Radiometric dating idiots
Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history.""Here is the difference between religion and science. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery.(Aside, my dad doesn’t know how old I am, he usually misses by about two years, giving him an error of almost 5%.) Not only, is this not a ‘false assumption’. Oh and here’s a link to the Table of Contents for this set of creationist misconceptions. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I) (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. Paid advertising at What Really Happened may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. Science is going outside your house at night and seeing here is one large moon orbiting the Earth.No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied. No matter where on Earth you are, you know there is one and only one large moon orbiting the Earth.Indeed, by doing almost 20 seconds of research on google (type in “variations in C14”, click on Google Scholar) the second link is this article from 1954: Carbon 13 in plants and the relationships between carbon 13 and carbon 14 variations in nature So, this issue has been known about for a long time. Then we compare the two and adjust the radiocarbon date to the known date. That’s less than 1% if you’re interested in that sort of thing. But this is already almost a thousand words and I’ve only done ONE! Long story short, scientists have always known that variations in C-14 concentration happen.
And this isn’t really an assumption as the decay rates have been tested in the laboratory for a hundred years or so, we have an example of a natural nuclear reactor where we can measure the various products and determine the decay rates (and the fine structure constant), and we can observe the past by looking deep into the past of the universe. The sigh isn’t for the effort of writing, it’s for the effort of finding all the references.
So it's an illustrated (in crayon) catalogue of logical stupidities, internal contradictions and arguments against a young Earth. The list claims to have 101 points, because impressive numbers are impressive.
So it repeats itself to get the numbers up, has several duplicates, and one item is even a copy of the preceding one. If you tried editing the polite version of this article and started punching the wall in frustration after a while, this is the place to say what you actually think.
101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe is a steaming heap of arguments for young Earth creationism (YEC) with a grammatical disaster for a title, written by Don Batten, Doctor of Mungbeans,. The author is a documentable idiot in every field he names, including Biblical scholarship, and has the joined-up thinking skills of a creationist.
The text is a tour de farce of abuse of the uncertainty tactic in science dealing with the past designed to shore up the creaking epistemology of creationism.