The Statler Waldorf Balcony

[Statler Waldorf]

---

:-) So tell us if you didn't observe the growth of the trees you cut open, how would you know that the ones you cut open with less rings were younger and the ones with more rings were older? Kind of putting the cart before the horse there.

By being able to observe numberous trees in various stages of growth simultaneously.
And, of course, when you cut them open, you can see the tree rings.

As to your old trees. Certain genuses of trees can grow up to 5 rings per year. These rings are indistinguishable from true annual rings. Pre-ice age climates also could have caused trees to grow far more than even five rings a year. So counting annual rings (dendrochronology) is not nearly as accurate as you make it out to be.

Oh wow. Scientists must never take things like that into account. Puh-leese.

Ugh, you just don't get the light thing, so I will leave it alone.

If that's the excuse you have to use to justify the fact that you have absolutely no scientific grounds for you or your "astrophysicist's" theories, then go for it.

Wow, I had no idea that Colorado State was a Christian School! You learn something everyday. So can you tell us all what other "Christian" schools give out doctorates in Astrophysics? I am sure you are fully aware that in order for a school to give a graduate degree, that program must first be approved by all the other Universities in that State right? So even the graduate degrees that are given out at Christian Universities have been given the green light by secular schools.

I'll say that I'm forced to take both your and your "astrophysicist's" claims to prominance in any thing even remotely related to science with a grain of salt, at least in the fields in which creationism is opposed, which is virtually all of them.

Wow you dodged a lot there. You never answered, what happens when two things are supposedly the same age, but when you date the organic matter with radio-carbon dating it comes out to a vastly different age than the non-organic matter that is dated with radio-metric dating? We see this a lot with fossils that still have some organic matter left. Which date do you accept then?

How did I know they were the same age if the test churned out two different ages for the same material?
This looks like a fallacy by Rhetorical Question or someone goofed by testing carbon-14 with a different radiogenic test than the one designed to date carbon 14 or they picked a contaminated sample or any number of issues that could be solved by smarter or more sensible testing.

Scientists do things like test more than one sample before calling it a day to avoid situations where they might get a bad sample and they usually make sure they're testing the right material. That's just common sense.

It would not have to change the rates off the Earth for radiometric decay, only on the Earth. Go back and see the work by Dr. Newton. Using calcuated time definition the matter from off the Earth would date to be old. I know you don't get the whole time defintion thing, but give a look.

What work? You've neither shown nor have you linked me to anything this ... "genius" of a scientist who is apparently so sciency that he can out-science all of the previous centuries of observation and study.
I'm not even the one who is technially with the burden of proof as all of the evidence provided here and in reality all point away from your crackpot ideas that you're trying to evidence for creationism, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

If this above response is all you have to everything everyone has said about radiometric dating thus far on this and other threads, then you really have nothing to disprove radiometric dating. Any of it outside of proven hoaxes. Your light theory violates some of the most well-established scientific principles in modern physics, and all of your other ideas are just as well thought out and NONE of them have been backed up by anything you have provided here.
You're constantly complaining about us using youtube or wikipedia and when one one of us does link something you accept, you've only moved the goalposts further because apparently, according to your reasoning, your theories are valid scientifically despite absolutely no public, peer reviewed papers of your own. You haven't even provided any links or evidence of any kind - not even bad evidence.

Either put up or accept that you're wrong.

You never gave us the specific passage that supposedly says the Earth is flat, so I guess I will just assume it does not exist.

You do that. After all, I'm sure a creationist at some point is going to argue that spheres have corners and ends.

---

It's getting really tough to reply to your posts because you keep asserting I disagree with things that I never said I did, and actually pointed out that I do agree wtih. Light moves isotrpically when using the calculated definition of time, we all know this so stop trying to argue this point. Using the observational definition of time it moves an-isotropically, stop trying to use relativity and textbooks to agrue against this because they all use calculated time. The Bible is written using the observational definiton of time, so I am going to view light as propagating using this definition, this is not an erroneous thing to do, as long as I am clear as to which definition I am using.

I think I already pointed out why pointing to annual tree rings is not an appropriate means of disproving the time of the flood, I think most scientists with a knowledge of dendrochronology would agree with me. So you will have to try and find some other evidence.

I have not posted a lot of articles (though most of my info does come out of peer-reviewed sources) because they are not written for the lay person. So it's much more effective to summarize the article than just to post the link (as if posting a link proves anything).

You will have to take up the alleged dating mistakes made in the lab with the actual secular labs that dated the material. All I know is that radio-metric and radiocarbon methods disagree quite often. Just recently a piece of mineralized wood was found in sandstone that geologically dated to 250 million years but the piece of wood dated to around 35,000 years. Sounds like something has got to give to me.

---

Statler Waldorf Wrote:
As to your old trees. Certain genuses of trees can grow up to 5 rings per year. These rings are indistinguishable from true annual rings. Pre-ice age climates also could have caused trees to grow far more than even five rings a year. So counting annual rings (dendrochronology) is not nearly as accurate as you make it out to be.

"Pre-ice age climates" So you are using old earth evidence to refute old earth evidence.

Nope, creation scientists believe in an ice age.

---

Is it just me or has stat-wal run off crying?

Ah well, we'll just chalk that up as another kill.

Wishful thinking. I don't post on busy weekends.