How do you know God isn't dead?

[Statler Waldorf]

No you are. Dating rocks is solid empiricasl science.

No it’s not; age is not an empirically measurable property of matter.

You can say that about Galileo, Newton, and every scientists up to the 19th century. In those days, that's all these people knew when it came to our origin. Darwin changed the paradigm. Here's a poll for you to reflect on:

We visited the Moon and the MRI was invented in the 20th Century.

Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory

Irrelevant, scientific facts are not determined by majority opinion or consensus in the scientific community; you should know that.

Aye, not all rocks agree.... that's because the Earth is far from static and rocks mix and mingle, ending up with young rock contaminating old rocks. If the person taking the sample is not careful with it, contamination becomes easy.

Not all methods are based on the same assumptions. but I guess you know that, but choose to ignore it. more dishonesty...

How do you know the disagreements are due to contamination and not to a fundamental error with the method? Secondly, they do all hold the same assumption, uniformitarianism.

You say the assumptions must be wrong because they disagree with your book. Or is that not the reason why you claim the assumptions present in all dating mechanisms must be wrong?

No, I am saying you cannot argue that my book is wrong because of your dating methods because they all adhere to assumptions that presuppose my book is wrong. So you are essentially assuming the Bible is not the word of God in order to argue that the Bible is not the word of God and therefore wrong about the Earth’s history.

They could have been different, but there's no evidence supporting that view.... And what sort of force(s)/field(s) would make them different, oh great and powerful, all-knowing, creationist?

Again, forces are a descriptive term; if the decay rates underwent a period of accelerated decay the forces would have been different during that period of time.

About the decay rate of nuclear isotopes...Indeed the exponential decay is experimentally derived... and, as such, only based of the limited temporal span of the experiment.... But it fits oh so well to the curve... And nature likes exponentials only too much... and there's no reason to think that the exponential turns into something else as we go back... Why? I told you! Short lived radionuclides follow the exponential to the letter. Long lived ones behave similarly in the lab, for new fresh off a volcano rocks, for Mt Vesuvius rocks, and others.... If they follow the same exponential law regardless of their age, then why would we even dream that they followed a different law in the remote past?

Well Nature doesn’t like anything, that’s reification. I would expect the laboratory short lived isotopes to follow the curve because they didn’t go through the conditions which produced the periods of accelerated decay in the Earth’s history while the older ones did. Now if by short lived isotopes you are referring to supposedly extinct isotopes then I would argue that actually supports the idea of periods of accelerated nuclear decay in the past.

OH yeah.... the laws of physics must have changed in the meantime... -.-'

Accelerated nuclear decay doesn’t violate any laws of physics, it merely violates your uniformitarian assumptions and there is nothing wrong with that.

Global flood causing radioactive decays to change?! What was that flood made of?!

Well most of the accelerated decay would have taken place during the creation week, but the flood would have affected the closed system assumption that the dating method is founded upon.

About the moon, the radioisotope dating methods have placed the moon at ~4.5 Billion years old. That matches quite well with the oldest rocks on Earth.

Yes but according to the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum the Moon is far younger than 1.38 Billion years old, so now are you asserting the laws of physics were different in the Earth’s past?

Also, you've probably noticed that the moon is pockmarked with crater impacts. Each of those can tug the moon closer or farther from the Earth... Thus rendering any calculations based on the present drifting speed quite inaccurate.

That seems like quite the Ad Hoc hypothesis. It’d take quite the meteorite to effect the Moon’s recession that greatly, and I am not aware of any evidence suggesting a meteorite of that magnitude ever struck the Moon. A better conclusion would be that your radiometric dating method is just flawed since it requires more assumptions.

Now do tell me there's a similar process that, in the past, hampered or facilitated radioactive decay... -.-'

It’s been demonstrated in the laboratory that several conditions can lead to billions of years’ worth (at present rates) of nuclear decay to occur in very short periods of time.

Enjoy your reading... do try to follow the references.

That paper proves my point; they didn’t get accurate results for the Mt Etna or Mt. St. Helens lava flows. Mt. Etna which was formed 2135 years ago was radio-metrically dated to have formed 250,000 years ago, that’s only 11,610% experimental error! Lava flows from the now 33 year old Mt. St. Helen’s eruption were radio-metrically dated to be between 350,000-2,800,000 years old. Let’s see, that’s only 32,140-8,484,748% experimental error! That’s like asserting a 12” ruler is really 16 miles long! Oops.

Lunar recession... yeah, there are some problems there so you don't want to keep it as a contradicting example.

No problems with the laws of physics.

Soft tissue... it seems you're still not reading the article. Let me bring it up from memory: they say they've found fossilized soft tissue. Fossilized. As in, turned to rock. All they have are the arrangement of the soft tissue... not the soft tissue itself. Read the damned article if you want more details.

No this is incorrect, in the 1990s Dr. Schweitzer’s team found actual hemoglobin in a piece of un-fossilized T-Rex bone, then in 2005 her team discovered soft tissue (blood cells and blood vessels) in a T-Rex bone that was still soft to the touch, in 2007 she and her team found actual protein collagen, so much of the protein was still remaining that it was able to be sequenced, then in 2012 the team found actual DNA (174 base pairs) in dinosaur fossils. Why is actual DNA such a problem? Well because we know it cannot last that long, empirical tests measuring the decay rate of DNA conclude that no traceable amounts could ever be found at the following temperatures and for the following periods of time…

22,000 years at 25°C
131,000 years at 15°C
882,000 years at 5°C
6,800,000 years at –5°C

Retrieved from “The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils” Proceedings of the Royal Society number 279

Since the Earth’s average global temperature is 14.0 degrees C (World Meteorological Organization) it’s safe to assume those bones were not kept at below freezing for the last few million years- so it looks like dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago rather than millions.

Faint young sun? what is this new thing you bring up? Googling.....

You’ve never heard of the Faint Young Sun Paradox? That’s surprising.

No climate paradox under the faint early Sun... oops, you did it again!

Well obviously you actually did it again, not bothering to read your own article, shame on you! This article is incredibly sloppy and I usually expect a bit more from Nature. To suggest that the paradox is solved by appealing to a one-dimensional (vertical) climate model is absurd. When modeling climates a three-dimensional model that takes into account the ocean, biosphere, and cryosphere is always preferred. Not only this but the oversimplification of their model causes them to ignore very important factors such as the ice albedo feedback mechanism. It’s no wonder that this very article led to criticism even in Nature itself.

““Despite all these proposed warming mechanisms, there are still reasons to think that the faint young Sun problem is not yet solved.”- Faint Young Sun Redux in Nature issue 464.

And then you have the independent experiments that confirm radiometric dating.

Perhaps you linked the wrong article because the article you posted has nothing to do with radiometric dating, nor does it contradict the current Creation model because in that model the Sun was created functional. Creationists agree with the proposed source of the Sun’s energy.

Too many variables, you mean 1 variable comprised of 2 possible outcomes is too many? Which mutations? Why would drift require so many generations? Can you say "bottleneck"?

You oversimplify the reality of this problem. Even if we were dealing with neutral mutations within a single gene in a single type of organism within a population there would never be enough trials to ensure that the neutral mutations would ever give rise to a new feature and later become fixed in the population. An average gene contains 1000 base pairs, that’s 10^602 total possible combinations for that particular gene. So even if every atom in the Universe (10^80) were a new generation of organisms that underwent neutral mutation, and we were given a new organism every millisecond for the supposed 15 Billion years the Universe has existed we’d still only have tried 10^100 of the possible outcomes for this gene; and that is just one single gene in one particular species of organism. To suggest that all of the genes in all of the different organisms arose through neutral evolutionary processes is downright laughable. Not only this; but the functional genes within these organisms would also be undergoing mutations which would result in error catastrophe long before our targeted gene ever yielded anything even close to new and useful. You do not have enough organisms and you do not have enough time to make this model even remotely possible.