DNA has a 521-year half-life

Nature ^ | Wednesday, October 10, 2012 | Matt Kaplan

[null and void]

Science at it’s best can not re-create history,

Yep. One cannot formulate a historical hypothesis and test it.

I’ll grant you that the majority consensus view is old ages but then majority viewpoints on science have been proven wrong time after time.

Yep.

It’s very interesting too that this consensus viewpoint does not like to discuss any of these other natural clocks that completely contradict long ages.

Yep. Yesterday there were reports of muzzies destroying 8000 year old Phoenician rock carving in the Atlas mountains of Morocco. I don't expect to hear much about that news story from any YEC source. Although I'll grant it is possible that God created the earth 6016 years ago this month, with pre-aged human history artifacts just as His idea of a little joke.

I note that the link you provide makes the assumption that dating the moon is based on a constant rate of crater formation, and blissfully ignores the late and early heavy bombardment episodes which are well established in science, but don't fit the YEC straw man of "uniformitarianism".

Keep in mind I already discussed with you earlier in this thread the recession of the moon and you offered nothing in reply.

I thought I had said it was out of my area of expertise and referred you to a google search? If I failed to do so, let me state now: It's out of my area of expertise and you could derive a more direct and less garbled explanation from your own web search.

[null and void]

Well nothing anyway other than some decades old conjectures in science fiction by Isaac Asimov.

Issac wrote hundreds of books, some science fiction, some science, some philosophy. I think I heard he has books in every Dewey Decimal category save one. His non-fiction works are universally acclaimed as clear and understandable explanations for those not experts in any of the topics.

The decay of DNA is clearly in favor of young ages. If you were more open-minded you might even do a little research to notice that there are contradictions and assumptions in the old ages viewpoint for the Earth and Universe.

Yes, racemization also indicates a younger age, as does soft tissue goo and cell-like structures in dino bones.

We're in the process of torturing the data, eventually it will confess.

What it says at confession is anyone's guess, mine is that we will have a better understanding of decay and preservation processes, and we'll end up with a somewhat shorter calender, but surely no shorter than recorded history, which BTW, extends past 4004 BC.

Try reading ‘Starlight and Time’ by Russell Humphreys. He re-applies Einsteins equations and comes to some very interesting conclusions. Some stuff that NASA had also recently confirmed.

I'll add it to the pile.

Still haven't gotten to Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith, The Case for Christ and The Case for Creation.

Time and money. *sigh*