Oh, and by the way it was already published in 1985 in NASA journal: Wormwood. I was privy to that info via scribd on the Columbia server. This is OLD news.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How does soil iodine interfere with the counts? What does this have to do with the decay rate of 14C?
Why do they need to be factored in? You might as well claim that the number of clowns in Serbia do not get factored in to radiometric dating. You need to show that they would have a significant impact on dating before you can complain about them not being factored in.
What do you mean by this? Are you talking about mutations caused by solar radiation? What?
Then why don't you present some evidence instead of making empty allegations.
No it doesn't. Soil iodine interferes with carbon counts.
They most certainly are. The only radionuclide that is used in dating that this affects is 14C. That is why a calibration scale is used and constantly updated as more accurate information becomes available.Decay rates are not constants. They are relative constants, geologically. As I said, celestial events, and quantum perturbations do not get factored in.
The only oscillations measured are unique to the position of the earth during its orbit around the sun. And those oscillations are just that oscillations. They are small and average out over a years periodAnyone with deep pockets can hire a team of scientists to vindicate a theory. "Science" is not a unitary entity; it took until the late 20th/early 21st century for the Standard Model to recognize neutrino oscillations. Neutrinos are weak force; specifically the thing determinant to radiation counts detailing record.
As I said, celestial radiation is not factored into evolution.
Nor does it need to be.Quantum chromodynamics is not factored into evolution.
Nor does it need to be.Extraterrestrial influence isn't factored into evolution.
Nor does it need to be.Radiological bombardment isn't factored into evolution.
Now, let's get back on topic. Please provide an explanation for the fossil record without evolution."Science" may have received grant money to substantiate the theory of evolution, but that doesn't mean it is the unique solution.
What part of old earth perspective did you not understand?
None of these are factored into evolution for two reasons.No it doesn't. Soil iodine interferes with carbon counts.
Decay rates are not constants. They are relative constants, geologically. As I said, celestial events, and quantum perturbations do not get factored in. Anyone with deep pockets can hire a team of scientists to vindicate a theory. "Science" is not a unitary entity; it took until the late 20th/early 21st century for the Standard Model to recognize neutrino oscillations. Neutrinos are weak force; specifically the thing determinant to radiation counts detailing record.
As I said, celestial radiation is not factored into evolution.
Quantum chromodynamics is not factored into evolution.
Extraterrestrial influence isn't factored into evolution.
Radiological bombardment isn't factored into evolution.
Etc...
Yeah! Nibiru! I haven't seen this one in a while.Oh, and by the way it was already published in 1985 in NASA journal: Wormwood. I was privy to that info via scribd on the Columbia server. This is OLD news.
Sorry.
How do you know that?No you aren't.