Why radioactive dating is wrong Adult chat with hot girl without registration


19-Sep-2017 23:47

But the scientific evidence grew increasingly compelling, and as time wore on, more and more flood geologists threw in the towel and accepted the scientist’s viewpoint-maybe they had had the rules of the game wrong. The rules were the rules, and it didn’t matter how many people agreed that the Earth was billions of years old—it was a grand conspiracy.

Today, there are still many flood geologists making their case.

___________ In 1681, English theologian Thomas Burnet published Sacred Theory of the Earth, in which he explained how geology worked.

What happened was, around 6,000 years ago, the Earth was formed as a perfect sphere with a surface of idyllic land and a watery interior.

Around the same time, another group of thinkers started working on the geology puzzle: scientists.

For the theologian puzzlers, the starting rules of the game were, “Fact: the Earth began 6,000 years ago and there was at one point an Earth-sweeping flood,” and their puzzling took place strictly within that context.

Just recently, an author named Tom Vail wrote a book called Contrary to what is widely believed, radioactive dating has not proven the rocks of the Grand Canyon to be millions of years old.

why radioactive dating is wrong-35

micheal de angelo double your dating

Those people know something the rest of us don’t, and we can learn something valuable from them.

But the scientists started the game with no rules at all.



Con. First, I would like to thank Pro for challenging me to this debate. However, I want to be clear that my goal here is not to "prove" young earth creationism, but to simple show that radiometric dating of the age of the earth is unreliable. The measurement of time by radioactive decay of a parent isotope is often compared to.… continue reading »


Read more

In order to accomplish their goal of discrediting radiometric dating, however, creationists are faced with the daunting task of showing that a preponderance of radiometric ages are wrong — that the methods are untrustworthy most of the time. Not only that, they have to show the flaws in those dating studies that provide.… continue reading »


Read more