I CANNOT EMPHASIZE THIS MORE.... If the dates given to the Geologic column and its Indexing fossils are incorrect then the evolutionary theory that relies on the billions of years represented by this Geologic Column are also be just as incorrect. IF THE WORLD IS NOT BILLIONS OF YEARS OLD THEN EVOLUTION WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD THE TIME TO TAKE PLACE. Therefore it is imperative that we verify the dates assigned to this Geologic Column. Because if we cannot then the very thing that all evolution rests upon ( The earth being billions of years old ) is based on nothing but a bunch of unsubstantiated and un-provable imagined speculations. Note...... In this writing, when referencing Radio Dating I am addressing methods used in dating rocks (Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, Led-Led, Samarium-Neodymium) not radio carbon dating typically used in the dating of once living material. So, lets take a close look at where the evidence for evolution really came from. Where this thing called the geologic column and all of its indexing fossils really got its start. And dose Radio dating really prove that the Geologic Column and the earth is billions of years old. The scientific community has been using radiometric dating to verify the assumed dates of the geologic column and its index fossils for about 100 years now. So tell me, How can one be certain that their dating system is accurate? What method was used to verify its results? How about the decay rates of the isotopes and the math used? I have been told that the decay rate of the isotopes used in the dating methods have been thoroughly tested and it is just a matter of doing the math. ( THAT IS, IF THE MYRIAD OF UN-TESTABLE VARIABLES ARE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT) What are these UN-TESTABLE VARIABLES? 1. The number of atoms of the daughter isotope originally in the rock or mineral when it crystallized can be known. In other words, it is assumed that we can know the initial conditions when the rock or mineral formed. 2. The number of atoms of the parent and daughter isotopes have not been altered since the rock or mineral crystallized, except for radioactive decay. In other words, it is assumed that the rock or mineral remained closed to loss or gain of the parent and/or daughter isotopes since crystallization. 3. The rate of decay of the parent isotope is known accurately, and has not changed during the existence of the rock or mineral since it crystallized. When most rocks or minerals crystallized there were no human observers around to determine the original numbers of atoms of the daughter isotopes, or to determine that the rocks or minerals have remained closed to loss or gain of parent and/or daughter isotopes, and to also determine if the rate of decay of the parent isotope has remained constant. Thus, it logically follows that these assumptions are, strictly speaking, not provable. For a better and more in depth study into these assumptions take a look at the this video. https://youtube/watch?v=NVm-zRP3fPQ&list=UU_3_MBAOWIg4Ab3JvnQ3Jkw And this one. The RATE Group: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE). This assembly of PhD scientists gathered more than 1000 samples of igneous rock observed to have been formed within the last 200 years, from over 30 volcanic sites around the world and sent those samples to multiple labs for dating using 4 different radiometric dating methods. (Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, Led-Led, Samarium-Neodymium) In ((EVERY SINGLE CASE)) the results returned were inconsistent with each other and were hundreds of millions to billions of years off of the historically known ages of the samples. Samples that were dated by eyewitness and imperial observation to be less than 200 years old. youtube/watch?v=syxaXOpTIKo&list=PLAjd7gw9U-hw_VAbYZy4R5Q_GEB9Bux9I Why would anybody after testing the dating method on rocks of known dates and proving that the dating method is inaccurate. Then turn right around and use that same dating method on rocks of unknown dates and believe that the results for the unknown and supposedly old rocks are any more accurate than they were on the known young rocks? I am not trying to call anybody here stupid. There is a very clear reason that one might not notes such a gross error in the measuring of time. When measuring a piece of 2X4 lumber, and a gross mistake is made, that mistake is clearly seen, simply because the lumber is clearly visible, (AKA it is easy to see the difference between a 10ft board and a 100ft board because we deal with such distances all the time). But when measuring a large expanse of time, something we have no experience with and something that cannot be seen, one could be off by a factor of a million or more and never even know it. Still the fact remains, when ever any rock of historically known age is tested the dating systems fails miserably by adding as much as billions of years to the results. It has also been explained to me many times, You cant use radiometric dating to date an igneous rock younger than 10,000 years. Radiometric dating was never intended to date something so young and would give inaccurate results. AND THEY WOULD BE 100% CORRECT. But, stop and think about that for a second, if the world is in fact less than 10,000 years old, all the rocks would be less than 10,000 years old and the radio dating methods would still give old dates for every single rock regardless of their true dates. So, even if the rocks were in fact very young the dating system would still say the rocks are very old. (..... WHICH DOSE IN FACT MATCH THE RESULTS GIVEN BY THE RADIO DATING METHODS PRECISELY....) If the rocks are old, the testing returns old dates. If the rocks are young, the testing still returns old dates. So, Radiometric dating proves absolutely nothing. Thereby rendering the results of the dating method moot and invalid. AND CONSEQUENTLY, ANYTHING ELSE RELYING ON IT AS WELL. LIKE FOR INSTANCE THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN. Show me how it is that the geologic column and the index fossils could have been assigned ACCURATE dates 100 years before radio decay was even known to exist? What process do you propose they could have used to get those dates? What, time travel? Rolled some dice? Or perhaps, maybe they just talked to the rocks? No, the fact is the vast majority of these assigned dates were arrived at by measuring the deposition rate of sediments at the bottom of existing lakes and swamps today. Then assuming that these rates have remained the same for hundreds of millions of years. Dates that were finely agreed upon by the majority of scholars were primarily based on politics and who had the most power in academia at the time and not any scientific information. Other than the observed facts AKA the order that the layers in the ground were found in. Every other piece of evidence used to date those layers at that time was nothing but contrived presumption of evolution as a fact and was not in any way testable. IN FACT IN MORE RECENT YEARS...... Observable, repeatable, and verifiable experimental data obtained in labs show that the vast majority of the strata found in the geologic column may not have been the result slow deposition of particulates over millions of years. But is in fact evidence that the vast majority of the geologic recorded could have been deposited in less than a year under fast moving water currents. No. The entire assumed geologic column is just that, an assumption An assumption based on misunderstanding and presuppositions of how the layers were formed. Part 1 https://youtube/watch?v=5PVnBaqqQw8 Part 2 https://youtube/watch?v=cBv-4jrzmNw Part 3 https://youtube/watch?v=p7SGB_uMRNU Part 4 https://youtube/watch?v=dG6tfolc1i4 I find it odd that even after this data was unearthed the vast majority of scientists continue to desperately hold on to the slow deposition belief system. I would like to point out. If the entire earth was at one time covered by miles deep water, that water would not be standing still. The entire global ocean would be subject to tides and the coriolis effect. Uninhibited by the masses of the continents these processes would produce massive high velocity water currents stretching thousands of miles in width and length. As these experiments show, water conditions like those that would have be seen in the flood of Noah would have no problem producing the geologic column as we see it today. So I ask again. By what method can one verify that the dates given by any of the radiometric dating methods to the supposed millions of year old samples are indeed accurate? ( And one cant use any data acquired by or reliant on the dating method in question, that would be circular reasoning). What, could one use the index fossils to verify the date of the Tertiary period? Index fossils that were dated using the geologic column? The geologic column that was based on nothing but the imagination of James Hutton, Charles Lyell and his buddies over the last 200 years? So..... Let me get this straight. Scientists used their imagination and DREAMT UP THE DATES for the geologic column. The geologic column is then confirmed by the DATES THEY DREAMT UP for the index fossils. The index fossils are then confirmed by the radiometric dated rocks. The radiometric dated rocks are then confirmed by the IMAGINED geologic column, index fossils, and its DREAMT UP DATES. So.....radiometric dated rocks = imagined geologic column = imagined index fossils = radiometric dated rocks = imagined geologic column imagined index fossils.... Round and round and round it goes. AT WHAT POINT CAN WE GET OFF THIS MERRY-GO-ROUND and compare the dating results to something tangible and verifiable? Something that was not contrived in somebodys mind? Ho, wait.... We cant.... thats just the point, It all supposedly happened millions and billions of years ago and so anything we compare the dating results to would be just as unverifiable as that with which at we started with. (Ho, except for when we compare the radio dating results to REAL UN-MADE UP DATA such as rock samples found at locations like the dome at Mt Saint Helens or the lava flows from the Hawaiian volcanos or any number of hundreds of other places that have been confirmed by empirical observations to be less than 1,000 years old). Definition of Empirical Observation: Derived from or relating to observation rather than theory, conjecture, or supposition. The born on dates of rocks like the ones at the Mt Saint Helens dome or the lava flows from the Hawaiian volcanos are incontestable, We saw and recorded the very dates they solidified into rock (AKA Empirical Observation). Therefore these rocks would be the best proof to verify if radio dating is accurate or not. If this is clearly the case then why would anybody try to verify radio dating by comparing its results to the Geologic Column? Something that nobody ever saw form. Something that supposedly happened millions and billions of year ago. Something that cannot be confirmed in any way at all. Something that was in fact IMAGINED. THINK ABOUT IT, Instead of using hard repeatable and confirmable data like the dome at Mt Saint Helens or the lava flows from the Hawaiian volcanos to confirm the accuracy of the radiometric dating system. The scientists are instead attempting to confirm those results by comparing them to something that was in fact CONTRIVED ALL IN THEIR OWN MINDS. ....WHY WOULD ANYBODY DO SOMETHING SO STUPID?...... Simple....because without billions of years for evolution to explain the worlds existence the only alternative is God. And those that hate even the IDEA OF A GOD, cannot and will not accept those dates. So they make up their own dates based off of their assumptions and circular reasoning then proclaim: LOOK ! it fits what we believe, so it must true. TALK ABOUT SELF DELUSION! Using one set of unverified data, to try and verify another set of unverified data, proves nothing if both sets of data, got their information from the same unverified source. And what was that unverified source for the dates assigned to the geologic column and its indexing fossils again? Thats right, it was THEIR IMAGINATION. Pointing to imaginary dates assigned to layers found in the ground in no way proves that those layers were formed on any date. You cannot use the geologic column to prove the radio dating results until you first prove the geologic column to be correct. Likewise........ You cannot use the radio dating to prove the geologic column is correct until you first prove radio dating to be correct. Using one set of unverified data, to try and verify another set of unverified data, does not prove that one or even both sets of data are correct. A may = B and B may =A But that is not proof that A OR B are true. All you have done is to show that both sets of data match each other. What you have NOT done is to show that either sets of data are true. The only way to show that one or both data sets are true is to compare them to DATA THAT IS Observable, repeatable, and verifiable . Data that requires no assumptions or speculation. (DATA THAT WAS NOT CONTRIVED IN SOMEBODYS MIND). IN CONCLUSION: 1. We have shown that the geologic column and its assigned indexing fossils reek of speculations and assumptions and do not qualify for proving anything: Including radio dating results. 2. That the geologic column could have been formed in less than a year under a global flood. 3. We have also shown that Radio Dating has way to many unknown variables to be reliable. 4. That radio dating has been shown to consistently produce incorrect dates in excess of factors in the thousands to millions on samples known by Empirical Observation to be less than 200 years old. In order to correct for this error in the dating process we must adjust the results by subtracting those factors. If we then use the same radio dating methods on samples of unknown dates we would still get those same errors. Therefore in order to get the correct dates for the unknown samples as well, it would be just as necessary to subtract those same error factors in the unknown samples as it was to correct for the errors in the known samples. This would show that the samples we believe to be millions or even billions of years old are in fact just hundreds and thousands of years old. Wait a moment...... If all the rocks are just hundreds and thousands of years old, then wouldnt that mean that evolution could never have had the time to make us. If this obvious fact was to become well known by the lay person support for evolutionary ideology and the multibillion dollar industry that has grown up around it would crash and burn. Evolution and the age of the Earth is based on facts Ha, Right...Perhaps in the evolutionists dreams.. No, As much as the typical God hater or old earther wants to believe it, Radiometric dating, the Geologic column, and the index fossils, dreamed up in the minds of James Hutton Charles Lyell and his buddies, do not prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.
Posted on: Sun, 23 Nov 2014 18:17:16 +0000