21 Oct 14
Originally posted by sonhouseThe phrase "slightly faster in summer than winter" makes no difference to the fact that the assumption that radiometric decay is constant is wrong.
So did you read the part that said 'ever so slightly faster in summer than winter"? This is not the grand refutation of C14 dating you were wishing for. It is a tiny effect only noticed in a deep statistical analysis. Sorry, you lose one more round.
22 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are grasping at straws. If they find an error of one part in a million, you tout that like the entire science is now bogus. Good luck with that, troll.
The phrase "slightly faster in summer than winter" makes no difference to the fact that the assumption that radiometric decay is constant is wrong.
22 Oct 14
Originally posted by sonhouseYou don't seem to understand that scientists today can not measure time as it happened in the past. They must speculate and make assumptions in an attempt to look back in time to measure continually changing figures. So yes, measuring time in the past is all bogus because of other reasons as well. For example, they do not know the speed of the expansion of the universe at all times in history. They simply ignore the expansion fact and never attempt to convert light years to real historical years on earth. They ASSUME it is all the same and attempt to make an ASS out of U and ME.
You are grasping at straws. If they find an error of one part in a million, you tout that like the entire science is now bogus. Good luck with that, troll.
Originally posted by RJHindsKnowing how rapid or slow the universe expands has nothing to do with the age of the Earth, you just like to make fun of any science discipline that doesn't fall in line with your self lobotomized version of history. So I would say you think the universe did its expansion deal in 6000 years also. The problem there is we have seen astronomy for thousands of years, at least 80 percent of the total time you tout for the age of things. There is no difference in the stars from that time to now except for the slow procession of stars in the galaxy. If things were progressing on your time scale, astronomers from 4000 years ago would have seen a sky so full of stars there would be no night time but NOBODY ever reported that as far back in time as astronomy goes. For instance, you say the Grand Canyon is the result of the world wide flood but ignoring the fact there are miles of ocean sediment under the GC and you just say nobody can know that. I don't suppose you ever heard of core drilling? They DO know all about such things but it is only YOUR fantasy world that denies such knowledge, all assumptions and story telling. You get that directly from your bible.
You don't seem to understand that scientists today can not measure time as it happened in the past. They must speculate and make assumptions in an attempt to look back in time to measure continually changing figures. So yes, measuring time in the past is all bogus because of other reasons as well. For example, they do not know the speed of the expansion o ...[text shortened]... ical years on earth. They ASSUME it is all the same and attempt to make an ASS out of U and ME.
22 Oct 14
Originally posted by sonhouseIt was reported in the Holy Bible. For example:
Knowing how rapid or slow the universe expands has nothing to do with the age of the Earth, you just like to make fun of any science discipline that doesn't fall in line with your self lobotomized version of history. So I would say you think the universe did its expansion deal in 6000 years also. The problem there is we have seen astronomy for thousands of ...[text shortened]... denies such knowledge, all assumptions and story telling. You get that directly from your bible.
Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE.
{Hebrews 11:12 NASB)
23 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm not talking about biblical fairy tales, I am talking about real astronomy which has been going on for thousands of years, 5000 years at least.
It was reported in the Holy Bible. For example:Therefore there was born even of one man, and him as good as dead at that, as many descendants AS THE STARS OF HEAVEN IN NUMBER, AND INNUMERABLE AS THE SAND WHICH IS BY THE SEASHORE.
{Hebrews 11:12 NASB)
None of THOSE people ever reported anything like the sky you are talking about.
It never happened like that and that is a fact jack.
23 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsThe empirical evidence is that decay rates are constant. The production of carbon 14 might depend on seasons and what the sun is doing, but that is not decay. Further the decay constants depend on the value of Planck's constant, the speed of light, and the values of the electric charge, the electro-weak mixing angle, or the strong charge - depending on what force is driving the decay. If the decay constants weren't constant then that would mean charges change with time. That would have a profound effect on Chemistry if it happened over the time scales you need it to for your 6000 year old universe. What is more, based on Zircon dating, you need the decay rate of uranium to have changed by 6 orders of magnitude in 6,000 years. Not only is there no evidence for this, nuclear decay involves a lot of energy per particle - you would have to explain why the huge level of radioactivity 6,000 years ago didn't (a) kill everyone and (b) melt the earth's crust.
I meant radioactive decay used in radiometric dating.
Decay rates are constant. This is extremely well established.
23 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtDon't worry, his ability to poo poo all of that is off the charts.
The empirical evidence is that decay rates are constant. The production of carbon 14 might depend on seasons and what the sun is doing, but that is not decay. Further the decay constants depend on the value of Planck's constant, the speed of light, and the values of the electric charge, the electro-weak mixing angle, or the strong charge - depending on ...[text shortened]... nd (b) melt the earth's crust.
Decay rates are constant. This is extremely well established.
23 Oct 14
Originally posted by sonhouseInformation from ancient astronomy and astrology seems to indicate the stars were closer to the earth in the ancient past or else they had much better eyes than we do today.
I'm not talking about biblical fairy tales, I am talking about real astronomy which has been going on for thousands of years, 5000 years at least.
None of THOSE people ever reported anything like the sky you are talking about.
It never happened like that and that is a fact jack.
23 Oct 14
Originally posted by DeepThoughtGod took care of that. Remember the earth was made out of the water. 😏
The empirical evidence is that decay rates are constant. The production of carbon 14 might depend on seasons and what the sun is doing, but that is not decay. Further the decay constants depend on the value of Planck's constant, the speed of light, and the values of the electric charge, the electro-weak mixing angle, or the strong charge - depending on ...[text shortened]... nd (b) melt the earth's crust.
Decay rates are constant. This is extremely well established.
- Joined
- 31 Aug 06
- Moves
- 40565
23 Oct 14
Originally posted by RJHindsOr, maybe, perhaps, I don't know, if you go to the countryside where there are no city lights you can actually see the stars exactly as they saw them back then, when, you know, they had no city lights? Maybe? Perhaps?
Information from ancient astronomy and astrology seems to indicate the stars were closer to the earth in the ancient past or else they had much better eyes than we do today.