Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[HMS_Beagle]

You as usual are distorting my views simply because I will not buy your silly unscientific premise that radioactive dating is not conceivably falsifiable.

Neither JonF nor anyone here nor anyone in the scientific community has said or thinks that. You do come up with the dumbest strawman targets to scream and rant at.

strawman.jpg

[HMS_Beagle]

None of which can confirm anything in the tens of millions.

The tens of millions of years are confirmed by the different radiometric decay series with different decay constants that provide independent verification. That's only been pointed out to you half a dozen times now but you apparently just don't have the scientific chops to understand.

[Mikeenders]

Don't act like you are just realizing this. The potential effect of the speed of light is the only reason the stability of the universal constants even entered this discussion. I pointed out in one of my first posts on this topic very early in this thread that one of the critical supports for the reliability of radiometric dating is the observed LACK of change in the speed of light (of a plane wave) in a vacuum (c) and others (e.g. fine structure).

Ox I am going to ignore the claim you make of being a christian because you are an embarrassment to the name of Christ even if you are since you continue to lie to yourself and to me that you know what s in myheart and mind. Not that I think it will matter to you much as long as I identify you as OEC. That obviously at least in this thread is your higher priority. I haven't read through every post in this thread and don't recall at all that post. i raised the issue because someone mentioned constants not being able to change and as it turns out over the last few years I have been following that - without reading a single article from a creationist site and research on that just came out earlier this year. SO please keep fibbing about knowing my mind

And this is effectively solipsism. solipsism says that there is no objective reality beyond your own self. By rejecting the mountains of evidence for the constancy of Decay rates, you are effectively saying that there is no way to ever know much of anything about the physical world

drivel and putrid nonsense. you will make up anything in your head to justify your garbage against someone who is not a fundy such as yourself. because someone says we need to research independently if organic material can really last 80 million years particularly since the initial reaction of SCIENTISTS was that it was improbably it could last that long they are invoking solipsism and don't believe we can know anything outside ourselves?

Take a bow. There has probably never been a greater example of total intellectual dishonest and lack of integrity than your bogus carnal accusation there - even more disgraceful coming from a self confessed Christian to another one.

[Mikeenders]

One of the problems with pontificating on subjects you are unfamiliar with is not knowing what you don't know, or as Rumsfeld memorably categorised, the "unknown unknowns". It is particularly excruciating when to much of your audience they are "known knowns".

One of the problems when you get your hand stuck in the cookie jar claiming Coral clocks are a thing is you have to handwave and gesticulate to get yourself out of it - pretending there is something you know that someone else doesn't to save face

there are two main ways coral is involved in dating - growth rate as I said and radiometric dating - radiometric dating is not a coral clock - its a radiometric one

I haven't seen such cavalier projection since I last drew a French castle.

So like Monday with crayons??

[HMS_Beagle]

Ox I am going to ignore the claim you make of being a christian because you are an embarrassment to the name of Christ even if you are since you continue to lie to yourself and to me that you know what s in myheart and mind.

Just curious - is there anyone in this thread that you haven't accused of lying? I looked back and couldn't find a single person who hasn't been the target of your false and disgraceful unsupported accusations. Seems to be one of your favorite tactics to cover your scientific ignorance.

[HMS_Beagle]

One of the problems when you get your hand stuck in the cookie jar claiming Coral clocks are a thing is you have to handwave and gesticulate to get yourself out of it - pretending there is something you know that someone else doesn't to save face

there are two main ways coral is involved in dating - growth rate as I said and radiometric dating - radiometric dating is not a coral clock - its a radiometric one

Obvious YEC troll is obvious.

[JonF]

Science doesn't do beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You ignored the fact that the basic laws of physics have been the same for the life of the Earth and well before. That means radiometric decay rates have not changed. That means the clock is right.

I didn't ignore anything.

You ignored "the fact that the basic laws of physics have been the same for the life of the Earth and well before. That means radiometric decay rates have not changed. That means the clock is right."

You as usual are distorting my views simply because I will not buy your silly unscientific premise that radioactive dating is not conceivably falsifiable.

Radiometric dating is conceivably falsifiable. As I explicitly said in my message:

"Science doesn't do beyond a shadow of a doubt.'

Nobody's come close to falsifying it.

As of this moment as I have said the science is behind radioactive decay. however when there is something that possibly could raise some issues about it ( like a consensus of science that held its unlikely that organic material can last 80 MILLION YEARS then its something to look at not in your fundy dogmatic manner claim its beyond being questioned.

I haven't claimed it's beyond questioning.

I've linked to several you poor soul. SEVERAL and none of them were creationist sites. In your fundy theology you can't conceive of something so you claim it doesn't exist. Talk about YECs all you wish you just demonstrated the same tendency

Identify any place I've been dogmatic. Bet you can't.

Are you referring to linking to any publications other than the ones I and Dr. Bertsche have acknowledged? If so, please post them again. If not, they form no basis for questioning radiometric dating.

[JonF]

None of which can confirm anything in the tens of millions. You can beg bread all you wish or you can fantasize like your pals that any mainstream scientist use anything called a Coral clock...lol.... (to main ways of using corals to date things is projecting based on growth or doing radioactive dating but that not a "coral clock" but still radiometric dating

Like it or not spin on your head the only sound evidence there is or tens or hundred of millions is radioactive dating - nothing else sets dates that far back.

Ah, I thought you knew what "begging" meant in this context. I was wrong. Sorry.

You'retill ignoring the critical component that fundamental physics has not changed in the lifetime of the Earth (and billions of years before). Until you look at the whole picture you are doomed to your ignorance.

You are right....duh you didn't know how to use the internet or you wouldn't be making such silly claims and would at least use google to see that research. IF I linked to like the five links i linked to before again would you read it? Of course not. You are a fundy that thinks it cannot exist because you don't keep on reading because you swear everything is settled.

WTF?? That has no relationship to anything I wrote. But you do that a lot.

I was pointing out that your incredibly ignorant claim:

As for the claim that if a constant rate is changed the whole universe fizzles thats wrong. Light can be slowed down through some mediums and the universe does not fall apart.

Obviously you did not know that it's the speed of light in a vacuum that's relevant, or you wouldn't have posted that claim.

Duh.

(Apostrophes can be your friends when used properly).

[Mikeenders]

Just curious - is there anyone in this thread that you haven't accused of lying? I looked back and couldn't find a single person who hasn't been the target of your false and disgraceful unsupported accusations. Seems to be one of your favorite tactics to cover your scientific ignorance.

Lol...you are obviously trying to bait a discussion about lying because of a mod warning. too transparent. be more subtle . think deeper if you wish to bait me.

CARM is quite nice by the way so thanks for that. i'll definitly be spending more time there. drop in and see us - if you can that is..

[JonF]

geesh go read a book. fundamental mechanisms are at the atomic and sub atomic level and are not entirely independent mechanisms. does each decay rate differ yes but you ave to be shallow in intellect to think they do not share FUNDAMENTAL (if you know the meaning of the word) physics.?

This is a discussion group, discuss. Why do you think they are fundamentally the same?

Beta decay is mediated by the weak force. Alpha decay is mediated by the strong force. Electron capture is also mediated by the weak force but involves electrons.

Strong and weak forces appear to have been unified up until very shortly after the Big Bang, but the they have been and are independent since.

Duh.

[JonF]

One of the problems when you get your hand stuck in the cookie jar claiming Coral clocks are a thing is you have to handwave and gesticulate to get yourself out of it - pretending there is something you know that someone else doesn't to save face

there are two main ways coral is involved in dating - growth rate as I said and radiometric dating - radiometric dating is not a coral clock - its a radiometric one

Coral is dated by growth rate and U-Th disequilibrium. Both of which are extremely consilient with many other radiometric and non-radiometric dating.

You're really falling behind. Do try to keep up.

[Mikeenders]

Obviously you did not know that it's the speed of light in a vacuum that's relevant, or you wouldn't have posted that claim.

Duh.

Duh .....I posted pages ago several links to several fields of study kid not one claim. Like five links of various studies and research lines including though mediums and outside of mediums even involving cosmological models being researched based on the possibility of the variability of the speed of light- None from creationists sites. did you read all of them? No obviously you didn't

are you always so dense when you are using words such as duh? only shows you don't even know the extent of what is being discussed (or how to use google)

Keep trying though. If you write anything interesting worth responding I'll respond but if not then have fun.

[Mikeenders]

Coral is dated by growth rate and U-Th disequilibrium. Both of which are extremely consilient with many other radiometric and non-radiometric dating.

You're really falling behind. Do try to keep up.

U- th is radiometric based dating you poor soul not anything called a coral clock - its a radioactive decay clock-

http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/ther...(U-Th)_He.html


you are so far back I can barely see you and you have no hope of catching up. Anything else worthy of needing my answer from you? nope. Have a great day

[Mikeenders]

It is not just the two (not one) people I've mentioned who are "fringe", it is the whole subject area which is "fringe". Numerous "fringe" papers routinely pass peer review, as well as entire "fringe" subfields (MOND, for example).

You targeted the two people who wrote the paper to claim it should be dispensed with on that basis. that WAS your central argument. the fact that other peers reviewed it negates that it was. of course non main stream ideas get published and not because it s an acceptance of the idea but because it worthy of at least considering. If you wish to flush a whole subject area thats your own business. No one need follow you.

[HMS_Beagle]

U- th is radiometric based dating you poor soul not anything called a coral clock - its a radioactive decay clock-

http://www.colorado.edu/GeolSci/ther...(U-Th)_He.html

We know. In YEC troll land all the different forms of radiometric dating don't count because, well, just because!