1. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    15 Dec '05 05:16
    Originally posted by Coletti
    But how do we know what the original ratios or isotopes were? This is an assumption. They found ratios that did not seem right. So they accounted for them by asserting that there must have been a fission reaction. Doesn't that tell you something? The facts do not point to an old earth. The facts should not point to anything at all. Only the interpret ...[text shortened]... ng about a natural fission reactor - something scientist would never had considered before 1972.
    "But how do we know what the original ratios of isotopes were?"

    I corrected 'or' to 'of'.

    If it were the case that the original ratios were variable we would get different ratios from different studies which is not the case. I'm afriad your point is sadly NOT VALID.
  2. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157651
    15 Dec '05 05:45
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Actually, radioactive decay is pretty easy to do. We can do a pretty good analysis using, for example, 11C which has a half life of 20.4 minutes. Meaning that inside of an eight hour day you'll have 23 half lifes or 0.002% of the original amount. Pretty simple really. You want to test of on something a bit longer lived? How about iodine-131, half ...[text shortened]... really just theoretical. How do you think we came up with these theories on the first place???
    If I look at something without my glasses, they get fuzzy close up.
    If I look at them with my glasses they become clear.

    So my question to you is, how do you know what you do that seems
    to be quite simple in a short time span, yields they same results as
    you push the time span out as far as you do? It isn’t like you have
    a known sample that is a billion years old for a comparison, that
    doesn’t depend on some method that may carry some unknown error
    built into it. Dating methods that claim millions or billions of years
    all boil down to either faith/belief/conclusions they sure don’t boil
    down to facts.
    Kelly
  3. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    15 Dec '05 05:51
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Dating methods that claim millions or billions of years
    all boil down to either faith/belief/conclusions they sure don’t boil
    down to facts.
    Kelly
    What is the age threshold for this? Can the age of something 100 years old be a matter of fact? 1000? 10,000?
  4. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157651
    15 Dec '05 06:00
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    What is the age threshold for this? Can the age of something 100 years old be a matter of fact? 1000? 10,000?
    I'd say if we cannot verify even 2 hours can be an issue. How far off
    is off? If what we have is a conclusion based on current known good
    data streams, as soon as we find something is amiss all bets are
    off.
    Kelly
  5. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    15 Dec '05 06:01
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    I'd say if we cannot verify even 2 hours can be an issue.
    What constitutes verification?
  6. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157651
    15 Dec '05 06:03
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    What constitutes verification?
    That would depend on what you looking at wouldn't it?
    Kelly
  7. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    15 Dec '05 06:04
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    That would depend on what you looking at wouldn't it?
    Kelly
    What constitutes verification of the age of a fossil?
  8. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    15 Dec '05 06:17
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    If I look at something without my glasses, they get fuzzy close up.
    If I look at them with my glasses they become clear.

    So my question to you is, how do you know what you do that seems
    to be quite simple in a short time span, yields they same results as
    you push the time span out as far as you do? It isn’t like you have
    a known sample that is a bill ...[text shortened]... rs
    all boil down to either faith/belief/conclusions they sure don’t boil
    down to facts.
    Kelly
    Okay, of course I agree that there will be variation, but we're talking percentages of the 4 billion years. We're not talking orders of magnitude. Even without radiodating that Lord Kelvin chap worked out that the earth was a minimum of 24 million years old. (He worked out how long it'd take the rock to cool enough to set)
  9. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157651
    15 Dec '05 15:36
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Okay, of course I agree that there will be variation, but we're talking percentages of the 4 billion years. We're not talking orders of magnitude. Even without radiodating that Lord Kelvin chap worked out that the earth was a minimum of 24 million years old. (He worked out how long it'd take the rock to cool enough to set)
    There are a lot of assumptions, and that is all we will ever have unless
    someone like God shows up and either shows us or tells what really
    happened. Which I believe he did, but that is faith like I said before,
    not a science manual. The truth of the matter, will remain a mystery
    even if we think we know it, no one can know for sure.
    Kelly
  10. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    15 Dec '05 19:24
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    There are a lot of assumptions, and that is all we will ever have unless
    someone like God shows up and either shows us or tells what really
    happened. Which I believe he did, but that is faith like I said before,
    not a science manual. The truth of the matter, will remain a mystery
    even if we think we know it, no one can know for sure.
    Kelly
    Fair enough, I'm happy with that compromise. Science is the best guess we have at the moment, but we can't know definitively.
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157651
    16 Dec '05 06:17
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    Fair enough, I'm happy with that compromise. Science is the best guess we have at the moment, but we can't know definitively.
    "...best guess..." Well, personally I think scripture is best, but the
    truth is the truth no matter what. 😉
    Kelly
  12. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    Zellulärer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    90892
    16 Dec '05 06:25
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    I'm afriad your point is sadly NOT VALID.
    Coletti's "points" all seem to exist in a parallel universe. No doubt they're entirely valid over there.
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157651
    16 Dec '05 14:25
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    Coletti's "points" all seem to exist in a parallel universe. No doubt they're entirely valid over there.
    Easy statement to make, but why do you say it?
    Kelly
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree