observable. As any first-year student of algebra soon learns, a single equation with two unknown variables cannot be solved. In fact, the above formula is far too simple, because it assumes that the amount of daughter isotope was zero at start. The formula below is a proper model that admits the possibility that some daughter isotope was present when the rock formed:

t = \frac{1}{\lambda} \ln \left ( 1 + \frac{D - D_0}{P} \right )

where D0 is the amount of daughter isotope present at start. In order to simplify the formula, scientists generally assume that igneous rock contains no argon when it forms, because the argon, being a noble gas, would escape from the cooling lava.

This assumption has been repeatedly falsified. Fresh volcanic rock is routinely found to have argon in it when it first cools.[4][5] In these cases, lava of a known age of no more than several thousand years (and in one case, no more than ten years) had argon in it when it formed, so that the rock was calculated by K-Ar dating to be millions of years old, even though it was known to be only thousands of years old.

"Calibration" and disregarding "Out of Place Fossils"

Numerous fossils have been found in strata inconsistent with the evolutionary model of Earth's history.[6] These out of place fossils would seem to pose a problem for radiometric dating methods which are still calibrated based on the position of fossils (relative dates) in the geologic column. However, these fossils are not problematic if one simply disregards their existence.

If the date generated by isotope dating analysis agrees with the conventional interpretation of the geological column, paleontologists will accept it as valid. A date that disagrees with that interpretation is dismissed as an anomaly. This is not an example of malfeasance, but rather the result of assuming that the theory of evolution has been proved reliable, and therefore these seeming anomalies are due to contamination or other causes of analytical error. These out of place fossils or rocks are not considered a reason to question the theory. This makes independent testing of these dating methods impossible, since published discrepant dates are rare.[7]

Types of Radiometric Dating
Carbon-14 dating: Uses the ratio of 14C to 12C to determine the age of biological remains. Contrary to popular belief, Carbon-14 dating gives solid evidence for a young Earth.[8]
Helium diffusion: This dating method, developed by creationists, is based on the rate of Helium diffusion from zircons, which gives many rocks a maximum age of 6,000 +/- 2,000 years.[9]
Uranium-Lead dating
Potassium-argon dating: K-Ar dating was used for a long time despite being challenged by creationists for its faulty assumptions and data. It is no longer defended as reliable, even by uniformitarian geologists, because it is entirely dependent on the assumption that igneous rocks never have any argon when they initially cool, and that assumption has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false as igneous rock of known age has been "dating" to ages far older than its actual age, because there was Argon in it when it formed.[4][5]
Concordia dating: Concordia dating rests on the same assumptions as K-Ar, namely that there was none of the daughter isotope (in this case Lead) in the sample when it originally cooled. Like the assumption in K-Ar, however, this assumption is also unfalsifiable, making this method equally unreliable.[10]
Isochron dating: Isochron dating was introduced as an attempted substitute for K-Ar dating, after K-Ar's faulty assumptions were exposed. However, isochron dating bears faulty assumptions of its own. It assumes the homogeneity of the sample when it originally formed, an assumption which is always false in whole rocks, and unfalsifiable in minerals.[11]

Problems
Main Page: Radiometric dating problems
Creationists have responded to this challenge in varying ways and cited numerous problems with radiometric dating. Creationists admit that there is significant evidence of daughter isotopes well in excess of what could be generated by decay at contemporary observed rates within the timescale they contend to be true.

Some have proposed that the errors could be attributable to excess original daughter isotopes (though isochron dating methods minimize this) and accelerated decay caused by external phenomena. While astronomers have found that magnetars emit radiation that could cause bouts of accelerated decay, and that these bouts may be more common than originally thought, the amount of heat produced by the radiation during the short period presents a problem for creationists.

A more common approach is to allow for accelerated nuclear decay during the early portion of terrestrial history, when those elements which decay naturally were buried far below the crust (or far below the waters of the global flood, in some models), therefore dealing with the heat problem. One possibility for the accelerated decay comes with the possibility of variable speed of light. Other theories simply hypothesize that during certain periods of time God sped up the process; these are called singularities in creation science.

In addition to the above methods of dealing with this challenge, creationists have contended a whole raft of problems with both the older and newer methods of radiometric dating. They cite several examples of discordant dates when multiple methods are tried on the same rock, many anecdotes of dating techniques giving obviously wrong data (including some where rock formed after 1900 was dated as being over 3 million years, such as at Mt. Ngauruhoe[12] and Mt. St. Helens.[4] John Woodmorappe claims that discrepancy in data is prevalent, and accuses scientists of throwing out most of the inaccurate results, giving the illusion of accuracy. He also indicates how mixed families of rock can give anomalous isochron readings, some of which would indicate a negative age for certain rocks. His book, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, documents approximately 200 quotes by secular geologists indicating problems with the various dating methods.

Common Decay Series
Main Article: Radioactive decay Samarium-Neodymium. (Sm-Nd)
Rhenium-Osmium (Re-Os)
Uranium/Thorium-Lead. (U/Th-Pb)
Rubidium-Strontium (Rb-Sr)
Potassium-Argon dating (K-Ar)
Argon-Argon (Ar-Ar)
Lutetium-Hafnium (Lu-Hf)
Carbon-Carbon (14C-12C)

Radiometric dating - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

 

[Youwerecreated]

Kyle Butt? What a joke!

As expected from YWC, his “source” is a religious fundie who has no formal training in any of the sciences he blathers on about.

Apologetics Press | Bible Contradiction |



How does a degree in Bible and communications, and an M.A. in New Testament... qualify this loon as an authority on dating methods?

Is this a bad joke?

This is a typical pattern that oozes from the creationist ministries. It’s so often that phony creationist with phony degrees (or degrees not at all associated with the field of study they rattle on about), offer opinions that they have no business offering. It’s laughable that fundies will post these embarrassing lapses of credibility but as we know, fundies are far less interested in facts than they are pressing their dogma.

Are you really this dense ? the facts are that the decay rate has been shown to be a faulty assumption which blows up the dating methods.

You can find anything you want to spin the evidence but you can't spin the facts on this.

Did you not consider his sources from two major universities that proved the decay rate is a bad assumption. Did you consider the ex-evolutionist that shared why he no longer holds the old earth view ? no,of course you havn't because you just refuse to accept it and choose to remain ignorant of the facts.

Well sorry, dear, but your young earth creationist model is still a hoax.

Run along now and go play in the street. Your cutting and pasting from silly creationist sources has once again made you the Butt (Kyle Butt), of ridicule and derision.

Purdue-Stanford team finds radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation

"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings," Fischbach said. "One of our next steps is to look into the isotopes used medically to see if there are any variations that would lead to overdosing or underdosing in radiation treatments, but there is no cause for alarm at this point. What is key here is that what was thought to be a constant actually varies and we've discovered a periodic oscillation where there shouldn't be one."

Explain to me how the guy in the video from answersingenesis that you took a shot at. He took a piece of rock and at the time it was 11 years old this was from Mt st helens. All the dating methods were all over and did not match each other. Then knowing the rocks age which was 11 years old the youngest age was 330,000 years old and the oldest was 3.3 million years old. Can you explain problems such as these ?