How do you know God isn't dead?

[pocaracas]

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.

Because they're outliers.
Only some rocks have this problem. Not most... some... a few. Not statistically relevant.
There's a place, not far from where I live, where we can see the rock layers. I'm sure you've probably seen something similar.
But, on this particular location, the layers are not stacked up vertically, but rather horizontally. Care to guess why that is?

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.

HAHA, someone messed up a quote...

Let's parallel this with something...
So you're saying I can't argue that Harry Potter is wrong because my science adheres to the assumption that presume HP to be wrong (magic doesn't exist). So I'm assuming that HP books are wrong in order to argue that the HP books are wrong, therefore wrong about the existence of magic.

Where am I going with this? To the fact that OF COURSE a book that was written without proper verification of facts is never taken into account when researching something in a scientific way. And if that research leads to a conclusion that clashes with whatever is in the book, then science doesn't care.... the book is wrong! Harry potter is wrong, there's no magic; Dracula is wrong, there are no vampires; Star Trek is wrong, there was no Eugenics war in the late 20th century; etc...etc...etc...

If you really want to prove science wrong and your book true, then provide your creator for science to scrutinize.
This assuming that science's assumptions are wrong just so your book could be true... is not sustainable... hence Why do people laugh at creationists?

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.

Short lived isotopes are isotopes with a short half-life, like carbon-14. Which oppose long lived isotopes like Uranium-234.

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.

The flood of water, you mean?! BUHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I have a much better explanation for that... it's equally bollocks, but much more fun!
You see, the only thing that seems to affect the temporal perception of matter is tacheons. So you must be talking about a flood of tacheons... How could we get something like that?
Some klingon bird of prey did a sling-shot around the sun, went back in time, but the ship's structural integrity didn't hold and it blew up. The warp core tore, reacted with he early sun and produced a burst of tacheons that flooded (HeHe) the entire solar system, leading to an accelerated temporal perception of the solar system's vicinity. That is why, today, every solar system rock that's been dated has pretty much the same "way too old" date.

My fiction is better than yours, however equally unsubstantiated.

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.

No, radiometric dating has been consistent and yields results compatible with independent dating methodologies. I have no reason to doubt it.

All it says is that the Earth and moon were formed roughly 4.5 billion years ago.
Perhaps independently, perhaps through some mutual collision, perhaps somehow else... but they did cool down from their initial lava like state roughly at the same time.

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.

Citation needed, but I don't doubt you.
It's possible... of course... but to claim that those conditions happened practically homogeneously throughout the Earth seems a stretch...
Are any of those conditions a flood?!

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.

When will you learn to read?

Thus the large majority of historic lava flows that have been studied either give correct ages, as expected, or have quantities of excess radiogenic 40Ar that would be insignificant in all but the youngest rocks. The 40Ar/39Ar technique, which is now used instead of K-Ar methods for most studies, has the capability of automatically detecting, and in many instances correcting for, the presence of excess 40Ar, should it be present.

It was that faulty K-Ar method with excessive 40Ar that yielded such results.

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.

Fair enough. Found that study Analysis of Dinosaur Bone Cells Confirms Ancient Protein Preservation. It only proves they found proteins which are found in DNA, but it's a step in the right direction...
They then go on to say (about that half-life of DNA study):

“The data thus far seem to support the theory that these structures can be preserved over time,” Schweitzer says. “Hopefully these findings will give us greater insight into the processes of evolutionary change.”

The scientists studying this don't jump the gun and state young Earth... instead, they state proteins can withstand for longer than we thought... let's try to discover what conditions lead to such marvelously long preservation.

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.

Yes... unlike you, I don't spend much time over creationist propaganda.

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.

I see.... well I could only read the abstract, so yeah... there's that.
But then, I have to show you where the current trend stands on early Earth life. I'm sorry I didn't remember this on my last post... you caught me off guard with that early faint sun (wait, are you accepting that the Earth and Sun are that old?):
Underwater.Volcanic.Vents.
They provide all the heat required to melt water locally, soup like "nutrients", etc... Kind of like what's suspected to happen in Europa.

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.

Perhaps you don't know what "independent" means.
A completely different method of dating. Not at all related to radiometric. That's why the link I posted "has nothing to do with radiometric dating". It's about neutrino rate dating of the sun... Something you don't find in your creationist books, I assume... or you'd have some snarky comeback.