All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false, even isochron radioactive isotope dating – part 1.

[SavedByTheLord]

All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false, even isochron radioactive isotope dating – part 1.

Evolution has been proven to be false with many infallible proofs. Thus, the fossil containing rock layers are not many millions of years old with the fossils showing descent through evolution but proof of 6-day creation about 6000 years ago ad a worldwide flood about 4500 years ago.

This is the first in a series of threads that will now refute all dating techniques which supposedly show very old ages of things. The first part will concentrate on dating things by using radioactive dating techniques even isochron dating. The evidence will show that radioactive dating of things with a known young age yield vastly large and inconsistent dates. The evidence will show also that radioactive dating using either the same isotope or different isotopes, even using isochrons, yield very different dates on same things. The evidence will also show that many things that are supposed to be very many millions of years old are not C-14 dead and thus only thousands of years old. The evidence will further show that almost all “clocks” show that the earth, the universe, and everything else, are not billions of years old, or millions of years old, but thousands of years old. This further proves that anything that shows a very old age must be wrong.

Finally, all these vastly different age measurements are proof that God Almighty miraculously caused certain events, 6-day creation, fall from sin in the garden and the worldwide flood.

The following links show that things with a known young age yield vastly large and inconsistent dates. This by itself shows that no old date can be accepted from radioactive dating. It is impossible to verify and calibrate it for known ages. Furthermore, the rock layers cannot be dated by these techniques and using the fossils they contain, including index fossils, is just pure circular reasoning with no data at all. The rock layers are dated by the assumed age of the rock layers and the assumed age of the fossils they contain. And the fossils are dated by the assumed age of the rocks that contain them.

https://www.icr.org/article/436

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/more-and-more-wrong-dates/

 

[Temujin]

All the long age dating techniques have been proven to be false, even isochron radioactive isotope dating – part 1.

Evolution has been proven to be false with many infallible proofs. Thus, the fossil containing rock layers are not many millions of years old with the fossils showing descent through evolution but proof of 6-day creation about 6000 years ago ad a worldwide flood about 4500 years ago.

This is the first in a series of threads that will now refute all dating techniques which supposedly show very old ages of things. The first part will concentrate on dating things by using radioactive dating techniques even isochron dating. The evidence will show that radioactive dating of things with a known young age yield vastly large and inconsistent dates. The evidence will show also that radioactive dating using either the same isotope or different isotopes, even using isochrons, yield very different dates on same things. The evidence will also show that many things that are supposed to be very many millions of years old are not C-14 dead and thus only thousands of years old. The evidence will further show that almost all “clocks” show that the earth, the universe, and everything else, are not billions of years old, or millions of years old, but thousands of years old. This further proves that anything that shows a very old age must be wrong.

Finally, all these vastly different age measurements are proof that God Almighty miraculously caused certain events, 6-day creation, fall from sin in the garden and the worldwide flood.

The following links show that things with a known young age yield vastly large and inconsistent dates. This by itself shows that no old date can be accepted from radioactive dating. It is impossible to verify and calibrate it for known ages. Furthermore, the rock layers cannot be dated by these techniques and using the fossils they contain, including index fossils, is just pure circular reasoning with no data at all. The rock layers are dated by the assumed age of the rock layers and the assumed age of the fossils they contain. And the fossils are dated by the assumed age of the rocks that contain them.

https://www.icr.org/article/436

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/more-and-more-wrong-dates/

Still running away from facts, I see by starting another dishonest, decades old PRATT because you are too scared to carry on with the other dishonest, decades old PRATTs you started yesterday and the day before, and the day before that, and the day before that....
I can't decide whether you are the most dishonest poster here or the most cowardly. Which would you rather be known as?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Still running away from facts, I see by starting another dishonest, decades old PRATT because you are too scared to carry on with the other dishonest, decades old PRATTs you started yesterday and the day before, and the day before that, and the day before that....
I can't decide whether you are the most dishonest poster here or the most cowardly. Which would you rather be known as?

Not true.
The fact is that evolution and billions of years are false.

 

[rossum]

The fact is that evolution and billions of years are false.

Then explain to us why your own sources say that there are millions of years worth of sediment in the oceans? Your own sources are telling you that your 6,000 year old earth is false.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Then explain to us why your own sources say that there are millions of years worth of sediment in the oceans? Your own sources are telling you that your 6,000 year old earth is false.

From the flood.

 

[rossum]

From the flood.

No. The flood lasted one year, not millions of years. Stokes' Law tells us that the sediments we observe cannot have been laid down in a single year. Basic physics tells us that.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No. The flood lasted one year, not millions of years. Stokes' Law tells us that the sediments we observe cannot have been laid down in a single year. Basic physics tells us that.

Of course that is not true.
The flood was worldwide and covered all mountains.
then God lowered the ocean basins and raised the mountains so that the drain off was very large.

 

[rossum]

Of course that is not true.
The flood was worldwide and covered all mountains.
then God lowered the ocean basins and raised the mountains so that the drain off was very large.

You don't know what Stokes' Law is, do you. You have no idea about what is says about how quickly particles settle to the bottom in a viscous liquid, such as water.

Yet another example of your YEC sources lying by omission. Consider a chalk particle, as in the White Cliffs. How deep was the flood? Now use Stokes' Law to calculate how far such a small chalk particle could fall through water in one year.

That calculation is just one small part of why science can tell that the flood explanation for geology is wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You don't know what Stokes' Law is, do you. You have no idea about what is says about how quickly particles settle to the bottom in a viscous liquid, such as water.

Yet another example of your YEC sources lying by omission. Consider a chalk particle, as in the White Cliffs. How deep was the flood? Now use Stokes' Law to calculate how far such a small chalk particle could fall through water in one year.

That calculation is just one small part of why science can tell that the flood explanation for geology is wrong.

I got a tube of water with sediments and when shaken up and left to settle, settles pretty quickly.
Your point?

 

[Temujin]

I got a tube of water with sediments and when shaken up and left to settle, settles pretty quickly.
Your point?

Your tube of water isn't the size of a planet. Read Stoke's Law :
Stokes' law describes the settling of spheres in a Newtonian fluid. A spherical particle placed in a Newtonian fluid will sink if the buoyant force does not match or exceed the gravitational force on the sphere. The net downward force on a sphere is the difference between the settling force and the buoyant force.
Now demonstrate by applying this law how long it would take the shells of such minute marine organisms as foraminifera, coccoliths, and rhabdoliths to settle in sufficient numbers to form the White Cliffs of Dover.

Hint 1. It's between 1 to 10 cm every 1 thousand years.
Hint 2. The chalk cliffs at Dover are higher than 60 cm.
Hint 3. The amount of biomass in the chalk lands of England is greater than the entire planet can sustain at one time. Hence it is impossible for them to have been laid down in one event, even if the only organisms on the planet at the time were coccoliths.

 

[rossum]

I got a tube of water with sediments and when shaken up and left to settle, settles pretty quickly.
Your point?

How far can the sediment particles settle in a year? How much sediment can that depth of water hold? That puts a hard limit on the depth of sediment that can be laid down in a single year. Any layer of sedimentary rock thicker than that limit cannot have been laid down in a one-year flood.

There are many such layers, for example the chalk layer in south-east England and northern France.

Stokes' Law, and existing rock formations show that the Genesis flood cannot explain the geology we observe today.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How far can the sediment particles settle in a year? How much sediment can that depth of water hold? That puts a hard limit on the depth of sediment that can be laid down in a single year. Any layer of sedimentary rock thicker than that limit cannot have been laid down in a one-year flood.

There are many such layers, for example the chalk layer in south-east England and northern France.

Stokes' Law, and existing rock formations show that the Genesis flood cannot explain the geology we observe today.

But that is just assumptions on your part as to how the sediments were deposited during the time that the rain fell and the water rose.
Also remember that much of the sediment was washed out in the years after the flood.

 

[Temujin]

But that is just assumptions on your part as to how the sediments were deposited during the time that the rain fell and the water rose.
Also remember that much of the sediment was washed out in the years after the flood.

Nope, it's not an assumption. It's a demonstration that your fantasy flood is physically impossible.

 

[rossum]

Also remember that much of the sediment was washed out in the years after the flood.

Which makes the observed rocks even more impossible to have been formed in the flood. Thank you for helping confirm my point about the impossibility of the flood as an explanation for geology.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Which makes the observed rocks even more impossible to have been formed in the flood. Thank you for helping confirm my point about the impossibility of the flood as an explanation for geology.

The mineral contents of the oceans limit the age of the oceans.

 

[rossum]

The mineral contents of the oceans limit the age of the oceans.

Limited to only 100 years if you pick the right element. Thank you for helping confirm that the 6,000 year YEC timescale is wrong.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Limited to only 100 years if you pick the right element. Thank you for helping confirm that the 6,000 year YEC timescale is wrong.

You should read this.

The Ocean's Salt Clock Shows a Young World

The biblical geologic model of earth history is certainly at odds with traditional uniformitarian assumptions. Creation geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling has published a comprehensive two-volume text on the catastrophic nature of earth's recent past.1 In it, he provides powerful biblical and...

www.icr.org

 

[Temujin]

You should read this.

The Ocean's Salt Clock Shows a Young World

The biblical geologic model of earth history is certainly at odds with traditional uniformitarian assumptions. Creation geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling has published a comprehensive two-volume text on the catastrophic nature of earth's recent past.1 In it, he provides powerful biblical and...

www.icr.org

Why are you cherry picking salt? Other minerals give different "maximum" she's. Thus most such calculations are wrong. Why do you assume that the calculation involving salt is not wrong? Because it gives you the answer that you already assume is correct. That is cherry picking. And dishonest.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Why are you cherry picking salt? Other minerals give different "maximum" she's. Thus most such calculations are wrong. Why do you assume that the calculation involving salt is not wrong? Because it gives you the answer that you already assume is correct. That is cherry picking. And dishonest.

Well aluminum did not help your case at all and the too low concentration of salt does take out your theories,