We who preach the gospel must not think of ourselves as public relations agents sent to establish good will between Christ and the world. We must not imagine ourselves commissioned to make Christ acceptable to big business, the press, the world of sports or modern education. We are not diplomats but prophets, and our message is not a compromise but an ultimatum. A.W. Tozer
Therefore let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth. --Basil of Caesarea
Once you learn to discern, there's no going back. You will begin to spot the lie everywhere it appears.

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me, because He considered me faithful, putting me into service. 1 Timothy 1:12

Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Can Radioisotope Dating Be Trusted?


Click on the image below to read the article.


Posted by at
Labels: ,

6 comments:

Jesse Albrecht said...

I wonder how promoters of Darwinism would respond to this.

January 8, 2019 at 10:23 PM
Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Well, I seem to have occasional comments from evolutionists, but none so far have commented on this post.

January 9, 2019 at 11:46 AM
Nick said...

First, this contention creates more problems than it solves. Simply put, the nuclear radiation rate necessary to make sense of a six-thousand-year-old universe would have been lethal to plant, animal, and human life.

Furthermore, physicists have not simply presumed decay rates to be consistent. They have made a concerted effort to disprove radiometric dating by subjecting radioactive atoms to extreme temperatures, extreme pressures, and a variety of electromagnetic variations. To date, however, no change in the rate of decay of any geologically significant radioactive isotope has been discovered.

Finally, the age of the earth as determined through radiometric dating processes corresponds to age parameters projected by such astronomical measurements as star life, which also demonstrates the age of the earth to be hundreds of times older than that presumed by young-earth creationists.

One thing is certain. Present projections regarding the age of the earth are wholly insufficient for the evolution of even the most basic of all protein molecules. Indeed, present age projections wholly undermine the evolutionary hypothesis.

You need to study more literature that is critical of your position. Objections presented by YEC's have been refuted time and time again.

January 9, 2019 at 11:57 AM
Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Nick,

You make a lot of assertions and assumptions with no facts.

The evidence for inconsistent decay in the past has been demonstrated by scientists. Claiming current conditions are what happened in the past is just that -- a claim with no evidence.

All the dating methods, including astronomical, are based on speculations, assumptions, and assertions.

Present projections for the age of the earth are insufficient for evolution because evolution is impossible and never took place to begin with.

I have studied the opposing view of YEC for 4 decades, and YEC has never been refuted by anything but assertions.

Go troll elsewhere.

January 9, 2019 at 4:57 PM
Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Arpard Fazakas,

You will not get posted here because I do not allow false teaching in my comment section. All your diatribe did was repeat more unscientific assertions about the age of the earth/universe based on speculations about radioisotope dates.

If you REALLY want to understand why such dating methods are false, I suggest the book, "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods: Why million/billion-year results are not credible, by John Woodmorappe.

March 1, 2019 at 9:54 AM
Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Evolution troll, no matter how many comments you post, none will get published. Take your fake-science ideology elsewhere.

March 7, 2019 at 9:15 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)