|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 195 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Radioactive decay rates under terrestrial conditions are and have been constant.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/oct01.htmlThe Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: August 2006
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
JonF writes: I expect either the government or wealthier people to take care of the homeless while you sacrifice your own potential retirement money to help them. And when those rates do change they leave evidence.
Edited by jar, : fix sub-title
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Radioactive decay rates under terrestrial conditions are and have been constant. Also see Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
We need a reason to think the forces and laws that govern the atoms that make up cells and determine how things exist on earth was the same, if we intend to build all models on the assumption it was.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
If you were not the poster with a friend or relative in the field, fine. You can produce a good picture of the innermost tree rings of the oldest bristlecone pine for us then.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
What if there was no change in rates? What if there was NO DECAY at all? Can you even so much as show there was on earth?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
Only since there WAS decay in this nature!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
We need a reason to think the forces and laws that govern the atoms that make up cells and determine how things exist on earth was the same, ... Curiously that is what uranium halos show -- that "the forces and laws that govern the atoms" were consistent during the time the halos formed, which was over hundreds of millions of years, as the halos are composed of small individual points made by alpha particle decay, traveling the distance proportional to their decay energy. And it is what the Oklo natural reactors show -- the same parent daughter decays we see in modern man made reactors, no more, and no less.
... if we intend to build all models on the assumption it was. It's not an assumption, it is a tested hypothesis. If you actually spend the time to read this thread instead of just spamming it, you would be able to see that. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
starman writes: What if there was no change in rates? What if there was NO DECAY at all? Can you even so much as show there was on earth? How utterly ignorant you have decided to remain. The Oklo reactor exists. We have the evidence. We win, once again you lose.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
If you were not the poster with a friend or relative in the field, fine. You can produce a good picture of the innermost tree rings of the oldest bristlecone pine for us then. Go to the mountain. You can see the actual stump and count the rings.
Interestingly, the innermost rings are not needed for the dendrochronology because of the overlaps with other specimens. They would only be of interest to people who don't understand how dendrochronology works, something that is explained in the posts about the Bristlecone pines. Again, it appears that you are not reading the posts, just posting random comment you think bring up issues that affect the accuracy of the chronology. They don't. That makes Fail #8 now. And I note that you have still failed to present any evidence to substantiate your fantasy time issues. That makes Fail #9 Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
starman and Faith and so many others simply do not seem to understand that change does leave evidence. In particular, living critters leave evidence even when there is no actual evidence of their bodies. It's almost as though their teachers never told them about things like the "Mass Rusting" and how had that not happened humans would not have existed.
Yet it is yet more evidence that the processes on Earth really have not changed much over at least several billion years.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
starman writes:
That's backwards. If something HAS changed, we need evidence to SHOW that it has changed. We can't base our thinking on, "it MIGHT have changed" because we have no way of knowing HOW it might have changed. In the absence of any evidence of change, the sensible conclusion is that there hasn't been a change.
We need a reason to think the forces and laws that govern the atoms that make up cells and determine how things exist on earth was the same, if we intend to build all models on the assumption it was.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
And since there is overwhelming evidence that it has not changed then we would be truly stupid to assume it might have changed.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
What about this picture do you feel is some nonconformity near the center of the rings? In what way do you suggest it shows all rings had to have grown in this nature??
We would need a living tree that was over 5000 years to see if there was something like you suggest, not merely other dead trees around affected by some conditions long ago that caused similar rings by the way. In either case the question becomes, why would the rings we see have to have been grown in the nature we know today? Get to it.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
starman Inactive Member |
Prove it. I see no evidences presented. Why pretend and talk big?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024