Simple writes:
Actually my trump card for the radioactive decay is that pre split there was no such process! It was a different process altogether, which resulted in more of a regeneration than a decay. But this again involves a merge of the spirit world, which the science today, cannot detect. The physical only science that is so limited, and only choses to operate in the little 'box' of physical evidences. Science of the box!
I have forgotten are you for or against having "equal time" for creationism in schools? If you are for then thank you for invalidating the very idea. Also if this is your argument then you are invited to stop posting in the science threads.
When science is being discussed you have to have some evidence for you r suggestions. It seems all you have is some period of time from 6,000 years ago to 4500 years ago when things where "different". You have no reasons for this that are in any way supported by evidence.
What that tells us is that you have no way of arguing with the dating methods without just making up magic pixies of somewhat undefined capabilities. You, of course, won't agree nor will you even understand what you have done. You have admitted scientific defeat.
See the answer below, and add to that that the conditions of the last few thousand years are no indication of flood conditions, or an ancient world.
This is NOT an answer to the specific question. Please try again the question was not that hard. Do you agree or not agree that for the last 4500 years there will tend to be (only on a statistcal basis) less softtissue preservation for things which died longer ago (up to 4500 yrs) than those which died more recently. If not, why not?
How do you know some things did not go extinct before the flood? Say, maybe even most dinosaurs? Then, remember also that some of each type of animal was on the ark, so that is not extint by a long shot either. Otherwise, everyone who goes on a cruise is extinct? And no doubt we could raise other variables.
Perhaps you could try for some consistency here. Did
everything go on the ark and some go extinct after or did some go extinct before the flood? Which is it? If some went extinct before which were they?
I don't know this, but what does anyone know about some pre flood tropical world anyhow?) -
Exactly! Thank you for another admission of defeat. You know nothing whatsoever about your pre-flood world. It seems it is just magic enough to solve your problems.
However whatever the conditions were preflood.
All living things were subject to them. Do you wish to speculate what the effect would have been on the preservation of softtissues? That will be necessary before we can continue.
Actually my trump card for the radioactive decay is that pre split there was no such process! It was a different process altogether, which resulted in more of a regeneration than a decay.
Please describe in detail the nature of this process that produced the correlations between many different methods of dating. Until you do you might as well have posted: "POIjhldkf;aiuavp;oiyauetoa99aoieurytip" as that is just as meaningful in the context of this discussion as the gibberish you are posting now.
So the new findings (much more to come I think we can safely say, as they start cracking em like easter eggs) may not be a real good 'clock' as you say, but they make the long assumed age look questionable.
Could you describe for me
in your own words just what the new findings are and what they mean again? It is my impression that you think that the level of "soft tissue" preservation in the dino bones being discussed is equivalent to the 10,000 year old Mammoth material. Is this what you actually think?
™ Version 4.2
