Lisle Oct 27, Geology , Origins , Physics. We are told that scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to measure the age of rocks. We are also told that this method very reliably and consistently yields ages of millions to billions of years, thereby establishing beyond question that the earth is immensely old - a concept known as deep time. This apparently contradicts the biblical record in which we read that God created in six days, with Adam being made on the sixth day. From the listed genealogies, the creation of the universe happened about years ago. Has science therefore disproved the Bible?
After all, the list of dos and don'ts in dating is a mile long, and it seems everyone has an opinion.
Because of this, we all have the rules heavily engrained in our minds. We follow them stringently, and hope for the perfect scenario where everything plays out swimmingly.
Picture it: You wear your designated, best friend-approved date night dress, you save the first kiss for date number threeand you hold out until the perfect evening several weeks in before hooking up.
It all culminates in the wedding date of your dreams, and you both live happily ever after. Unfortunately, however, life doesn't always work this way. Kissing on the third date works for some people, while others can barely make it through the first night.
So your best bet is to stick to the traditions they're there for a reasonwhile peppering in some new rules of your own.
The point is, if you follow the so-called and often lame rules too strongly, you may end up missing out, feeling bad, or even screwing things up. Dating etiquette can get dated haafter all. So don't be afraid to create some of your own. Below are some signs it may time to do just that. There's something fun about playing hard to get. Not responding to texts right away, putting off a first kiss, not being available every single night - it's age-old advice, as well as part of what makes dating fun.
But it can turn into a sort of psychological gameaccording to Christopher Hudspeth on ThoughtCatalog. So if you feel like you're going overboard with the over-thinking, put a stop to it. It may be much better to toss the rules to the wind, go with your gut, and do whatever feels best. People have turned to their friends for dating advice since the dawn of time, and of course, sometimes our BFFs and roommates have valid suggestions. But good luck once you're on a date, and find yourself sifting through a messy amalgam of advice.
To kiss on the first date, not to kiss - it can all get overwhelming, and cause you to come off as totally overwhelmed. To put a stop to the madness, come up with your own dating rules. Just do you, and it'll be more likely to work out.
You may have in your head that someone else has to ask you out for it to be a worthwhile date. After all, it's tradition, and maybe even the polite read: non-desperate thing to do.
There's absolutely nothing "desperate" about going up to someone and asking them out.
There are dating rules that clearly forbid over-sharing with someone you just met. And others still that insist you can't fall in love on a first date. Well, you can, to all of the above. If you believe in the rules too hard, you may be accidentally sabotaging your dating life by constantly calling your feelings into question.
Sep 24, Wrong Planet (sometimes referred to by its URL, susanneill.com) is an online community for individuals with autism and rger syndrome. The site was started in by Dan Grover and Alex Plank and includes a chatroom, a large forum, a dating section, and articles describing how to deal with daily issues. Is it wrong to give up on dating as an Asian guy? There's literally more of you than any other race on the entire planet. Yes, it's true, Asian women do prefer white men, but white women tend not to have racial preferences (unless they exclusively date black dudes). Apr 15, Topic: Replies: Views: Last Post: Announcement: TOS Reminder Started by DW_a_mom [ Go to page: 1 4, 5, 6]. 81 replies: , views: 01 Nov , am .
If you feel it, you feel it. Don't let "rules" undermine your emotions, or cause you to second guess. I hope that you leave a date feeling like things went well, and that you accurately portrayed your awesomeness. But that's obviously not always the case. Maybe you kept quiet on an issue that means a lot to you, in an effort to be "polite. A sense of regret is a sign that you followed an old school rule that isn't working, and it may be time to change things up.
Ah yes, the tricky situation of who will pick up the check for dinner. Traditionally, the man is expected to whip out his wallet. And yet this doesn't exactly sit well with many ladies these days. And why should it?
I personally like to pay half, or if I did the inviting, then I'll pay for it all. But many secular scientists continue to trust the potassium-argon model-age method on rocks of unknown age.
If so, then their true ages are much less than their radiometric age estimates. The age estimate could be wrong by a factor of hundreds of thousands. But how would you know?
May 01, Planet Earth Archaeologists Have a Lot of Dates Wrong for North American Indigenous History - But Are Using New Techniques to Get It Right Modern dating techniques are providing new time frames for indigenous settlements in Northeast North America, free from the Eurocentric bias that previously led to incorrect assumptions. Alex Plank is a filmmaker, photographer, and the founder of Wrong Planet, a popular web community. Consultant on The Bridge. Alex Plank Alex runs, owns, and develops susanneill.com, a popular community for individuals with rger's Syndrome and Autism which they started as a teenager after being diagnosed at the age of 9. Alex graduated from. May 14, Published on May 14, From proposing over Facebook to a huge public rejection, the Planet Dolan crew re-enacts some of the best true stories from our sub about the worst ways a .
We must also note that rocks are not completely solid, but porous. And gas can indeed move through rocks, albeit rather slowly.
So the assumption that all the produced argon will remain trapped in the rock is almost certainly wrong. And it is also possible for argon to diffuse into the rock of course, depending on the relative concentration. So the system is not as closed as secularists would like to think. There are some mathematical methods by which scientists attempt to estimate the initial quantity of elements in a rock, so that they can compensate for elements like argon that might have been present when the rock first formed.
Such techniques are called isochron methods. They are mathematically clever, and we may explore them in a future article.
However, like the model-age method, they are known to give incorrect answers when applied to rocks of known age. And neither the model-age method nor the isochron method are able to assess the assumption that the decay rate is uniform. As we will see below, this assumption is very dubious. Years ago, a group of creation scientists set out to explore the question of why radiometric dating methods give inflated age estimates. We know they do because of the aforementioned tests on rocks whose origins were observed.
But why? Which of the three main assumptions initial conditions are known, rate of decay is known, the system is close is false? To answer this question, several creation geologists and physicists came together to form the RATE research initiative R adioisotopes and the A ge of T he E arth.
This multi-year research project engaged in several different avenues of study, and found some fascinating results. As mentioned above, the isochron method uses some mathematical techniques in an attempt to estimate the initial conditions and assess the closed-ness of the system.
However, neither it nor the model-age method allow for the possibility that radioactive decay might have occurred at a different rate in the past. In other words, all radiometric dating methods assume that the half-life of any given radioactive element has always been the same as it is today.
Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate. Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is. Wrong Planet (sometimes referred to by its URL, susanneill.com) is an online forum for individuals with rger syndrome. The site was started in by Dan Grover and Alex Plank and includes a chatroom, a large forum, a dating section, and articles describing how to deal with daily issues. After a post to Slashdot describing an interview with Bram Cohen, Wrong Planet grew; the success of. Oct 13, Alex Plank is the 33 year old autistic person behind susanneill.com, the incredibly popular site for individuals with rger's Syndrome and Autism. Both Alex and Wrong Planet have been featured by CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and Good Morning America.
If that assumption is false, then all radiometric age estimates will be unreliable. As it turns out, there is compelling evidence that the half-lives of certain slow-decaying radioactive elements were much smaller in the past. This may be the main reason why radiometric dating often gives vastly inflated age estimates. First, a bit of background information is in order.
Most physicists had assumed that radioactive half-lives have always been what they are today. Many experiments have confirmed that most forms of radioactive decay are independent of temperature, pressure, external environment, etc. In other words, the half-life of carbon is years, and there is nothing you can do to change it. Given the impossibility of altering these half-lives in a laboratory, it made sense for scientists to assume that such half-lives have always been the same throughout earth history.
But we now know that this is wrong. In fact, it is very wrong. More recently, scientists have been able to change the half-lives of some forms of radioactive decay in a laboratory by drastic amounts. However, by ionizing the Rhenium removing all its electronsscientists were able to reduce the half-life to only 33 years!
Wrong planet dating
In other words, the Rhenium decays over 1 billion times faster under such conditions. Thus, any age estimates based on Rhenium-Osmium decay may be vastly inflated.
The RATE research initiative found compelling evidence that other radioactive elements also had much shorter half-lives in the past. Several lines of evidence suggest this.
But for brevity and clarity, I will mention only one.
This involves the decay of uranium into lead Unlike the potassium-argon decay, the uranium-lead decay is not a one-step process. Rather, it is a step process. Uranium decays into thorium, which is also radioactive and decays into polonium, which decays into uranium, and so on, eventually resulting in lead, which is stable. Eight of these fourteen decays release an alpha-particle: the nucleus of a helium atom which consists of two protons and two neutrons. The helium nucleus quickly attracts a couple of electrons from the environment to become a neutral helium atom.
So, for every one atom of uranium that converts into lead, eight helium atoms are produced. Helium gas is therefore a byproduct of uranium decay. And since helium is a gas, it can leak through the rocks and will eventually escape into the atmosphere. The RATE scientists measured the rate at which helium escapes, and it is fairly high.
Therefore, if the rocks were billions of years old, the helium would have had plenty of time to escape, and there would be very little helium in the rocks.
However, the RATE team found that rocks have a great deal of helium within them. In fact, the amount of helium in the rocks is perfectly consistent with their biblical age of a few thousand years! It is wildly inconsistent with billions of years.
But the fact that such helium is present also indicates that a great deal of radioactive decay has happened; a lot of uranium atoms have decayed into lead, producing the helium. At the current half-life of uranium, this would take billions of years. But if it actually took billions of years, then the helium would have escaped the rocks. The only reasonable explanation that fits all the data is that the half-life of uranium was much smaller in the past.
That is, in the past, uranium transformed into lead much faster than it does today. The RATE team found similar evidence for other forms of radioactive decay. Apparently, during the creation week and possibly during the year of the global flood, radioactive decay rates were much faster than they are today.
The RATE team also found that the acceleration of radioactive decay was greater for elements with longer half-lives, and less for elements with shorter half-lives.
All radiometric dating methods used on rocks assume that the half-life of the decay has always been what it is today. But we now have compelling evidence that this assumption is false. And since the decay rate was much faster in the past, those who do not compensate for this will end up with age-estimates that are vastly inflated from the true age of the rock. This of course is exactly what we observe. We already knew that radiometric dating tends to give ages that are much older than the true age.
May 11, I'm a firm believer in us not lying about our age. In fact, I say in my own dating profile, "I don't lie about my age - that's part of the authenticity that I advocate. Women tell me they have to shave off years from the age they admit on dating sites, or men their age reject them. Please help me prove them wrong.". The next time you log onto a dating site, you might want to add aˆ?mysteriousaˆ to your list of desirable traits, because the less you know about a potential mate, the better, finds a new. The title says it all: Born on the Wrong Planet. This is an important book that should be read by anyone who has a relative, friend, or acquaintance with rger's. While I recognize the book's importance, I love it because it's such fun to read. Really. Born on the Wrong Planet is a delight. Not many "important" books are delights.4/5(5).
Now we know why. For whatever reason, many people have the false impression that carbon dating is what secular scientists use to estimate the age of earth rocks at billions of years.
5 Signs The Person You Love Is Wrong For You
Carbon dating is not used on rocks, because rocks do not have much carbon in them. And with a half-life of only years, carbon does not last long enough to give an age estimate if something were truly millions of years old.
Dating tips. ROMEO is a great place to meet friends, make dates, and even find love. we encourage you always to use caution and common sense when dating or interacting with people online in general. one wrong report won't delete a Romeo but the more reports we get, the faster we can react. Avoid uncomfortable situations. It's possible. Create your account in three simple steps and Wrong+planet+dating+site hook up tonight! Instantly browse member photos and send messages and flirt for free. Experience a simple and safe way to meet real people for casual sex, love, and friendship. by admin. 0 like. Marisol. Jun 27, 13 Signs You're Using The Wrong Dating Etiquette & It's Sabotaging Your Love Life While there are obviously greater issues on this planet, could simply be a sign you're reading out of.
All the carbon would be gone after one million years. To estimate the ages of rocks, secular scientists use elements with much longer half-lives, such as uranium, potassium, and rubidium Animals and plants contain abundant carbon. Carbon dating is therefore used most frequently on animal or plant remains. The method gives an estimation of how long ago the organism died. Most carbon is c; the nucleus contains six protons and six neutrons. Carbon is stable.
Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate
A small fraction of carbon is c, which contains eight neutrons rather than six. Carbon is produced in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays produce neutrons that interact with nitrogen atoms, converting them to c The c naturally decays back into nitrogen with a half-life of years.
Animals then eat the plants, by which c is integrated into their body. So all plants, animals, and people have a small, but measurable quantity of c in their body. That c is slowly but continually decaying into nitrogen. But, while alive, plants and animals replenish the c by taking in additional carbon from their environment. Therefore, the ratio of c to c in a living animal or plant is roughly the same as it is in the atmosphere.
But when an organism dies, it ceases to replenish its supply of c The c simply decays, and therefore the c to c ratio in a dead organism will be somewhat less than that of the atmosphere. The older the organism, the lower the ratio. So, the ratio of c to c in animal or plant remains serves as a proxy for age, and can be used to estimate how long ago the organism died.
Unlike rock-dating methods, carbon-dating tends to give the correct answer when tested on material whose age is known. We therefore have more confidence in carbon-dating methods than we do in these other methods, though none are perfect of course.
Interestingly, many fossils of plants and animals often contain some of the original material of the organism - including carbon. When this occurs, we can measure the ratio of c to c in these remains, and estimate the age.
And what do we find? Very consistently, carbon-dating gives ages that confirm the biblical timescale of thousands of years.
Even when we test specimens that evolutionists believe to be millions of years old, such as coal beds, carbon-dating consistently reveals age estimates of a few thousand years. Yes, there are measurable levels of c in coal, which would be utterly impossible if coal were millions of years old. We have even carbon dated dinosaur fossils, and the age estimates always are in the range of thousands of years - never millions. The RATE team even found c in diamonds that secularists believe to be billions of years old.
But after 1 million years, no c would remain. Therefore, diamonds are only thousands of years old at most. And there would be no c left in such a specimen. But there always is. Without fail, carbon-dating confirms the biblical timescale. Even carbon dating has its assumptions of course. One of those is the assumption that the c to c ratio in the atmosphere has always been constant.
But we would not expect that to be the case.
The earth may have had very little c in its atmosphere when God first created it. It takes time for c to build-up. Moreover, the earth had a stronger magnetic field in the past which deflects cosmic rays and would tend to reduce c production. At the time of the worldwide flood, creation scientists believe that the atmosphere had only a small fraction of its current level of c If we neglect this then our age-estimates will be inflated by a factor of ten or so. This is exactly what we find.
Everything Wrong With Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes
However, if these remains were millions of years old, there should be no c left in them, which is not what we find. Radiometric dating has been demonstrated to give wrong age estimates on rocks whose age is known.
Yet, secularists continue to assume that it gives correct age estimates on rocks of unknown age. This is the only reasonable way to make sense of the abundance of helium found trapped in various rocks. The abundance of helium indicates that much radioactive decay has happened.