How Many People On R & S Believe Radiometric Dating Is Accurate?
The reason why I bring this up is someone on here mentioned radiometric dating as evidence that the earth is billions of years old and five people gave that an answer a thumbs down.
I heard of stereotypes of people thinking the earth is much younger, but I was surprised that there appeared to be that many (relatively speaking) that did not believe that area of science is accurate.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:53 am
It’s worthless:http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles…
December 11th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
It is not accurate. It states that the world is billions of years old, but God (who created the world) told us that it is only about 6000 years old. That should prove to anyone that it is not accurate.
There are many knowledgeable scientists who have brought evidence against the claims of radiometric dating. Most authorities now believe that the apparent differences in isotope ratios were caused by accelerated nuclear decay during Noah’s flood.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
In America the conservatives that have been in power for most of the last 30 years have promoted anti-intellectualism as a virtue. (My daddy din have no book learnin and he did alright.) The religious right has been especially vocal in their anti-science rhetoric.
Too many people have been brainwashed or bought into this. I am continually shocked at the number of people here who think science is full of lies.
Of course some scientists (like other humans) give in to self interest and fraudulently skew their results but the large majority of researchers and scientists are truth seekers working to help humanity. It is usually the corporate managers who use or report the research in a way that deceives.
Radiometric dating is extremely accurate.
December 12th, 2009 at 5:46 am
I don’t have to “believe” it is accurate. I have only to look at the countless experiments to see how it works, and see that it is accurate. Christian or not, a rational individual must acknowledge this. The age of the earth is as much a fact as the statement that it orbits the sun! This is not a position scientists uphold based on faith, but on evidence.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Radiometric dating doesn’t work. If you are seeking God, ask Him. He’ll tell you. God set the laws of science in motion. I used to believe in evolution, I studied for years and one day God just opened my eyes. I understood everything! Dude He’s real and the Earth is young. I’d love to tell you more. God is so good. He changed my life. I used to think Christians were a bunch of bozos that just needed something to do on Sundays because they didn’t like football. The Bible also tells that people will “knowingly are ignorant” or “dumb on purpose” about this stuff. The magnetic poles of the Earth never changed. A North pointing compass would have never pointed South. The magnetic INTENSITY of the poles changed a bit because the Earth “wobbled” on it’s axis for a bit. That’s why ancient monuments like Stonehenge are a bit off. How this helps.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:30 am
There is absolutely no way to prove its accuracy.
You take a measurement, come up with a date of millions of years. How do you verify that? You can’t there is no way. It isn’t even accurate when used in the 5500 years of human history that we do have secondary evidence for, so how can you trust it for millions and billions of years.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Radiocarbon dating is accurate only up to a couple dozen thousand years. However, there are multiple types of radioisotope dating that use different isotopes of different atoms.
Not to mention that C14 dating isn’t the only part of radiocarbon dating, seeing as how scientists use all 3 of Carbon’s isotopes to determine objects’ ages.
Radioisotope dating is very accurate, despite what the fundies might claim.http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/MIO…http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/mio…http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD…http://lilt.ics.hawaii.edu/belvedere/mat…http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Radioisot…http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/ho…http://muller.lbl.gov/teaching/physics10…http://facstaff.gpc.edu/~fbuls/ast101/pa…
Above are a few links to many sites that explain the processes of different radioisotope dating (from C14 to K-Ar) and how the many claims about them being inaccurate are inaccurate themselves.
December 12th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
If your looking for validation to radio carbon dating that gives inaccurate time dates of rocks and trees and mummies, then I write that there is proof that this type of dating is inaccurate due to a test of a live tree that was cut down and tested by the self same dating.
Turns out that this tree that was about five years old before it was cut is now 2 thousand years old. (actual test done)
I am not stating that the earth is NOT billions of years old, I am stating that the test IS INACCURATE.
What needs to be pointed out here the theory holds that the earth is very old, how old, we don’t know that, but we DO know it’s more than six thousand years old.
December 13th, 2009 at 2:36 am
It’s accurate to a certain degree, yes.
edit~ John is an idiot. The most direct means for calculating the Earth’s age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204).
December 13th, 2009 at 4:36 am
It can never be 100% accurate because we base it off of the estimated age of atoms, based off of the estimated decay of an atom.
Unless somebody along the line really messed up in their measurements, I would say it’s faulty.
But I believe it is for the most part, very accurate.
December 13th, 2009 at 6:22 am
You creationists do so much with sooooo little!
You do not UNDERSTAND radiometric dating
YOU get ALL of your information from creationist websites
YOU have not researched it objectively
If you had, you would have known:http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/d…
…or perhaps, like those Christians here on YA! R&S, you must have all your information presented in spoonfuls from the likes of Jack T. Chick? Anything more substantive makes your mind hurt.
December 13th, 2009 at 6:58 am
Its not accurate! I know, because I have a soul mate when I was in high school,out of High school and is the same person that I will marry when I see her again. God is love and comes back in a circle as many times it takes to you to be married. If you have faith, you will marry your soul mate. So don’t listen to all dating service ads, because their all wrong.
December 13th, 2009 at 7:38 am
Science has proved that radiometric dating is real, but there are apparently some people who have reasons why it isn’t. http://www.religioustolerance.org/oldear…
check this. I’m not saying I agree with it, but it sort of shows what goes through different people’s minds.
December 13th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
i dont believe it
not because i know anything but because i am pretty sure i have been taught there are Flaws
especially after hearing Michael Kremo a couple of times and if people want to know more, check out his book forbidden archeology.
December 13th, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Don’t Know.
I don’t know what radiometric dating is.
But, I Know that the Sun has been up there Burning Really Bright—for a Long Long Time.
And, since we have developed Nuclear Reactors, we can Calculate Just How Long—the Sun will Burn, or has burnt’, so on.
Period .
December 13th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Radiometric dating is accurate – but creationists attack all science that disproves their myths.
Look at all the false claims regarding radiometric dating and carbon dating specifically:http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.…
December 13th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I guess it’s better than Moses’ dating method.
That pervert Moses and his syphilitic half-brother Aaron and their one-tooth sister Myriam, they even had God creating plants before he’d created a sun or stars.
.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
It’s not accurate. They diagnosed the same mammoth’s leg to be 3 different ages. THE SAME LEG. It’s inaccurate and it’s not scientific
December 14th, 2009 at 5:31 am
Within certain margins for error, they can bve quite accurate — particularly when you use more than one method of testing (as those pesky scientists generally do).
December 14th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Radiometric dating is highly inaccurate.
December 14th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
On the positive side of believing things aren’t as old as they really are that would mean that I’m not in my 40’s but rather still in my teens
December 14th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
It is accurate within a range, given that certain assumptions are true.
December 14th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Far more accurate than biblical dating.
December 15th, 2009 at 5:45 am
It’s accurate and I do not believe that the earth being billions of year old discredits the bible.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Given that I have a degree in Chemistry, I’m quite sure that within set parameters it is very accurate.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
It’s very accurate.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
“Radiometric dating” is totally false
December 15th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
I consider it accurate.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
It could be the most reliable thing in the world and a Young Earther would deny it. They don’t seek knowledge or truth, just affirmation.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Well it’s more accurate than a 2000 year old book in my opinion.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:10 am
Let me guess, you buy into the lies that the earth is millions of years old.
There are plenty of biblical websites written by SCIENTISTS that will show how the liberal elitists will only accept radiometric dating that agrees with their point of view.
Carbon 14 is what scientists used to say the earth is millions of years old BUT carbon 14 is only accurate after a few thousand years! lol
The funny thing is the scientists don’t know anything and yet they attack the Bible and not a single verse in it has been proven wrong!