Nope. Back in the 1700s they made up dates and ages for the layers out of thin air. It wasn't based on any solid scientific data, but only what they thought. There isn't a scientist around that relies on any other dating method but the layers. As for "radioactive" dating, there's no such thing. And you call me ignorant. Funny. But the various dating methods you probably mean, but are yourself ignorant of how they work are horribly flawed and filled with unproven assumptions. Carbon dating, potassium argon dating and the like, are all based on assumptions which have proven to be false. They always give dates that are all over the place and there isn't a geologist or paleontologist that relies on them.

Here's a quote from an archaeologist...

"I've used carbon-14 dating. Frankly, among archaeologists, carbon dating is a big joke. They send samples to the laboratories to be dated. If it comes back and agrees with the dates they've already decided from the style of pottery, they will say, 'Carbon-14 dating of this sample confirms our conclusions.' But if it doesn't agree, they just think the laboratory has got it wrong, and that's the end of it. It's only a showcase. Archaeologists never (let me emphasize this) never date their finds by carbon-14. They only quote it if it agrees with their conclusions." - David Down, Archaeologist.

You need to do some research of your own as to how they do these things. None of the dating methods work, none. For example, if you do not tell the labs how old you think your sample is, they will not "date" it. Because they're testing doesn't give exact dates, it gives dates all over the place and they try and match the date YOU give them. That's a fact, go find a lab and fill out their online form, you will be asked for a date.

And yet, the courts declared atheism is a religion. A religion by definition is a belief something is true without any empirical scientific or historical evidence to back it up. Evolutionism then by definition, is a religion. You have to believe in it without any proof. Like it or not, tough, this is the fact of the matter.

Anyhow, this has gone wayyyy off topic. I'm going to leave this conversation as my point has been made and endless debates with people who only know how to mock is not my thing. Enjoy.

Easy: You google parts of the quote and what first comes up is a website creation.com. Do you need to read any further? Probably not.

It's the age of the Internet. Anyone with enough time and/or money can make a website and put "the truth" out there. Nobody consuming these "truths" is forced to check his beliefs if he doesn't want to.

Look, I once ran into people who told me they need to "twist" water before they drink it. Because that would align the "hexagonal structures". They couldn't tell me more. But they were very certain it would "revitalize" the water. You can find quite some websites who will offer you expensive equipment, in fact ordinary mixers, to do the job. The interesting thing is you can even find a scientist from an American university whose research seems to back such claims. In fact, you can probably find one or two scientists for everything, especially with some money on your hands.
But in order to judge this, you need to "integrate" so to speak, and one outlier doesn't interest you.

An experiment: Take creation.com or comparable websites and recursively follow all links up to some N connections. Now let one group read all these sites. Then compare attitudes to creation with a control group. You can do the same with some jihadi websites.

Easy: It's a website explicitly promoting creationist views. No reliable source. Commercials, advertising and propaganda are no credible sources.

Ok, I've taken an extra 30 seconds to google "David Down". Three pages of "creation ... something". Does he exist at all outside these pages? I don't know. I don't care. Research done. Hardly took me a minute. Not credible.

Whatever you opinion is, you gotta admit: I make the best forum threads, folks!

You didn't search very long, took me a few seconds to find his published books.

David Down is an archaeologist who happens to believe in creation. He's as qualified to comment as any other archaeologist with the same credentials. It didn't take much searching to find books he authors on the subject. I don't feel his personal beliefs disqualifies him from commenting. He certainly has more of a right to comment on archaeology than anyone in here.

You can find a few of his books on Amazon here. But I am sure you will have some other negative comment because his religion doesn't match your religion therefore anything he says is suddenly not credible.

https://www.amazon.com/David-Down/e/B003QRSW6S

I didn't wish to comment further in this thread, but I do feel I needed to backup my quote that the man is real, he's plenty qualified to comment and a published author.

I can't find his CV (apart from sparse info on... creationist websites). Anyone can publish books. Besides, lots of people have degrees of some sort, that doesn't automatically make them authorities in their field (we don't even know whether he has some degree).

Not to get distracted by discussing the man's authority, though. I have no issue whatsoever with the guy. Being an archaeologist doesn't protect you from being a creationist.

The important thing is: If you want reliable information about radiometric dating you don't turn to a creationist website. If you want reliable information about the western way of life, you don't go to North-Corean schools. If you want reliable information about Burger King, you don't ask McDonald's press department. See what I mean?
If you have someone outside creationist circles backing up your claim on radiometric dating, you might have an argument. Otherwise, you're most certainly just ruminating propaganda. Which is pretty boring.

@Bruce
I'll respond to your comments later. First things first.

@Neil

Radiometric dating is science. It's proven. Read a textbook please.

A half life is the time it takes for a given quantity of radio-active material to decay into its next most natural components. That means the quantity left at any given time is (1/2)^N where N is the number of half lives it's gone through.

For an example say we have 10 grams of NeilRoynium and it has a half life of 50 years. T is the amount of time passed (in Years). If we wait 50 years, there will be 5 grams of NR left. Likewise, 100 years, (1/2)(1/2) = 1/4 of 10 grams, which is 2.5 grams. If we know that NR decomposes into something simpler like Potassium, and we find 8.75 grams of potassium alongside 1.25 grams of NR, then we can work backwards to find out how old NR is. If we know that NR = (1/2)^(T/50) and that K = 1 - NR Then K = 1 - [ (1/2)^(T/50) ] and we can solve for T which is the time elapsed since the material started to decay. The formula works out to T = 50*(log_2_[1/(1-K)]). If you do the math, it's 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

These are real geological processes, and there is real science behind them. It's not about faith anymore, it's about empirical evidence. If your faith can't handle science, then I'm afraid you're going to have a hard life.

And no, the Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6000 years old.

Chris, that's trying to twist the Bible text into something that resembles a scientific truth. And actually there's nohing wrong with that. It is kind of poetry, find new interpretations. The books of the Bible were never written in the way science is written today. That idea just didn't exist at the time it was written. Just because the Bible tells the genesis of Earth, it doesn't mean it should today be read like scientific reports are read today. Everyone, even the most "fundamental" Christian, have to admit they contradict each other, if you read the Bible literally. The Bible contradicts even itself. When scientific reports contradict each other, either one is wrong and has to be corrected. When the Bible contradicts itself, it's poetry.

So are we gonna talk about London?

Not to be a dickhead, but such things are against the rules. Post history is not a mechanism for you to say what you want without us being able to discuss it. If you don't want to discuss it then don't say it, and if you redact it then don't draw attention to it. I believe even referencing the contents of history is technically against the rules as ML announced them when he introduced post history.

The Bible does NOT say the Earth is 6000 years old. It says this Earth age was created at that time. An age is a specific period of time, not its entirety.

II Peter 3 talks exactly about this.

That passage clearly shows there are three Earth and Heaven ages. It is supported by the rest of the Bible. I'm tired of discussing things people have no knowledge of.

Are you talking about ancient Egypt and Greece?

Well, until there is a way to delete a message, I have no choice but to replace what I posted with something else. But I didn't want to hide the fact that I posted something, just make it obvious I am getting out of this thread.

From now on I will avoid religious threads like the plague. Everyone's views are too hard coded to make it worth while discussing. Especially when people always seem to resort to insults and belittling people for their views.

I'll leave this with what I told my atheist father, "We'll all find out the truth in the end. If I'm wrong, I would have lived my life being the best man I know how and will never know otherwise. But if I am right..."

Have a good one. No hard feelings. I'll just stick to programming and humour in these forums I think.

Besides, this is supposed to be about London.