Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 110: Line 110:  
::: "''Radiometric dating ironically is the next best thing to time travel in terms of determining dates, only because there's isn't a better technique in between.''":  Other than eye-witness accounts, such as found in the Bible.  The best method would be time travel.  The second best would be eye-witness accounts.  The third best would be radiometric dating techniques.  But the third-best is used to discredit what is claimed to be the the second best.  See the problem?
 
::: "''Radiometric dating ironically is the next best thing to time travel in terms of determining dates, only because there's isn't a better technique in between.''":  Other than eye-witness accounts, such as found in the Bible.  The best method would be time travel.  The second best would be eye-witness accounts.  The third best would be radiometric dating techniques.  But the third-best is used to discredit what is claimed to be the the second best.  See the problem?
 
:::
 
:::
 +
 +
==The infallible word of God==
 +
The article states the following:
 +
:Although radiometric dating methods are widely used and their results widely quoted, they are not necessarily reliable and scientists using them often do not accept their accuracy.For instance radioactive dating says the earth is 4.6 billion years old[4] while the bible(the infallible word of God[5]) quotes the world to be around 6-10 thousand years old.[6]
 +
Does this not ring a bell to you? First of all, the Bible was written by men, who claimed that it was the word of God. Whether this is righteous, is a debate in which I will not engage. But the way I see it, Radiometric Dating shows us that Earth's age, as described in the Bible, is incorrect, and not the other way around. Do you believe an ancient book of spiritual texts rather than black on white evidence?
 +
Does this mean you also believe that Earth is a flat disk?--[[User:KirtashP|KirtashP]], Oct 12, 3:30 PM
4

edits

Navigation menu