Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evidence for an earth much older than 6,000 years
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Astridhere" data-source="post: 60677123" data-attributes="member: 289689"><p>So RickG, you want Astrid to critique a load of woffle and assumption as opposed to your stepping up to refute the above post namely this....</p><p> </p><p>You cannot possibly know if uranium, or any other isotope for that matter, has been affected by water or heat or leeched to give a closed system. You cannot possibly know what the initial content of lead in the initial rock sample was. Now worst of all, and the icing on the cake, is that decay rates are not constant in sm146 and you have an average uranium ratio that differs remarkably. Now you cannot say decay rates are stable. You have proof in at least one shorter lived isotope that this is not the case.</p><p> </p><p>Well RickG, it a sad day for you and all your credentials if you are unable to address some fairly straight forward points that directly affect the credibility of any dating method.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Astridhere, post: 60677123, member: 289689"] So RickG, you want Astrid to critique a load of woffle and assumption as opposed to your stepping up to refute the above post namely this.... You cannot possibly know if uranium, or any other isotope for that matter, has been affected by water or heat or leeched to give a closed system. You cannot possibly know what the initial content of lead in the initial rock sample was. Now worst of all, and the icing on the cake, is that decay rates are not constant in sm146 and you have an average uranium ratio that differs remarkably. Now you cannot say decay rates are stable. You have proof in at least one shorter lived isotope that this is not the case. Well RickG, it a sad day for you and all your credentials if you are unable to address some fairly straight forward points that directly affect the credibility of any dating method. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evidence for an earth much older than 6,000 years
Top
Bottom