Dating methods: CrEvo Rant #100 with Wazooloo

http://wazooloo.com
http://ianjuby.org
In this rant, Ian addresses a reader request for a rant on dating methods. Ian shows the bankruptcy of the methods and how they fail every test ever presented to them.

People asked for references, so here's some references:

Debate with Dr. Koerner, 2009 on sagadiiradio.com:
http://www.sagadiiradio.com/podcasts2009.htm
(July 31st thru Aug 14th)

Austin, Uinkaret lavas:
Impact article:
http://www.icr.org/article/grand-canyon-lava-flows-survey-isotope-dating-meth/
Creationwiki also has more details here:
http://creationwiki.org/Isochron_date_of_young_Grand_Canyon_lava_is_excessive...)


Mt. St. Helens lava dome:
http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/

Dating of skull 1470, described in detail in Lubenow's book "Bones of contention", and covered in part 21 of "Complete Creation":
http://completecreation.org/videos.html

dating of the "Mars rock":
http://umarko.blogspot.com/2011_02_04_archive.html

Dating calibration:
Ummm....what else would they calibrate the dating methods with?
This "calibration" is going on even today! See above - Skull 1470, Mars Rock, and other examples too numerous to mention - entire books have been written on the subject for crying out loud! Like Woodmorappe's "The mythology of modern dating methods" Half the point of the rant is showing the "calibration" of the dating methods (read: rejecting dates that don't line up with assumed evolutionary ages - that's calibration!)

8 million year old T-rex: "Mining for mammoths in the badlands", New York
Times, December 3, 1905

30 million year old T-rex (and others): "30,000,000 years ago," New York
Times, March 11, 1927

Dinosaurs stated 150 million years ago: "When Life Began," Russell Owen,
New York Times, February 9, 1941

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• radiometric
• radiodating
• dating
• rock
• creation
• evolution
• Crevo
• rant
• ian
• juby
• science
• museum
• canada
• 777quip
• wazooloo

[xpforl]

hahhah is this sincere or sarcastic..funny either way

[finditherefirst]

if a day in the eyes of God is 1000 years...I am not predicting anything!

[nicemarmotism]

These are references? Nothing from the scientific literature? Not surprised. Using creationist references to support your "scientific" creationist argument is not very genuine. In fact, it's misleading - a common creationist tactic. Give me scientific references from peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[USERNAMEfieldempty]

You're single? Well, that's natural selection for you. I can't say I'm surprised. That gut-wrenching 90 seconds of punning 'date' with 'date' was unbearable.

AND go find some oil using your bible geology fuckwit. If your model is right, go and make billions of dollars prospecting minerals and stop polluting youtube, asshat.

[CatD66]

You are an answer to prayer. I've just got interested in the 'young earth' explanation (having always ignored it as 'crazy to even consider', but was rather put off by the sheer wealth of 'science' needed to try to check all this stuff. You cover all these subjects in terms that the layman can understand, and you are funny and clever and brilliant. You the man! I'll be forwarding your videos to my friends and family. God bless you.

[MandoMohan]

There's some great sounds you have behind these. Should've listened to more than one video before I became I critic.

Really well packaged, short 'n' sweet with a corker of a finish on everyone. Love it. Thank you, brother.

[nintendo768]

I don't believe dating rock ages disproves God. You are just stating the amount of a material in an object. Though I need to look into fossil dating.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@creationliberty What's funny is the very video Ian posted this as a response to completely refutes all of his and your objections.