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.
It has nothing to do with radioactivity.
The first part of the paper says they can't know the original composition nor what happened during the particles existence... then the rest of the paper is saying what happened during the particles existence.
Well there’s no polite way to say that but I’m taking it that you disagree that rationality is subjective even tho is based purely on the opinions?
Again this is based on theory and not taking into account the mysterious phenomenons that took place during the creation process and how they might have an effect on the decay rate of these molecules. You know it wasn’t long ago people were saying similar things about carbon dating and look where we are now. Since carbon dating was discovered we’ve come to realize that it wasn’t actually as accurate as we originally expected.
I noticed you didn’t respond to any of my posts, at least not addressing the topics. No offense but do you always run from a discussion when you can’t refute your opponent’s points?
That’s why it’s called a theory. When carbon dating came out they were saying the same things until they finally learned all the problems with using it to date different organic materials because they began to notice that the levels of C14 was way to unpredictable to be considered accurate. Just in the last 70 years C14 levels in the atmosphere dropped dramatically then doubled causing date predictions to be all over the place without knowing exactly how much C14 was in the atmosphere while the material was still living. Another thing that throws their calibration off, is they aren’t expecting the earth to be 6000 years old. So 6000 years ago when plants were first created one would expect the C14 levels in the atmosphere to be zero. Scientists aren’t taking that into consideration and that’s why when they find lower C14 levels they believe the material to be older than it actually is because they expect that 6000 years ago there was an abundance of C14 in the atmosphere. These newer dating methods still rely on prediction just like carbon dating did so their date predictions are still inconclusive without any actual previous data of the material.
Post 131
Is it evidence? Sure, is it proof, no. It seems that people are overlooking the words “theory” “estimate” and “prediction” and are trying to pass these theories as proof rather than evidence.
Apparently your expertise doesn't extend to
There’s also the thickness of the brim to take into account and this passage doesn’t tell us which dimensions are the inner or outer dimensions. It also doesn’t tell us where the circumference was actually measured. Was it the inner or outer circumference of the brim or was it the inner or outer circumference below the brim? We don’t know because that information is not provided. Any mathematician would easily see that not enough information is provided to give an accurate calculation but those who simply seek to undermine the word of God will ignore this because they’re only goal is to try to find evidence disproving His word instead of applying any sort of actual analysis to the subject.
Math is a *tool* used in science, but science does not work on logical or mathematical proofs. Science works on assessments of the evidence in relation to the other available evidence and the models built to explain the evidence. It is continuous and often gradual.
