Summations Only

Nope. Educated people realized long before radioactivity was discovered that the features of the Earth were formed over many millions of years, even billions. I recommend The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood. See also Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.pdf. All that radiometric dating has given us is the ability to make much more accurate measurements of age. Which, of course, is plenty. Nope. Or, let's see the theory of how weather affects the decay rate.The ToE does not depend on nuclear decay rates once we know that the Earth is many millions of years old (see above).The classic study of decay rates is Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates. I can supply a PDF if you give me an email address. How to Change Nuclear Decay Rates is good. Briefly, the only way to significantly change decay rates involves things like heating the Earth to be hotter than the Sun's core.

Irrelevant. Substitute "wasteland barren of any plants or animals" for "wilds".With that substitution, yes.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

In the fine tradition of Making Shit Up, he thinks that clean and unclean were different before the Fludde. I.e., clean and unclean is just at a whim and doesn't have any basis other than a trickster God.

There is no debate on the validity of radiometric dating. A few kooks have tried unsuccessfully to cast doubt on it.But, as I pointed out before and you ignored, educated people knew that the Earth was much, much older than a few thousand years long before the discovery of radioactivity. Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.

So? Right. But mountains of supporting evidence do (insofar as proof is possible in science). I'l be there. I seriously suggest you do some research on the basics of radiometric dating: Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective is sound. And the evidence for the constancy of decay rates: The Constancy of Constants and The Constancy of Constants, Part 2, both by a renowned physicist, are a good place to start.Be aware that if you bring up the "three assumptions underlying radiometric dating" you will immediately brand yourself as an ignoramus.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

False. The constancy of decay rates is not an assumption. It's a conclusion, again based on mountains of evidence. See the links in Message 205. There is no evidence of unknown ways of affecting decay rates, that's why they would be unknown if indeed they do exist. Scientists deal with the evidence we have, not the evidence that doesn't exist except in your mind.Radioactive decay is well understood. Scientist have attempted to affect decay rates in many different ways. No decay rate used in geochronology has been affected by any significant amount in any experiment other than 87Rb, and the decay rate was only affected significantly when the temperature was high enough to vaporize the Earth many times over.Again, the consilience that you ignore is key. There are three major and very different modes of decay, and there are many variations on each mode. If you want to invoke accelerated nuclear decay, you need to explain by what mechanism it was accelerated and how all the very different modes were accelerated by exactly the amount needed to have different dating methods show the observed consilience. And where did the heat and radiation go to (your comments are welcome and on-topic in Heat and radiation destroy claims of accelerated nuclear decay).Plus, for the third time, the Earth was well-known to be much, much older than a few thousand years long before radioactivity was discovered, and the ToE does not rest upon the validity of radiometric dating. I won't bother to post the link again, you'll just ignore it again.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

And how much water was that? Today the total icecaps and glaciation are about 1.8% of the water in the oceans (How much water is there on, in, and above the Earth?). In the last ice age, there was enough water locked up in glaciers to drop sea level about 400 feet (Ice, Snow, and Glaciers: The Water Cycle). Still obviously not enough to cover mountains.(If you wish to invoke catastrophic mountain building, please include your estimate of the heat released by the process).

Many times I have pointed out that scientists knew that the Earth is much, much more than a few thousand years old long before we discovered radioactivity. I can only conclude that you are deliberately ignoring this fact and lying through your teeth. Pre-1900 Non-Religious Estimates of the Age of the Earth.pdf. Read it and respond. No excuses.

{duplicate}Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

"Mainstream science assumes constant decay rates" is part of the standard creationist line, and is found nowhere else.

I pointed out that you are wrong many times, and provided evidence to support my claim. Do you need me to post the link again? If you want me to post the link again you must promise to address the facts contained in it.Ignoring all the evidence that another person posts is not conducive to understanding another's point of view, so you are hardly one to talk.I jumped to no conclusion. I pointed out exactly why you were wrong at least four times, and was ignored. I concluded that you are lying.

That result has been questioned, and the faint effect they saw has not been conclusively tied to variation in decay rates (see Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth—Sun distance). And they are absolutely correct. Boy boh boy, I'm looking forward to that tap-dancing! There's very solid evidence that anything you could call "weather" does not affect decay rates. Read "impossible" Any heat sufficient to affect decay rates resets the clock. Looking forward to it. Don't forget that you'd need a lot of neutrons bombarding. I hope you bring up Melvin Cook's claims from the early 50's, I'm somewhat of an expert on the errors in that one.And remember CONSILIENCE. If you can't explain the observed consilience, you have nothing.

Then stop making claims about radiometric decay.It's true that the majority of dating studies are done with U and Th, but close behind is Ar-Ar. Potassium (and Rubidium) and are not heavy isotopes, for example.The remaining methods are not calibrated against the U and Th methods. (Well, occasionally they are, but it's rare and frowned on). See Call for an improved set of decay constants for geochronological use; I can send you a PDF if you PM me an email address). You didn't even look at it, did you?Essentially none of them were "evolutionists", most of the work was done before Darwin published and some was done before he was born. And there's no reason to suspect Kelvin of being an "evolutionist", unless you can come up with some evidence. He was just investigating the age of the Earth.

Close, but no quite. They have to determine what caused the seasonal patterns; changes in decay rates, instrumentation problems, ... all sorts of possibilities. The patterns have not been established to be changes in decay rates.

quote:

---

A sea level rise does equate to a global flood (flooding on every coastline on the planet.)

---

The alleged Biblical flood was not "flooding on every coastline on the planet", it was complete flooding of all the land on the planet.