Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?
- Thread starter JackH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P
https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...es-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/
[h=2]The Facts[/h]We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3
A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.4 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).
Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.
[h=2][/h]
[h=2]The Facts[/h]We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3
A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.4 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).
Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated.
[h=2][/h]
Fromhttp://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
[h=2]Claim CD011:[/h]Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results. [h=3]Source:[/h]Lee, Robert E., 1981. Radiocarbon: Ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3): 9-29. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982).
[h=2]Response:[/h]
[h=2]Further Reading:[/h]Higham, Tom, 1999. Radiocarbon WEB-Info. radiocarbon WEB-info
Thompson, Tim, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list. A Radiometric Dating Resource List
[h=2]Claim CD011:[/h]Carbon-14 dating gives unreliable results. [h=3]Source:[/h]Lee, Robert E., 1981. Radiocarbon: Ages in error. Anthropological Journal of Canada 19(3): 9-29. Reprinted in Creation Research Society Quarterly 19(2): 117-127 (1982).
[h=2]Response:[/h]
- Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess [SUP]12[/SUP]C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess [SUP]14[/SUP]C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).
In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method. - Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).
- Bard, Edouard, Bruno Hamelin, Richard G. Fairbanks and Alan Zindler, 1990. Calibration of the [SUP]14[/SUP]C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345: 405-410.
- Faure, Gunter, 1998. Principles and Applications of Geochemistry, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- MNSU, n.d. Radio-carbon dating. http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/dating/radio_carbon.html
- Watson, Kathie, 2001. Radiometric time scale. Geologic Time: Radiometric Time Scale
[h=2]Further Reading:[/h]Higham, Tom, 1999. Radiocarbon WEB-Info. radiocarbon WEB-info
Thompson, Tim, 2003. A radiometric dating resource list. A Radiometric Dating Resource List
That statement is a flat out lie.
The vast majority of scientists today conclude that carbon-14 dating is very reliable at least to 20,000 years, and many take the date to 50,000 years or a little more.
Practically all evolutionists conclude likewise.
Do you understand that not all Christians who dispute this YEC 6,000-year-old world nonsense are evolutionists?
Here is an article linked to below from a Christian scientist who is not an evolutionist entitled "How Trustworthy is Carbon Dating" you many find of interest.
You will note the author mentions some problems with carbon-14 dating but concludes:
"Carbon-14 dating remains one of the best tools for determining the age of things that lived from 500 to 50,000 years ago."
Reasons To Believe : How Trustworthy is Carbon Dating?
The vast majority of scientists today conclude that carbon-14 dating is very reliable at least to 20,000 years, and many take the date to 50,000 years or a little more.
Practically all evolutionists conclude likewise.
Do you understand that not all Christians who dispute this YEC 6,000-year-old world nonsense are evolutionists?
Here is an article linked to below from a Christian scientist who is not an evolutionist entitled "How Trustworthy is Carbon Dating" you many find of interest.
You will note the author mentions some problems with carbon-14 dating but concludes:
"Carbon-14 dating remains one of the best tools for determining the age of things that lived from 500 to 50,000 years ago."
Reasons To Believe : How Trustworthy is Carbon Dating?
M
Well then you understand that its not based on provable science and physical laws? And if you believe evolution and the big bang, I doubt you really understand the faith as you should? What you are trying to say (faith in Christ) and evolution with the big bag...as taught by evolutionist agree? You need to become a fool, so God can make you wise. I don't mean to be harsh, but you don't seem to understand what evolution is really trying to affirm? Its a theory that's sole purpose is to reject God and His Christ.
Ro 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Ro 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
When you get your information from a YEC propaganda machine like this one and the others you cited today, you don't get science, you nonscience and nonsense.
First, these YEC propaganda machines start with a conclusion. The conclusion is that nothing can be older than 6,000 years no matter what.
That is not science.
Now as far as this statement that the only foolproof methods of determining the age of something are eyewitness reports and a written record is preposterous.
Foolproof you say?
Actually, science often provides a more reliable witness than eyewitness testimony and written records.
First, these YEC propaganda machines start with a conclusion. The conclusion is that nothing can be older than 6,000 years no matter what.
That is not science.
Now as far as this statement that the only foolproof methods of determining the age of something are eyewitness reports and a written record is preposterous.
Foolproof you say?
Actually, science often provides a more reliable witness than eyewitness testimony and written records.
Like I said, you appear to be losing touch with reality.
Evolution is a fact. Some aspects of evolution are theory.
Old Earth Creationists (Hugh Ross et al) don't think the sole purpose of evolution is to reject God and His Christ.
Theistic Evolutionists (Francis Collins et al) don't think the sole purpose of evolution is to reject God and His Christ.
Young Earth Creationist cult propagandists like Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind), Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International spout this nonsense about evolution.
And gullible YEC groupies use that nonsense for talking points, despite knowing very little about the subject.
Evolution is a fact. Some aspects of evolution are theory.
Old Earth Creationists (Hugh Ross et al) don't think the sole purpose of evolution is to reject God and His Christ.
Theistic Evolutionists (Francis Collins et al) don't think the sole purpose of evolution is to reject God and His Christ.
Young Earth Creationist cult propagandists like Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind), Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, and Creation Ministries International spout this nonsense about evolution.
And gullible YEC groupies use that nonsense for talking points, despite knowing very little about the subject.
LOL and I actually thought at some level you were a scientist.
Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory based on an hypothesis. There is no way that evolution can be tested or observed. All that can be observed are adaptations, some of which are beneficial others of which are not so beneficial. They prove only that adaptation at a certain level takes place.
Evolution is NOT a fact. It is a theory based on an hypothesis. There is no way that evolution can be tested or observed. All that can be observed are adaptations, some of which are beneficial others of which are not so beneficial. They prove only that adaptation at a certain level takes place.
Sorry you must be out of the evolutionist loop...they have given up on carbon dating and other fairy dust attempts to prove evolution....try to stay up with the current events Jack 