Originally posted by dj2becker
No radioactive dating method has ever scientifically proved that the earth or the moon are more than 6,000 years old. Radiometric years are not the same as calendar years and all radiometric “dates” are entirely dependent on the assumptions used. If, despite the existence of the global fossil record that could have been produced only by a global flood, you ...[text shortened]... niverse being supposedly billions of years old.

http://www.sloppynoodle.com/csotalk2-6.shtml

bull, the whole lot of it.

The moon has been dated at 4.5 billion years old, or was it covered in a flood too?

Lee D-C, Halliday, AN, Snyder GA & Taylor LA. "Age and Origin of the Moon", Science, Vol 278, 7 Nov 1997 pp1098-1103.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
bull, the whole lot of it.

The moon has been dated at 4.5 billion years old, or was it covered in a flood too?

Lee D-C, Halliday, AN, Snyder GA & Taylor LA. "Age and Origin of the Moon", Science, Vol 278, 7 Nov 1997 pp1098-1103.

Using what dating method may I ask?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Using what dating method may I ask?

Hafnium - Tungsten. I can email you a pdf, if you'd like.

Originally posted by dj2becker
http://www.sloppynoodle.com/csotalk2-6.shtml

I sincerely hope you dont agree with this guy. Interesting how he calls astronomers, geologists and others "evolutionists".
He then goes on to list "five scientific explanations" without references but merely making statements which dont stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. Take for example the proposal that the observable universe is no more than 6000 light years in diameter. Just a rough calculation would yeild an average density of millions or billions of stars per cubic light year. Yet we can see that galaxies are groups of stars thus within a galaxy you would expect even higher densities. Yet the nearest star is at least 4 light years away. Maybe they are just cosmic fireflys? I could go on with all the other points if neccessary.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I sincerely hope you dont agree with this guy. Interesting how he calls astronomers, geologists and others "evolutionists".
He then goes on to list "five scientific explanations" without references but merely making statements which dont stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. Take for example the proposal that the observable universe is no more than 6 ...[text shortened]... Maybe they are just cosmic fireflys? I could go on with all the other points if neccessary.

ha ha, excellent, I didn't even bother to look at the link - perhaps I should - I might learn something! But probably not.

it amazes me how you can use google to find someone to agree with you, no matter how radical or stupid your position. In fact, let's explore that....

Moon is made of green cheese.
http://www.planetfusion.co.uk/~pignut/cheese.html

Belgians are evil
http://houbi.com/belpop/groups/evilsuperstars.htm

Go on people, I urge you - ridicule the stupid!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
ha ha, excellent, I didn't even bother to look at the link - perhaps I should - I might learn something! But probably not.

it amazes me how you can use google to find someone to agree with you, no matter how radical or stupid your position. In fact, let's explore that....

Moon is made of green cheese.
http://www.planetfusion.co.uk/~pignut/chees ...[text shortened]... /houbi.com/belpop/groups/evilsuperstars.htm

Go on people, I urge you - ridicule the stupid!

Well the problem with ridicule is they thrive on it, its their food.
They go, "Yeah, we'll show you, someday!" "you'll eat those words"
while actually they are eating the ridicule like its a chocholate brownie.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Using what dating method may I ask?

Do you really care what dating method is used or will you just go on to the next denial? I think you took a trip to Egypt and you're head is in DE NILE.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Based on the presupposition that matter has existed for 4.5 billion years, of course...

I didn't realize you had responded.

No. It is not based on the presupposition that matter has existed
for 4.5 billion years. That datum is a conclusion, not a postulate.

It's based on the presupposition that fundamental physics -- e.g.,
the way electrons behave or how gravity works -- has remained
unchanged for whatever undetermined length of time the universe
has existed.

In order for the half-length stuff to be inaccurate, you have to assert
that the fundamental properties of physics have changed. Such
a claim is tenuous indeed, especially given no evidence for
such a claim.

Nemesio

Originally posted by dj2becker
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

2. Decay rat ...[text shortened]... 3. Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

and the alternatives to these assumptions are? they are reasonable assumptions, especially for dating such as 14C.

Originally posted by xcomradex
and the alternatives to these assumptions are? they are reasonable assumptions, especially for dating such as 14C.

14C only good to 60,000 years remember. Other isotopes for longer than that.

Welcome to the madhouse!

Originally posted by Nemesio
I didn't realize you had responded.

No. It is not based on the presupposition that matter has existed
for 4.5 billion years. That datum is a conclusion, not a postulate.

It's based on the presupposition that fundamental physics -- e.g.,
the way electrons behave or how gravity works -- has remained
unchanged for whatever undetermined length of tim ...[text shortened]...
a claim is tenuous indeed, especially given [b]no evidence for
such a claim.

Nemesio[/b]

A global flood would reset the atomic clock.

If you conclude from the scientific evidence that a global flood did happen, you will get only thousand-year radiometric “dates” as a result. Radiometric “dates” are only as good as your assumptions.

Originally posted by dj2becker
A global flood would reset the atomic clock.

If you conclude from the scientific evidence that a global flood did happen, you will get only thousand-year radiometric “dates” as a result. Radiometric “dates” are only as good as your assumptions.

No it wouldn't. Even if it did, you would not get the consistancy of dates that we currently get. And it'd still leave the 'moon anomoly'.


Admit it deej, you're beaten.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No it wouldn't. Even if it did, you would not get the consistancy of dates that we currently get. And it'd still leave the 'moon anomoly'.


Admit it deej, you're beaten.

Consistency??

You must be joking.

Even if the dates were consistent, what does that prove?

It only proves that your assumptions are consistent.

I'll get back to you on your 'moon anomoly'...

Originally posted by dj2becker
A global flood would reset the atomic clock.

Water makes all the radioactive half-life counts reset? How in the hell does it do that?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Consistency??

You must be joking.

Even if the dates were consistent, what does that prove?

It only proves that your assumptions are consistent.

I'll get back to you on your 'moon anomoly'...

Well, the decay constants of different radioactive elements are different, we know this because they emit different amounts of energy. If there had been a big reset at a flood or some other hypothetic anomoly then the dates yielded for rocks, the earth etc just wouldn't match.

The only dates that you've shown radiometric dating to be wrong on are ones that are only 25 years old, using an element with a half-life of millions of years. It's like trying to hang a painting with a wrecking ball.

You have no proof whatsoever for your ideas. Admit defeat, you're just making yourself look daft.