U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 03-15-2008, 03:15 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,646,357 times
Reputation: 483

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin View Post
evidence pls or do you expect me to go "holy sh*t man, he said it thus it is so"


I wouldn't consider 150 a fad, the theory of evolution has made its case and keeps being refined as more evidence comes along. An example of this was with genetics which(surprise surprise) corroborates with the TOE


Pretty much, this showed that the old theory of fossilization needed changing, that is to say scientists accepted they had been wrong. Its a perfect example of why science remains tentative and has made so many discoveries because it doesn't assume it will always be right and will always follow the evidence unlike a certain group of people i know of



Nope, the 70 million year figure comes from dating the bones. The obvious comeback here is that radiometric dating doesn't work which means one of the following:
1.the principles are wrong
2.the principles are not wrong but every single fossil dated until now has given wrong dates

now i just happen to have studied radioactivity last term so i know what the process involves and i can tell you that the case is solid(about 99% maths 1% physics) so if you want to argue point one then fine by me and if you wish to argue 2 then sure but you'll need to explain the internal consistency before we can start


Is this what they teach you in church? because its a lie
Your right about Evolution being refined. It always has to be refined, because they were wrong about the Theory from day one. And when new evidence keeps showing them to be wrong, you have to keep refining. LOL. And on soft tissue the scientist were probably right the first time on the 10,000 years, but now they are really wrong on the 70 million. So tell me, when was there soft tissue study done? And I did't hear about it in church, because I have not attended a church in years. And as far as your radiometric dating goes, that a joke to. It takes a lot of faith to believe in a dating system that requires you first to make three arbitrary assumptions. (1.) You must know for sure if over time there has been a constant rate of decay. (2.) You must know if the element being tested came from an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element has been added or lost. And (3.) you must know for sure the exact amount of the daughter element present initially. Does science know these as facts, of course not. So these three unknowns are based on assumptions. And here is where we leave science behind and enter the world of faith based science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2008, 03:36 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,646,357 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy View Post
HsvMike wrote:

No, it's not true. We have examples of insects trapped in amber that have been preserved for millions of years that include the entire body of the insect which of course includes soft tissue. It's just that this is something very rare in animals because the conditions have to be just right for this to happen. Leaves and petrified wood are also examples of soft tissue even though they're plants and we've known about them for centuries. This is just another example of creationists who try to proclaim that some startling new evidence has shaken the scientific world. Scientists are actually very excited about this discovery. It was a dinosaur dug up in a sandstone formation in Montana and it even has identifiable blood vessels. It's a very interesting discovery that could greatly expand our knowledge of dinosaurs.
Hope this like works for you. Rember it was your scientist who said soft tissue could not last more then 10,000 years. Now I guess it can last 70 million years.

http://mtblanco.com?MtBlancoNews/200...RexTissue.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2008, 03:56 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,646,357 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by HsvMike View Post
Now I am speaking to anyone who really puts their faith in science.

I have not heard about the soft tissue thing. Is it true that scientists said that soft tissue cannot be found in anything older than 10,000 years, but since they did find some in a dinosaur bone that they changed it to 70 million?
Hope this like works for you.

Dinosaur Tissues Found
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2008, 05:27 PM
 
2,633 posts, read 3,275,109 times
Reputation: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Your right about Evolution being refined. It always has to be refined, because they were wrong about the Theory from day one. And when new evidence keeps showing them to be wrong, you have to keep refining. LOL.
Nope, Its refined because new evidence comes to light and scientists always take the one that explains all the evidence the best. You are trying to make this seem like a bad thing but its the only reason why science works so well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And on soft tissue the scientist were probably right the first time on the 10,000 years, but now they are really wrong on the 70 million.
Why? oh right because book beats evidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
So tell me, when was there soft tissue study done?
Google fossil soft tissue test unless you want to be even less specific about the kind of test you are referring to

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And I did't hear about it in church, because I have not attended a church in years.
Allow me to not care

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And as far as your radiometric dating goes, that a joke to. It takes a lot of faith to believe in a dating system that requires you first to make three arbitrary assumptions.

(1.) You must know for sure if over time there has been a constant rate of decay.
Duuuh because they aren't constant?
dN/dt= -λN<--------rate of decay depends on the number of undecayed nuclei. Oh wait what you meant to say is that the change in the rate of decay does not follow an exponential decay curve and instead shoots up to dizzying numbers giving an error in quite a few orders of magnitude

So wait, now the burden of proof is on us to show that decay rates don't change when we aren't looking? Sure that'll be easy, i mean it only requires us to look at them throughout every point in time. How about this, give us a reason as to why they would have been different.
Actually let me do some math to get to the 7x10^7 from 6000 yr
N=Noe^-(λ1)6000
N=Noe^-(λ2)7x10^7
1=e^(λ2)7x10^7-6000(λ1)
λ1=7/6x10^4λ2
I see, so somehow the probability of the nuclei decaying shot up to 11500 times what it would be if we assume the earth to be ~6000 yrs old(or 7000 times for a 10k old earth). Do you have any evidence of this change? or of anything close to this happening nowadays because if you don't then you might as well complain that we just assumed that from -2000bc to 1000ad the laws of physics didn't temporarily break down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
(2.) You must know if the element being tested came from an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element has been added or lost. AndYou must know if the element being tested came from an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element has been added or lost

(3.) you must know for sure the exact amount of the daughter element present initially.
Allow me to laugh: lololol
Isochron dating methods do not have these problems

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Does science know these as facts, of course not. So these three unknowns are based on assumptions. And here is where we leave science behind and enter the world of faith based science.
Or your faith in reality subscribing to your views do not allow you to be wrong and in turn you scoff those who dare not be so stubborn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2008, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Nashville, Tn
7,917 posts, read 11,705,933 times
Reputation: 5307
Campbell34 wrote:
Quote:
Hope this like works for you. Rember it was your scientist who said soft tissue could not last more then 10,000 years. Now I guess it can last 70 million years.
I've been to the location in Glen Rose, Texas and that's what I was referring to in my earlier post. The ones in your link are the work of someone else and not the guy who's gone out and cut out toes in some of the footprints so they'd look more human but he is studying tracks from the same area. Well I've seen these footprints in person and it's just wishful thinking to suggest there's a mix of human and dinosaur footprints. You can clearly see that some of them have the three distinct toes for lack of a better word that we associate with dinosaurs but you can follow the footprints made by the same animal and many of them are not as distinct and just look like a single hole that was left in the mud. If you were to walk across a muddy riverbank you would probably find some areas that were muddier and would tend to leave a less distinct footprint while the areas that aren't as filled with water will leave a much better impression. That's exactly what we're seeing with these prints. Also, the distance between the footprints is much longer than it would be if a man were making them. These are 100% dinosaur footprints, sorry to disappoint you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2008, 08:32 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,646,357 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin View Post
Nope, Its refined because new evidence comes to light and scientists always take the one that explains all the evidence the best. You are trying to make this seem like a bad thing but its the only reason why science works so well.


Why? oh right because book beats evidence.



Google fossil soft tissue test unless you want to be even less specific about the kind of test you are referring to


Allow me to not care


Duuuh because they aren't constant?
dN/dt= -λN<--------rate of decay depends on the number of undecayed nuclei. Oh wait what you meant to say is that the change in the rate of decay does not follow an exponential decay curve and instead shoots up to dizzying numbers giving an error in quite a few orders of magnitude

So wait, now the burden of proof is on us to show that decay rates don't change when we aren't looking? Sure that'll be easy, i mean it only requires us to look at them throughout every point in time. How about this, give us a reason as to why they would have been different.
Actually let me do some math to get to the 7x10^7 from 6000 yr
N=Noe^-(λ1)6000
N=Noe^-(λ2)7x10^7
1=e^(λ2)7x10^7-6000(λ1)
λ1=7/6x10^4λ2
I see, so somehow the probability of the nuclei decaying shot up to 11500 times what it would be if we assume the earth to be ~6000 yrs old(or 7000 times for a 10k old earth). Do you have any evidence of this change? or of anything close to this happening nowadays because if you don't then you might as well complain that we just assumed that from -2000bc to 1000ad the laws of physics didn't temporarily break down


Allow me to laugh: lololol
Isochron dating methods do not have these problems



Or your faith in reality subscribing to your views do not allow you to be wrong and in turn you scoff those who dare not be so stubborn
I would say the reason the scientist were right the first time on the age of the soft tissue is because there is much evidence outside of the Bible that indicates that dinosaurs were around not millions of years ago, but thousands. And that evidence is ignored by most Evolutionest. And it has been my experience that the Bible keeps being verfied by new discoveries. Science did not know what the make up of the skin of a dinosaur was, yet in the Book of Job which was written some 26 hundred years ago clearly states that they had scales. Science discovered this only in recent times.

I typed in the soft tissue test, yet was unable to find where it tells us soft tissue has now been scientifically tested and confirmed to last 70 million years. Could you redirect me to this?

And as far as Isochron dating goes that has other problems. 1. You must know if all areas of a given specimen formed at the same time. 2. The specimen was entirely homogenous when it formed (not layered or incompletely mixed) 2. Limited Contamination (contamination can form straight lines that are misleading) 4. Isochrons that are based on intra-specimen crystals can be extrapolated to date the whole specimen.
Again all of this boils down to assumptions, and assumptions are not what I consider good science. And I find the much more solid proof in the Bible and in historical records than assumptions made by men with a Theory to prove. I

Interestingly, mainstream scientist are also starting to question the validity of isochron dating. In January of 2005, four geologists from the Uk,Wisconsin and Calfornia, writing in Geology, wrote:

The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the intiial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of the eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2008, 10:52 PM
 
Location: Huntsville, AL
2,221 posts, read 1,957,685 times
Reputation: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
I would say the reason the scientist were right the first time on the age of the soft tissue is because there is much evidence outside of the Bible that indicates that dinosaurs were around not millions of years ago, but thousands. And that evidence is ignored by most Evolutionest. And it has been my experience that the Bible keeps being verfied by new discoveries. Science did not know what the make up of the skin of a dinosaur was, yet in the Book of Job which was written some 26 hundred years ago clearly states that they had scales. Science discovered this only in recent times.

I typed in the soft tissue test, yet was unable to find where it tells us soft tissue has now been scientifically tested and confirmed to last 70 million years. Could you redirect me to this?

And as far as Isochron dating goes that has other problems. 1. You must know if all areas of a given specimen formed at the same time. 2. The specimen was entirely homogenous when it formed (not layered or incompletely mixed) 2. Limited Contamination (contamination can form straight lines that are misleading) 4. Isochrons that are based on intra-specimen crystals can be extrapolated to date the whole specimen.
Again all of this boils down to assumptions, and assumptions are not what I consider good science. And I find the much more solid proof in the Bible and in historical records than assumptions made by men with a Theory to prove. I

Interestingly, mainstream scientist are also starting to question the validity of isochron dating. In January of 2005, four geologists from the Uk,Wisconsin and Calfornia, writing in Geology, wrote:

The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the intiial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of the eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages.
Very interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2008, 01:34 AM
 
2,633 posts, read 3,275,109 times
Reputation: 569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
I would say the reason the scientist were right the first time on the age of the soft tissue is because there is much evidence outside of the Bible that indicates that dinosaurs were around not millions of years ago, but thousands. And that evidence is ignored by most Evolutionest.
Your only evidence is the fact that scientists used to think it was not possible and yet again you feel the need to reject the other evidence for any other reason you can find short on the bible

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And it has been my experience that the Bible keeps being verfied by new discoveries. Science did not know what the make up of the skin of a dinosaur was, yet in the Book of Job which was written some 26 hundred years ago clearly states that they had scales.
....and breathed fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Science discovered this only in recent times.
You forgot a convenient detail


Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
I typed in the soft tissue test, yet was unable to find where it tells us soft tissue has now been scientifically tested and confirmed to last 70 million years. Could you redirect me to this?
What dating could tell us that other than radiometric? Oh right you wont accept it for the reasons given below

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And as far as Isochron dating goes that has other problems.
I'm sorry so you mean to say that the other 3 points were moot, was it that you didn't know and since needed to find other reasons to reject it or that you did know but said so anyways to make us believe otherwise. BoD i guess so i'll assume the former


Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
1. You must know if all areas of a given specimen formed at the same time.
This is pathetic and I'm not t all sure why this is a problem with dating. What the hell do you even mean by this? what so that if a skeleton is found by forensic investigators then they assume the head, arms, torso and legs belong to different people? Or do you mean that when the organism is alive, its limb don't all grow at once. Which is true but would give or take a few years from our ~70000000 estimate(or not seeing as the date is roughly from the point the specimen died)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
2. The specimen was entirely homogenous when it formed (not layered or incompletely mixed)
unless you mean during permineralization this is point 1. And for every fossil found?!?!?. With most fossils it would be like putting an ice cream completely inside a furnace, having only the right half of it melt immediately and then the other several years later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
2. Limited Contamination (contamination can form straight lines that are misleading)
contamination is not something that tends to happen unless in an area prone to it. Contrary to popular opinion, scientist have the foresight to take this into account. Specially because such things would most probably yield random numbers

Do you actually read what you write because im starting to see a pattern here. "each and every single fossil found so far must be off by millions of years and nothing will change that"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
4. Isochrons that are based on intra-specimen crystals can be extrapolated to date the whole specimen.


Again all of this boils down to assumptions, and assumptions are not what I consider good science. And I find the much more solid proof in the Bible and in historical records than assumptions made by men with a Theory to prove.
A quick googling just revealed to me that you are repeating this page Radiometric Dating Methods
word for word. To save me some time then i'll just direct you to:
Isochron Dating

Another thing to notice here is that if you read that page then surely you must have noticed when it said :
Quote:
So, according to Dalrymple, K-Ar or Ar-Ar are the only methods that have little or no concern for the presence of initial daughter isotopes. This means that all the other radioisotope-dating methods (excepting isochron methods) are brought into serious question.
Back when you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Does science know these as facts, of course not. So these three unknowns are based on assumptions. And here is where we leave science behind and enter the world of faith based science.
I'm really not surprised at this


Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Interestingly, mainstream scientist are also starting to question the validity of isochron dating. In January of 2005, four geologists from the Uk,Wisconsin and Calfornia, writing in Geology, wrote:

The determination of accurate and precise isochron ages for igneous rocks requires that the intiial isotope ratios of the analyzed minerals are identical at the time of the eruption or emplacement. Studies of young volcanic rocks at the mineral scale have shown this assumption to be invalid in many instances. Variations in initial isotope ratios can result in erroneous or imprecise ages.
This also shows that you don't do your research because what this shows is that isochrons done on Igneous rocks are unreliable and guess what? there are no fossils in igneous rocks!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2008, 07:40 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 6,646,357 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by coosjoaquin View Post
Your only evidence is the fact that scientists used to think it was not possible and yet again you feel the need to reject the other evidence for any other reason you can find short on the bible


....and breathed fire.


You forgot a convenient detail



What dating could tell us that other than radiometric? Oh right you wont accept it for the reasons given below


I'm sorry so you mean to say that the other 3 points were moot, was it that you didn't know and since needed to find other reasons to reject it or that you did know but said so anyways to make us believe otherwise. BoD i guess so i'll assume the former



This is pathetic and I'm not t all sure why this is a problem with dating. What the hell do you even mean by this? what so that if a skeleton is found by forensic investigators then they assume the head, arms, torso and legs belong to different people? Or do you mean that when the organism is alive, its limb don't all grow at once. Which is true but would give or take a few years from our ~70000000 estimate(or not seeing as the date is roughly from the point the specimen died)



unless you mean during permineralization this is point 1. And for every fossil found?!?!?. With most fossils it would be like putting an ice cream completely inside a furnace, having only the right half of it melt immediately and then the other several years later.


contamination is not something that tends to happen unless in an area prone to it. Contrary to popular opinion, scientist have the foresight to take this into account. Specially because such things would most probably yield random numbers

Do you actually read what you write because im starting to see a pattern here. "each and every single fossil found so far must be off by millions of years and nothing will change that"


A quick googling just revealed to me that you are repeating this page Radiometric Dating Methods
word for word. To save me some time then i'll just direct you to:
Isochron Dating

Another thing to notice here is that if you read that page then surely you must have noticed when it said :
Back when you wrote:



I'm really not surprised at this



This also shows that you don't do your research because what this shows is that isochrons done on Igneous rocks are unreliable and guess what? there are no fossils in igneous rocks!!!
Yes, scientist use to think or believe a lot of things, and as always their beliefs had to be changed. I like to stick with a Book that's right the first time and requires no changes. Time and discovery only confirms Biblical facts, and it's message.

And as far as a fire breathing dinosaur, I did not forget any detail, the subject was on the make up of it's skin. And there is other evidence out there outside of the Bible found in other clutures that confirm the Biblical account. That evidence is ignored by you and science.

Most other ways of dating outside of radiometric or what ever assumption faith based dating you care to discuss shows us a much younger earth.
As far as fossils not found in igneous rock, my point was not that fossils were to be found in the rock or not. My point was, the inacuraccy of the dating itself. Which was pointed out by scientist. I don't have to look for reasons not to trust todays dating by science, your own people are telling us why it cannot be trusted. When they discover wood embedded in what was dated to be 110 million year old limestone, and then they carbon dated the wood and discover it to be 890 years old, well then, you have to ask the question. Which date is right. In 1986 a new lava dome was formed at Mount St. Helens. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subject to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old. ALL OF THIS FROM ELEVEN YEAR OLD ROCK. Now we know when this rock was formed, and we know the test were off by millions of years. Yet when we don't know when a rock was formed, we assume that the date given is accurate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2008, 09:07 AM
 
2,633 posts, read 3,275,109 times
Reputation: 569
The pattern that I'm seeing here is that you make a string of claims. I take some time to show how or why they are bogus, then you just ignore any rebuttals and either concentrate on an irrelevant detail or backtrack into some other bullsh|ty claims(for lack of a better word)

Look if you refuse to engage me one to one then i shall just assume that you are a troll.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Yes, scientist use to think or believe a lot of things, and as always their beliefs had to be changed.
Of course, you keep repeating it like its a bad thing. Its not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
I like to stick with a Book that's right the first time and requires no changes.
Time and discovery only confirms Biblical facts, and it's message.
and in the case it turns out to be wrong, we can just lie and delude ourselves until reality itself changes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And as far as a fire breathing dinosaur, I did not forget any detail, the subject was on the make up of it's skin.
The subject was Dinosaurs on the bible. You claimed science corroborating the bible description but this is a lie seeing as science has concluded dino's didn't breathe fire

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And there is other evidence out there outside of the Bible found in other clutures that confirm the Biblical account. That evidence is ignored by you and science.
Name one. Because i can only think of the deluge which has been refuted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Most other ways of dating outside of radiometric or what ever assumption faith based dating you care to discuss shows us a much younger earth.
More bullsh|t, ok lets talk about the annual layers of ice in Antartica. The place the (pay attention) minimum age of the earth as roughly 400k years. Then we can move on to astrophysics or annual coral layers pointing to roughly a 4.5x10^9 year old earth. Then we can go even further and use the latests most accurate measurements of hubbles constant to show the age of the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
As far as fossils not found in igneous rock, my point was not that fossils were to be found in the rock or not. My point was, the inacuraccy of the dating itself. Which was pointed out by scientist.
trying to penetrate this wall, are you telling me that there is no difference between?:
Isochron dating is inaccurate when performed on Igneous rock
Isochron dating is always inaccurate

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
I don't have to look for reasons not to trust todays dating by science, your own people are telling us why it cannot be trusted.
Science always remains tentative but you are rejecting certain ideals because they don't conform with your views of reality. Personally i find this "pick and choose" approach rather hypocritical so why not just quit typing on the computer you are using or stop going to hospitals because it comes from science buddy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
When they discover wood embedded in what was dated to be 110 million year old limestone, and then they carbon dated the wood and discover it to be 890 years old
Where did you learn this? Chick.com? because its bullsh|t spread around by yec's, carbon 14 is not accurate on things older than 50000 years old btw.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
well then, you have to ask the question. Which date is right. In 1986 a new lava dome was formed at Mount St. Helens. In 1997 five specimens were taken from this dome at five different locations and subject to conventional Potassium-Argon dating. The results indicated ages of less than one half to almost three million years old. ALL OF THIS FROM ELEVEN YEAR OLD ROCK.
To be more accurate the claim was:
Quote:
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St. Helens, Washington. The whole-rock age was 0.35 +/- 0.05 million years (Mya). Ages for component minerals varied from 0.34 +/- 0.06 Mya to 2.8 +/- 0.6 Mya. These ages show that the K-Ar method is invalid.
And this is the response i've read:
Quote:
Austin sent his samples to a laboratory that clearly states that their equipment cannot accurately measure samples less than two million years old. All of the measured ages but one fall well under the stated limit of accuracy, so the method applied to them is obviously inapplicable. Since Austin misused the measurement technique, he should expect inaccurate results, but the fault is his, not the technique's. Experimental error is a possible explanation for the older date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Now we know when this rock was formed, and we know the test were off by millions of years. Yet when we don't know when a rock was formed, we assume that the date given is accurate.
Not when you are doing the equivalent of measuring the size of mitochondria with binoculars.

Before backtracking and throwing around even more claims, answer my question a while back:

(λ1)=7x10^4(λ2)
λ=ln(2)/t(1/2)
therefore
(t1)=7x10^-4(t2)

If we assume a 10000 year old earth, we see that the half-life of elements (which is constant) are 7 thousand times greater than they should. Why is this?

Now there are a few ways in which you can answer this question:
-claim that radioactivity isn't random and then explain why it follows an exponential decay curve
-claim that mathematics is wrong, deem it ungodly and disprove theorems by means of counter-example

What i do not want to see is:
-make an irrelevant comment that shown lack of understanding of the principles of radiometric dating(seriously if you don't know them i'd be more than glad to show u)

Have fun
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:56 AM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top