Creation vs. Evolution

Originally posted by telerion
You are using error in two different ways here, and it's very confusing. You first use it to mean an event which effects all physical things (and thus their test results). The second time, you use the word to mean a measure of an estimate's distance from the truth. Neither usage is consistent with the way we are using the word. Our usage, which is found ...[text shortened]... varves and tree rings etc), in order to pull of some great conspiracy for world domination.

You have been studying isotopes billions of years to know you are not
missing something, or has the window of study only been done in a
very short time period of late?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have been studying isotopes billions of years to know you are not
missing something, or has the window of study only been done in a
very short time period of late?
Kelly

Why are you dodging the question? It's very straightforward.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If for example the error started at 7 thousand years the futher you
went away from that date the worse your error. No matter what your
confidence was when you made your predictions you'd be off from the
time reality and you parted ways.
Kelly

That is correct. The error grows continuously, but it says things are older than that. If your hypothesis of Earth being 7k yrs was true, there would be a huge discontinuity in errors.
Billions of isotopes have been studied and guess what? They all decay the same way (exponentially).

Originally posted by serigado
That is correct. The error grows continuously, but it says things are older than that. If your hypothesis of Earth being 7k yrs was true, there would be a huge discontinuity in errors.
Billions of isotopes have been studied and guess what? They all decay the same way (exponentially).

For how long have they been studied?
Kelly

Originally posted by telerion
Why are you dodging the question? It's very straightforward.

Reviewed the post you claim had a question in it, where was it?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
For how long have they been studied?
Kelly

Radioactivity has been discovered in the end if 19th century by Becquerel, the Curies and some other nice guys.
It's laws have been deduced my theoretical physicist with GREAT accordance to EVERY isotope found. They all obey the same law, and have always obeyed. If they didn't, quantum mechanics would be dead wrong.
If you want to say "they have only been found 100 yrs ago, there's no way we could know they have always decayed that way, at that rate", please don't. You would be contradicting the laws of physics.
But this decays and graphs made by them are all with great precision for datings thousands of years old, confirming history and old books. It works perfectly for 4k yrs ago. For 5k yrs, too. The graphs are continuous, but you say that for more then 6k, all data is suddenly wrong! It simply doesn't fit.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Reviewed the post you claim had a question in it, where was it?
Kelly

My bad. It was actually a request for more information (which is close to a question). Either way, your response made no sense.

Here's the request:

"If you could just elaborate a bit more on this new hypothesis it would help. One thing that matters is if you are suggesting that things existed before 7,000 years ago and then were physically altered by an event (in such a way as to distort results from every known age testing method in almost exactly the same way) or if you are suggesting that the world began 7,000 years ago and there's some logarithmic decay in all the dating methods* that is not detected."

So what kind of scenario are you describing so that I can explain how statistics can sort it out?

Originally posted by telerion
My bad. It was actually a request for more information (which is close to a question). Either way, your response made no sense.

Here's the request:

"If you could just elaborate a bit more on this new hypothesis it would help. One thing that matters is if you are suggesting that things existed before 7,000 years ago and then were physically altered b ...[text shortened]... at kind of scenario are you describing so that I can explain how statistics can sort it out?

I'll get to this tomorrow have to shot off to work now.
Kelly