(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well actually that was not the only case, it's observed quite often. He did not refute that claim either because the article he cited pre-dated the research I cited. Kind of hard to refute research that has happened yet.

Uh... no.
This can't happen 'quite often.' This can't happen "sometimes" or "maybe" or "there are cases of"
- You're missing the point -

For this crackpot theory to be valid, it would have to be off, by a factor of hundreds of millions, for every sample ever collected both on and off the earth by exactly the same degree.
As you should be keenly aware, nothing in nature is capable of that kind of outright deception. Nevermind the fact that radiometric dating can't be falsified by current dating methods for all the reasons you have yet to actually refute.
None of your so-called 'evidence' has any possibility of this happening.

(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Well I said "up to" a magnitude of 8, so your 45 year thing doesn't mean much.

That's nice.

(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: You still haven't addressed the issue that if all these rates are constant then how come the same sample gives different ages when different radiometric dating methods are used on it?

Because dating methods go by the kind of sample - there is a method for uranium dating, one for carbon-14, and one for all the other kinds of radioactive isotopes that can be found naturally.
It's the same kind of thing as to how you're not going to ace a science class by submitting the answers for your theology class and scientists are keenly aware of this sort of thing.

(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: I would expect them all to be the same if the rates have been constant. So do you believe all natural rates have been constant?

Yes.

(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Are you a true uniformitarian? I can guarantee you are going to start using the same arguments as I do when I show that using a lot of other rates we can extrapolate young ages for the Earth. "Oh those rates have changed but my rates have not". What happens when Carbon 14 dates and radiometric dates conflict? Which one do you choose then?

You do know that dating carbon 14 is radiometric dating, right?
Well, at least one of the radioactive isotopic elements used for that purpose.

(October 15, 2010 at 3:02 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Actually the Bible never says the Earth is flat, that's often claimed by people who don't know how to conduct proper exegesis.

Indeed, I must have forgotten where the spherical earth ends or how many corners a spherical earth has.

Quote:If you could please point out where my understanding of Science is off, that would be great. Please give a source too, so I can see who you listen to when defining science. Though I did notice that you made a slight appeal to consensus in your post. This may show a little bit of your lack of scientific knowledge, or maybe you just didn't mean to do it. The majority of scientists not only could be wrong, but are often wrong- just look at the history of science. So to jump on me for believing this is the case today is an error I believe. Thanks for the avatar compliment though!

This was my point. While many scientists can be wrong... You seem to think you've single-handedly come to a conclusion, where peer-reviewed, repeatable testing is wrong.

Have you down your own research into what you're claiming, or are you currently an armchair scientist at the moment?

Historic measurements of the velocity of light from 1862 to 1977. The early discrepencies were due to methodology/instrument errors. As the methodology and instruments were refined, the measurements settled down quite nicely. So, does anyone really want to argue that these miniscule differences account for the huge discrepency between the observed size of the universe (based on the speed of light) and the magic number that creationists would have us believe is true?

Get to the Grand Canyon, too.




Awe-inspiring and not carved by a single flood 4000 years ago!