hatersinmyward wrote:Response to OP:
Personally I'm a Theologist.
The "Atom Bomb Effect" states: a large amount of radiation from whatever the source can speed up decay and cause the element tested to date older than it actually is.
Examples: Bodies from the Nuclear Ordinance used in Japan. The human remains tested date older than they are. Since the date of the radiation exposure is known then we know radiation can be a factor.
I think life on Earth could have originated no less than 20,000 years ago according to the "Atom Bomb Effect Theory"
This is a joke, right?
By citing the "atom bomb effect" you are clearly referring to the slight increase in carbon-14 (and hence in the C-14 / C-12 ratio) in the biosphere as a result of modern nuclear explosions. Perhaps you are unaware that this is a very small perturbation that affects only radiocarbon dating techniques and can be compensated for by the use of new reference standards.
You also seem to be unaware that radiocarbon dating is only useful for organic materials and is limited as to how far into the past it can provide accurate dating (thousands or tens of thousands of years). Therefore, radiocarbon dating would not be useful to determine the age of the Earth, which is billions of years old.
Also, if you thought about it, you might ask yourself how radiation (from whatever source) could affect dating based on any of the other dating methods such as stratigraphy.
As
just me has pointed out, science deniers armed with a few facts (and inadequate understanding) can come up with their own unfounded reasons to believe that one or two dating methods may be in error. They cannot possibly come up with reasons (even in their wildest imaginings) why all of the dating methods would be wrong, and why all of them would indicate an Earth many orders of magnitude older than 10,000 years.
With regard to stratigraphy, one time base I have not seen mentioned on these recurring Young Earth science denier threads is the Iridium layer. If you are really interested in the truth instead of your theologically motivated bs theories, you should google the "Iridium layer", the "Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary" and the "KT extinction" (all well recorded epochs or events in the geological record), and see how your Young Earth theories can handle these data sets.
Remember, theories are evaluated according to their explanatory and predictive power. Scientific theories and dating methods exhibit these characteristics, and are in very good agreement as to the age of the Earth, and the Universe.
On the other hand, theologically based theories have no explanatory power and cannot be used as a basis to accurately determine the age of physical artifacts or events.
Like Franktalk, perhaps you should take a few minutes and think before you come out with this kind of nonsense on a public forum. Like Franktalk, you seem to have an uncritical willingness to believe what you read on Christian creationist websites. Regardless of your motivations or level of understanding, such a display of gullibility seems kind of embarrassing for an adult.
__________________
(Little known fact: Motorola named its Iridium satellite phone system after the Iridium layer because, like the Iridium layer, it covers the entire Earth.)
