Photo from article.
Posted on 08/17/2012 11:21:22 AM PDT by fishtank
Photo from article.
So does that mean Mick Jagger is even older than we thought?
:: More Fluctuations Found in Isotopic Clocks ::
Fluck you Amellicans, too!
This will take some research on my part.
BTW, Go Boilers!
That means ALL RESULTS....absolutely ALL RESULTS....are worthless.
Now let's talk about global warming...
haha
I am convinced that a creationist view of the universe is FAR FAR FAR more interesting for science (and science funding) than is the materialist view.
You remembered that was one of my fav jokes...
Doesn’t matter if dating is a few percent off. The world is not 6,000 or so years old.
Creationism is useless to science. There is a reason why companies who want profit hire scientists not creationists. Because science is useful.
“science” is repeatable.
Making conjectures about the past is not “science”, inherently, because time only flows one way.
No support there for a young (~6000 year) earth:
"Now, in a systematic, high-precision study, Joe Hiess and colleagues of the British Geological Survey have found not only the highest 238U/235U anomalies yet seen (more than 5 parts per thousand) but also a mean 238U/235U ratio almost 0.5 ppt less than the established value. As a result, lead–lead dates could be wrong by a million years or more. A lesser-used isotopic chronometer, based on samarium-146’s decay into neodymium-142, could be in for an even bigger revision: Michael Paul (Hebrew University, Jerusalem) and collaborators have measured the 146Sm half-life to be 68 million years, 34% less than the currently used value of 103 million years. The discrepancy is not fully understood, but if the new value stands, it would mean that Earth’s mantle underwent differentiation much faster than previously thought. (J. Hiess et al., Science 335, 1610, 2012; N. Kinoshita et al., Science 335, 1614, 2012.) —Johanna Miller" (emphasis added) http://www.physicstoday.org/daily_edition/physics_update/time_to_reset_isotopic_clocks
“Making conjectures about the past is not “science”,”
.....
.... the definition of evolutionary theory.
Actually, Creationism, the foundational belief in a rational Creator, was the foundation of science. (You'll answer "no it's not!", but oh well)
Those cultures (Chinese, Muslims) which didn't have this foundational belief gave up on scientific advancements as futile because they had no expectation of consistency or rationality in nature.
A little reading would broaden your understanding, but, I know, you're married to evolution for some reason.
These two side-by-side statements, alone, suffice to seriously degrade this article's credibility in my eyes. In fact, I'd say that the article is deliberately trying to misrepresent the facts and thus awaken doubts.
From the very beginning, Willard F. Libby (who was later awarded the Nobel Prize for his efforts) understood that the C-14 had to be (more or less) constantly formed (in the upper atmosphere, by cosmic ray bombardment of Nitrogen).
Regards,
0.499 Life.
Belief that the universe obeys laws is aided by belief in a law giver, certainly. But science can only use those rational physical laws. It cannot use a priori insistence upon a particular time table as interpreted through revealed wisdom. Creationism is useless for making accurate predictions. Science is of tremendous use. Creationists oppose not just evolution, but also geology, physics, paleontology, astronomy and any other branch of science that refuses to stick with their useless precepts.
You insist on saying that, but it’s simply not true.
It must be something you HAVE to convince yourself of for some reason.
“So does that mean Mick Jagger is even older than we thought?”
Negatory....it means Mick and the universe is much younger than they look!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
