I can react any way I please. Just the same as saying "You want to comment, then make an account."... Don't tell me how to use the comment section of a website that I have signed up for and been frequenting for more than two years. Thank you and good bye.
@sublimegamer
Well we never know exactly how old they are because that is very difficult to calculate and a waste of time, but we can make assumptions based upon carbon and relative dating.
And besides, I'm pretty sure the person that made this picture caption didn't give a shit and just threw a large number down.
Cool, but how do we correlate a magnetic measurement with an age? On Wikipedia it says "at least one isotopic age needs to be collected," i.e. radiometric dating is used to make sure it lines up with the assumed millions of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetostratigraphy#Correlation_and_ages
And how are the radiometric dating methods calibrated? By using a rock of 'known' age. It seems secular scientists use rocks assumed to be millions of years old, to calibrate how to measure their age. Isn't that circular reasoning? By using these 'accurately calibrated' radiometric dating methods, they end up with million-year ages on rocks that humans have witnessed being formed. For example, "Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old." http://qccsa.org/the-end-of-long-age-radiometric-dating/
Then it stands to reason that those scientists made a huge assumption that the rocks are millions of years old. Where did they get these crazy numbers from? Not from the rocks, so where? Maybe they made it up. But why would they make it up?
It's fine that you don't know, no need to be sorry. I'll just cut to the chase and say that the evolutionary, old-age paradigm is considered fact by many people, but is based on ludicrous assumptions and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The young-Earth Creation model fits the measurable facts much better. There are two world views when it comes to geologic history: Creation or Evolution. But both are not scientific fact. No one should be calling old-age evolution fact.
I'm not saying this against you personally, or anything, and I do not know everything either. But one should not believe in humans' recount of history without researching it for themselves.
Well we never know exactly how old they are because that is very difficult to calculate and a waste of time, but we can make assumptions based upon carbon and relative dating.
And besides, I'm pretty sure the person that made this picture caption didn't give a shit and just threw a large number down.
And how are the radiometric dating methods calibrated? By using a rock of 'known' age. It seems secular scientists use rocks assumed to be millions of years old, to calibrate how to measure their age. Isn't that circular reasoning? By using these 'accurately calibrated' radiometric dating methods, they end up with million-year ages on rocks that humans have witnessed being formed. For example, "Mount St. Helens erupted in 1980, but rocks were dated up to 2.8 million years old." http://qccsa.org/the-end-of-long-age-radiometric-dating/
I'm not saying this against you personally, or anything, and I do not know everything either. But one should not believe in humans' recount of history without researching it for themselves.