Accuracy of radioisotopic dating

[Michael37]

On ‎1‎/‎25‎/‎2019 at 4:32 PM, Michael37 said:

Billion-Fold Acceleration Of Radioactivity Shown in Laboratory

The myth of the virtual invincibility of radioactive decay to external forces has been decisively shattered, and the door to further research has now been swung wide open.

This was the conclusion reached. It's a few years now since I read the books, went to the events, and watched the DVD's which featured scientists who explained why radioisotopic dating was flawed, but a quick check of YouTube confirms there are still plenty of critics of it sharing their views. I'm not about to put my trust in the flawed principle that cannot be proven accurate because there is no standard of accuracy with which to measure results.

[one.opinion]

4 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Isn't everyone? Who here has seen one C-14 decay by half?

I’m not referring to the impossible task of physically watching subatomic particles break away and release from an atom, I’m talking about observing data. Websites like AiG post articles attempting to convince the reader to believe their version of scientific interpretation while requiring an effort by the reader to look at the actual data. Most of their readers already agree with their interpretation, so the chances that a reader will make an effort to look into the facts is reduced.

For example, Woodmarappe did not explain to his readers that the massive acceleration in radioactive decay rate required the plasma state of matter that is only present in specialized laboratories and stars. It seems as though he is holding back pertinent information from his audience.

4 hours ago, Abdicate said:

So they're basing that fraction of time the change and extrapolating it backward.

Yes, there are assumptions made about the consistency of things like radioactive decay rates over time. But a massively accelerated radioactive decay rate would almost certainly have left evidence that could be observed today.

Science works with the available evidence, and when hypotheses are generated without supporting evidence, those hypotheses are no longer scientific.

[Cogito...what?]

Here is my two cents,“The answers you get depend on the questions you ask.” 
― Thomas S. Kuhn

[one.opinion]

44 minutes ago, Abdicate said:

Start with the premise the word of God is 100% accurate and you'll find great discoveries and explanations for everything.

Accepting God’s Word as 100% true does not mean accepting it is 100% literal. I accept the former, not the latter.

[Cogito...what?]

one, may I ask your determination for what you accept as literal?

 

[one.opinion]

On 1/26/2019 at 7:57 PM, Vince said:

That’s not the way science works. The person making a claim has the burden of proof. 

Exactly.

Asking for proof that vastly accelerated radioisotopic decay has NOT occurred in the past is a bit like asking for proof that elephants were NOT, at some point before the advent of color photography, pink. Just because no one can prove that elephants weren’t at some point pink does not mean that assuming they were once pink is just as valid as assuming they have always been gray.

Scientists work with available evidence to make assumptions and stick with those assumptions until better data proves that those assumptions were wrong.

[one.opinion]

On 1/26/2019 at 6:29 PM, Cogito...what? said:

one, may I ask your determination for what you accept as literal?

 

This is a complicated question. It may be easier to answer why I believe the creation account in Genesis is not literal.

I believe the Bible is 100% true. Therefore, when what God has revealed of Himself through science is inconsistent with a literal interpretation of His Word, then a literal interpretation is incorrect.

Clearly, there are other reasons to use a meaning of a passage as something other than literal, as is the case for poetry (which some believe Genesis 1-2 to be), or with a great deal of prophetic literature, like Ezekiel or Revelation.

[one.opinion]

11 hours ago, Abdicate said:

According to your limited understanding.

Yes, we do still have only a limited understanding of what God made. However, I think it is highly unlikely that more understanding will necessitate a major overhaul of our basic understanding of fields, like biology and geology, in which the evidence supports an earth that is far older than 6,000 years.

11 hours ago, Abdicate said:

Paul said the word of God is written in our hearts. Very poetic until the 1950s when Crick and Watson published their paper on DNA. Now it's literal.

That is still figurative. God's Word is not literally "written" in our hearts.

Edited January 28, 2019 by one.opinion
Edit for clarity

[Michael37]

8 hours ago, Vince said:

 This type of attitude is part of the reason why scientists were killed or persecuted by Christians in the past.

Can you supply evidence to support this sweeping statement please? Otherwise it's just rumour, heresay, or fake news.

[Michael37]

5 hours ago, Vince said:

What are you asking? Whether Christians persecuted scientists in the past or if that thinking led to the persecution?

Both if you have hard facts for them. Christians are known by their fruit. Killing scientists for any reason would disqualify such from being true Christians, if you get my drift.