Where is the Evolutionary Adam and Eve

[LLC]

I am of the camp that believes God set it all in motion. But I cannot accept creationism because the earth is not only 6000 years old. That is a fact.

I don't think the earth has to be 6,000 years old exactly, but I do think it's thousands not billions, and the suggestion that billions is a fact is so very often put forth and never successfully defended.

I submit, materialism has blurred what people define as facts, so that it can claim speculations and philosophies as facts.

As a physicist with a keen understanding of radioactive decay and radiometric dating, It is pretty obvious to me that the methods in which the data in this Scholarly article were obtained were precise and accurate. In order for claims of the earth's age to be true (Thousands of years), either these scientists (and all others who repeated this experiment) must have made up their data, or made extremely grand errors (equivalent to misplacing a decimal point by five powers).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-3YYTKC0-7Y&_user=130907&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1731651280&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=e246edfb91dd8ef1ca23023dd2d52202&searchtype=a

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

I am of the camp that believes God set it all in motion. But I cannot accept creationism because the earth is not only 6000 years old. That is a fact.

I don't think the earth has to be 6,000 years old exactly, but I do think it's thousands not billions, and the suggestion that billions is a fact is so very often put forth and never successfully defended.

I submit, materialism has blurred what people define as facts, so that it can claim speculations and philosophies as facts.

As a physicist with a keen understanding of radioactive decay and radiometric dating, It is pretty obvious to me that the methods in which the data in this Scholarly article were obtained were precise and accurate. In order for claims of the earth's age to be true (Thousands of years), either these scientists (and all others who repeated this experiment) must have made up their data, or made extremely grand errors (equivalent to misplacing a decimal point by five powers).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-3YYTKC0-7Y&_user=130907&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1731651280&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=e246edfb91dd8ef1ca23023dd2d52202&searchtype=a

False.

Radiometric dating relies on a host of demonstrably false assumptions, and relies on compounding calculations all of which leave enormous room for error, and the end result of which is reconciled to expected results by the elimination of unwanted findings under the lable of 'outlyer' of the apologies afforded by 'contamination', 'leeching', or instrument sensitivity.

I've already pointed out that you can't just advertise your propaganda. Make a case, if you can, and address the points I've already mentioned, or I'll just point you to another source that disagrees... Like Dr. Emil Silvestru, and accomplished geologist who's also a young earth creationist.

See how that means nothing?

Either you're participating in a discussion or you're white noise.

[LLC]

I am of the camp that believes God set it all in motion. But I cannot accept creationism because the earth is not only 6000 years old. That is a fact.

I don't think the earth has to be 6,000 years old exactly, but I do think it's thousands not billions, and the suggestion that billions is a fact is so very often put forth and never successfully defended.

I submit, materialism has blurred what people define as facts, so that it can claim speculations and philosophies as facts.

As a physicist with a keen understanding of radioactive decay and radiometric dating, It is pretty obvious to me that the methods in which the data in this Scholarly article were obtained were precise and accurate. In order for claims of the earth's age to be true (Thousands of years), either these scientists (and all others who repeated this experiment) must have made up their data, or made extremely grand errors (equivalent to misplacing a decimal point by five powers).

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-3YYTKC0-7Y&_user=130907&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1995&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1731651280&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000004198&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=130907&md5=e246edfb91dd8ef1ca23023dd2d52202&searchtype=a

False.

Radiometric dating relies on a host of demonstrably false assumptions, and relies on compounding calculations all of which leave enormous room for error, and the end result of which is reconciled to expected results by the elimination of unwanted findings under the lable of 'outlyer' of the apologies afforded by 'contamination', 'leeching', or instrument sensitivity.

I've already pointed out that you can't just advertise your propaganda. Make a case, if you can, and address the points I've already mentioned, or I'll just point you to another source that disagrees... Like Dr. Emil Silvestru, and accomplished geologist who's also a young earth creationist.

See how that means nothing?

Either you're participating in a discussion or you're white noise.

Sure, radiometric dating is faulty and there is room for lots of error. This is why Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949 first demonstrated the accuracy of radiometric dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge for which the age was known from historical documents.

After many repeated trials with objects of known age, the method was considered to be accurate with an error proportionate the respect age of the object being tested.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/110/2869/678

So, is the earth exactly 4.558 billion years old? Probably not. The date will probably change throughout this century as better technology is developed. Does this mean that it is possible for the Earth to be close to 6000 years as you suggest? Probably not. The error associated with this claim would be the same if calculated the distance from New York City to San Fransisco to be 7.4 yards.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Sure, radiometric dating is faulty and there is room for lots of error. This is why Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949 first demonstrated the accuracy of radiometric dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge for which the age was known from historical documents.

After many repeated trials with objects of known age, the method was considered to be accurate with an error proportionate the respect age of the object being tested.

That would be radiocarbon dating, if they were testing wood.

Radiocarbon dating had some huge problems which they chalked up to a 25% MOE until the attempt to estimate the C14 content in the atmosphere was simply abandon - they previously couldn't figure out why we hadn't hit a C14 equilibrium until the found out that it's replenished in our atmosphere by the sun. So they started calibrating the dates according to the volume of C14 found in other biomatter and using that in their benchmarking.

It makes it pretty foolproof when there's a verifiable historical record against which to compare the findings until you fine tune the instruments to known levels.

So, is the earth exactly 4.558 billion years old? Probably not. The date will probably change throughout this century as better technology is developed. Does this mean that it is possible for the Earth to be close to 6000 years as you suggest? Probably not. The error associated with this claim would be the same if calculated the distance from New York City to San Fransisco to be 7.4 yards.

Radiocarbon dating, which has been tuned to reflect known quantities of C14 from verifiable historical record, is not used for estimating the age of the earth and therefore makes no recommendations on the accuracy of radiometric dating of inorganic materials from beyond the written record.

[Isaiah 6:8]

I am of the camp that believes God set it all in motion. But I cannot accept creationism because the earth is not only 6000 years old. That is a fact.

I don't think the earth has to be 6,000 years old exactly, but I do think it's thousands not billions, and the suggestion that billions is a fact is so very often put forth and never successfully defended.

I submit, materialism has blurred what people define as facts, so that it can claim speculations and philosophies as facts.

As a physicist with a keen understanding of radioactive decay and radiometric dating, It is pretty obvious to me that the methods in which the data in this Scholarly article were obtained were precise and accurate. In order for claims of the earth's age to be true (Thousands of years), either these scientists (and all others who repeated this experiment) must have made up their data, or made extremely grand errors (equivalent to misplacing a decimal point by five powers).

http://www.sciencedi...02&searchtype=a

Since others answered this, here is my point, I have pointed out a raw Assumption from evolutionist data, not the Bible Not creationist websites, but I noticed that it just so happened by happy accident to have both a male and female form to evolve side bye side to work perfectly together, the womb the egg, everything perfectly, and opposite, at the same time. Something that boggles the mind as to the odds for that happening by chance, and yet you say that we are not looking at facts, but shading it through our own lens of Biblical reality.

I do not belive it from the evidence presented to me from the evolutionists. Not from any Creation website.

Since this is going off topic again, I shall close it.