MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

[fishtank]

PDF file.

[js1138]

The rate of degeneration seems to have subsided somewhat, else we would all die of old age in the womb.

[ThinkPlease]

They list other decay chains in the other articles on that URL.

The scientists who wrote these pieces are making a coordinated effort to present at least three decay chains (isotopes) that indicate a young earth.

It's not that coordinated, they are not using the same methodology. It appears that the other two are location-based, which is one of the things that the link that Vade posted refers to. Just because it's odd in once place, doesn't make it odd in all.

[=Intervention=]

"No, I don't intend to waste my time on it. The earth is old -- very old -- and no amount of pseudo-science will change that."

So much for evidence informing your decision, huh?

[fishtank]

bump for later read and comment.......

it might be a day or so before I get back on that.....

[=Intervention=]

The real issue here is truth. It's never been un-scientific to raise concerns about the efficacy of Carbon-14 dating, for instance, nor to note the holes in origin-evolution. That's what drives Christians -- a concern for the truth, because without an objective reality, why, everything (even science) can be whatever we want it to be. To not be concerned about the truth is foolhardy. To present the arguments in a rational, clear-headed manner is imperitive. But throwing out the baby with the bath water is not at all helpful.

[Ichneumon]

On some insignificant trivia exception you are going to correct me everytime ---- bizarre !

Regardless of your above mischaracterization, it is not "bizarre" to repeatedly correct you when you repeatedly make demonstrably false claims.

As for it being "insignificant trivia", I don't think even you believe that, since you post it often enough that you seem to think it indeed has significance and is worth reposting over and over again.

Or are you saying just keep having the urge to repeat insignificant, trivial things?

[f.Christian]

What is significant ...

THERE ARE NO PRECAMBIAN FOSSILS ---

what is trivia - insignificant is your objection !

[Ichneumon]

[The letters, J, R,M and E have been used on COUNTLESS threads. There reuse here seems to be an attempt to disrupt.]

Ok............

Astute readers will note that Elsie has presented the above sentence in a way that falsely gives the impression the RWP wrote it, when indeed he did not.

Nor is that even close to a fair characterization of his original point.

Hint for Elsie: Everyone has to use letters. Not everyone has to repeatedly cut-and-paste the same slurs and insults into every thread in apparent desire to stir up trouble, *and* do it by robotically using someone else's words without even bothering to make their own original contributions to the discussion.

The former is not trollish behavior. The latter is.

[50sDad]

My humble apologies - I was unaware that English was not your first language.

Hey, brother, I may not be 100% in your flight path, but that was a slam. I'm not aware that in this discussion, a friendly one I thought, I had said anything that was in any way demeaning or degrading of you, although I may disagree with your presentation. That was a slam, you know it, and it is not within the Spirit to do so, either to another Christian or to those outside the Faith. We are to be encouragers of each other, as I read the text. That was just mean, and you know it.

[50sDad]

You may have been caught in a message directed to the group but tagged to your name. My apologies if you were so splashed.

[Ichneumon]

What is significant ...
THERE ARE NO PRECAMBIAN FOSSILS ---
what is trivia - insignificant is your objection !

Let me get this straight... It's significant for you to falsely declare that there are "NO PRECAMBIAN [sic] FOSSILS", but it's insignificant trivia for me to point out that actually there are?

Here's something that might be significant: You signed onto a posting-conduct agreement that includes the following provisions:

9. Mistakes We will correct our mistakes and endeavor to cause source websites to correct their mistakes.

10. Errors When we are wrong about a factual matter or in our conduct, we will acknowledge it. We will encourage others to do the same; and thus we will not acquiesce in improper conduct by those whose views we generally support.

11. Economy We will use our best effort to remember in a new thread, the factual arguments which were made in previous threads. Repetition of previously-rebutted statements of fact can become abusive, especially when the statement has been decisively rebutted and is being posted again with no new evidentiary support. We will not engage in such aggressive amnesia. This is for the purpose of preventing repetition of bogus or unsupported factual claims; and is not intended to interfere with statements of opinions or matters of faith.

It seems to me that you're bucking the spirit of all three of those provisions, and I respectfully ask you to modify your behavior accordingly.

[balrog666]

That was just mean, and you know it.

Of course it was. That's why he did it.

[msdrby]

ROTFL

[f.Christian]

What is significant ...

THERE ARE NO PRECAMBIAN FOSSILS ---

what is trivia - insignificant is your objection !

What is NOT trivia - insignificant is your nit picking hypocrisy --- HYPOCRISY !

[bondserv]

The rate of degeneration seems to have subsided somewhat, else we would all die of old age in the womb.

Because 1% of 90 years = 9 months in the womb, then
1% of 900 years = 90 years in the womb.

Is this what you are saying?

[Ichneumon]

THERE ARE NO PRECAMBIAN FOSSILS

Again: "Repetition of previously-rebutted statements of fact can become abusive". This is the second time I've had to remind you of the conduct rules which you yourself voluntarily agreed to.

What is NOT trivia - insignificant is your nit picking hypocrisy --- HYPOCRISY !

What alleged hypocrisy would that be?

[Ichneumon]

Is this what you are saying?

No, he's saying that if the original speed of the postulated decrease in lifespans had continued at the same rate, we wouldn't even be living nine months beyond conception at present day.

[f.Christian]

What alleged hypocrisy would that be?

Stalking - harassment - disrupter --- YOU !

Blaming me for your mental problem too !

[Elsie]

Astute readers will note that Elsie has presented the above sentence in a way that falsely gives the impression the RWP wrote it, when indeed he did not. <-- Elsie did NOT write this

---

and, not only THAT, but I used there when their was called for...........

[Right Wing Professor]

I did not author the text you quote. I take strong exception to people fabricating quotes.