Radiometric dating idiots polynesian dating service

Yeah, where they disagree it's evidence they're wrong, and where they agree it's evidence of a conspiracy. Did you know that if you claim not to understand something, it makes it wrong? There is no independent natural clock against which those assumptions can be tested.For example, the amount of cratering on the moon, based on currently observed cratering rates, would suggest that the moon is quite old.Religion in this context serves the purposes of many various global elitist agendas.""Religion, comprises a system of wishful illusions together with a disavowal of reality, such as we find in an isolated form nowhere else but in amentia, in a state of blissful hallucinatory confusion.""I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. They argue that even if I am correct, and that there are no gods, what can the harm be in letting others believe in gods and goddesses.

The other is that the decay products of various atoms are always the same. Just looking at this list, I can see that none of these are actually assumptions used by radioactive dating methods and/or they are known issues and compensated for. Something that this particular website has none of. Basically, just like all creationists, they are making stuff up and then hoping you won’t check them on it. 1) atmosphere has always had the same amount of C-14 This is obviously in reference to carbon-14 dating of formerly living tissue.

This is also actually kind of trivial and easily determined in the lab. Let’s see what the Missing Universe Museum thinks are the assumptions of radioactive dating methods. I guess we have to start at the top and work our way down… During an organisms life, it takes in CO have the common 6 protons and 6 neutrons. However, due to some interesting nuclear chemistry (which I’ll go into if requested), there’s another version of carbon (called an isotope) that has 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Note that if the number of protons change, then the atom is no longer carbon. Amazingly (and unlike what is claimed by the creationists), scientists have known about a variety of methods that create carbon-14 and how those methods have varied over time. Well, we take a carbon sample from a material of a known age and date that. Basically, the calibration curves are off by no more than 16 years over the historical range (6,000 years or so) and no more than 163 years over the last 20,000 years.

Always the starting time of the "clock" has to be assumed as well as the way in which the speed of the clock has varied over time.

Further, it has to be assumed that the clock was never disturbed. This is also the Nirvana fallacy, since it is discarding models based on their failing to provide absolute proof, regardless of how good the proof they provide is.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSOLUTE MORAL STANDARDS (1) If there are absolute moral standards, then God exists. (3) There is absolutely no other way that chariots could get to the bottom of the Red Sea. (2) Atheist notes that the NT doesn't mention anyone dying for their knowledge of Jesus' "physical" resurrection. ARGUMENT FROM ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE (I) (1) I once experienced something I can't explain. (2) That someone must have been an eyewitness to the described events.

There is a forthcoming highly significant and very tragic publishing event which relates to the rationalist/ anti-rationalist divide in the Jewish community. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I) (1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists. ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE (1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys you're obviously very well read. ARGUMENT FROM CREATIVE INTERPRETATION (1) God is: (a) The feeling you have when you look at a newborn baby. (8) [Atheist gives up and goes home.] (9) Therefore, God exists. (d) Humankind's potential to overcome their difficulties. (4) I can use religious exemption claims to tie the IRS up in court. (Aside, my dad doesn’t know how old I am, he usually misses by about two years, giving him an error of almost 5%.) Not only, is this not a ‘false assumption’. Oh and here’s a link to the Table of Contents for this set of creationist misconceptions. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I) (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.""Here is the difference between religion and science.

Comments are closed.