Since the last thread was about evidence for recent dinosaurs, I thought I would post an easy to understand presentation that demonstrates that the Evos contention that the Dinos are millions of years old is religious/philosophical, not scientific.
All the best—GGG
Even if true ... doesn’t advance the supernatural theory that the magical Hebrew God created the Universe 5,000 years ago.
ROFL.
Radioactive dating. I have a policy to never date somebody if they are radioactive. It’s just me......
Hey! Ya know... it’s strange, but all I had to do is read the title of an article and I know that GodGunsGuts posted it... LOL...
No..., I’m all for them... but was “just saying”... :-)
GodGutsGunsGibberish Alert.
When a child is very young you can take a toy away from them and put it under a piece of paper. They will be upset because they think it is gone.
A short time later they will figure out that it's under the paper and you can't fool them that way anymore.
Apparently, science is like that for you folks.
Another straw-man post from, the coloring book spams.
I’ve been on a couple of radioactive dates in my life. They were all fatally flawed.
Is that what you call a good looking woman in a black garder belt and fish net hose.http://www.fredericks.com/panties/crotchless-panties/pa2,default,sc.html
Uh oh, GGG, be prepared to be attacked as unscientific by a bunch of people who don’t have science degrees.
Their argument is illogical because you are not looking at a live event but, in essence a recording of that event. To use their analogy, if you did have a recording of the swimmer, and you had a watch that showed the ending time, you can use the recording and the ending time to calculate how long it took him to swim. You just look backwards instead of forwards.
We know the date now. We know the rate of decay. We know and account for the variances in said rate of decay. We then can simply count backwards.
I know, I know, the argument is “the rate of decay was not always the same”. OK, prove it. Specifically how or what caused the rate of decay to change and can that be reproduced?
“Picture a swimmer competing in a 1,500 metre race and an observer with an accurate wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the end of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the race?
When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously and said, “Starting time?” They realize that you cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Keep that in mind when you think about working out the age of something. Without knowing the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible.”
That statement is complete and utter nonsense. The important thing in the calculus above is rate - which requires a beginning and ending measurement. The rate of decay can be deterined empirically within a known time period and applied more broadly. Only in cases of accelerated/decelerated decay rates does this not apply. This is why the most stable ions with steady deacay rates are used. The author poses a ridiculous analogy.
www.chernobylmailorderbrides.com?
Hey, I’ve had dates like that. You think she’s a nice girl and suddenly-boom! She’s trying to run your life!
Oh wait, I wandered into the creationist ghetto again. See ya!
“http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/critique_of_tas_walker%27s_flood_geology.htm";
Fatal flaw in Dr. Tas Walker.....
All “creation science” is a lie.......
No one is saying that the Hebrew God created the universe 5000 years ago. Just that the yardsticks used by many scientists are not reliable, that there is no standard measure by which to calibrate them.
A conservative with beer goggles takes home hippie chick?
Thanks for the ping!
I have a problem with all human-developed dating methods.
Humans invented the tests, so humans invented the interpretation of the tests, so the result can mean anything humans decide they mean. It’s not like when we arrived on earth we found an owner’s manual waiting for us with a chapter on interpreting tests that we humans developed.
Until somebody can resolve that for me, I will be skeptical of any human developed “test” that claims to date anything.