Summations Only

The bible does not give enough detail. God often used nature to carry out his will. And so I really don't know the answer. Why the interest?

I know that, but radiometric dating is based on a modern rate of decay that is assumed to be constant. The assumption does not have a strong basis, due to the fact that there are a few known and also unknown ways in which it can be affected. So its application to previous environments is a shaky foundation on which the entire theory of evolution rests.

Evidence please!!! I've never seen a DNA sequence or any genetic evidence that contradicts a creation 6500 years ago or a flood 4500 years ago. Bluegenes and I are in a discussion about this topic, and the problem is more for evolutionists than creationists. The rate of germline mutations is way to slow to reflect the genetic diversity we see today. It fits in better with biblical timelines.

Its only ridiculous if you are indoctrinated into evolutionary timeframes. Without radiometric dating you have nothing.And how does it contradict the bible?Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You throw around this accusation too freely, its not a practical way to create "understanding through discussion", which is the purpose of this website. If the moderators don't mind this, its a reflection on them. Yes but those deal with recent ages (0-60000 years). For the really long ages all you have is radiometric dating and the assumption of slow processes. They are not that easy to find. I already provided evidence that the nature of Pangea during the Permian made the lower latitudes less habitable. The entire habitable region was covered by a thick layer of basalt. Its the only logical place for humans to live during the Permian, and those areas have disappeared under a thick layer of rock. So you are asking for miracles when I have provided logical reasons why those fossils have not been found. Look at the following list of anomalies, please notice that many of these anomalies are from Russia, here's just a few:Anomalously Occurring FossilsSpores Tertiary Pleistocene North Caspia, USSR
Pollen Tertiary Pleistocene Yenisei, USSR
Coccoliths Cretaceous Tertiary Crimea, USSR 214
Spores Cretaceous Tertiary Kazan, USSR
Pollen Cretaceous Tertiary Ural Mts., USSR 217
Pollen Cretaceous Tertiary West Siberia, USSR
Spores Jurassic Triassic Northeast Siberia, USSR 218
Pollen Jurassic Pleistocene Yenisei, USSR 168
Spores "Mesozoic" Pleistocene North Caspia, USSR 166
Spores Jurassic Permian Northeast Siberia, USSR 218
Spores Jurassic Cambrian Northeast Siberia, USSR
Pollen Carboniferous Triassic Donets Basin, USSR 84
Pollen Carboniferous Jurassic Donets Basin, USSR
Algae Precambrian Cambrian or Ordovician Verkhoyansk, USSR 205
Spores Precambrian Devonian Saratov, USSR

haha, well I just said the bible doesn't provide detail. If you think that's crazy.....The actual Hebrew just says "I will rain or "I rain" so its very vague. Does this mean "I will allow rain". Or I foretell rain? I will use the rain? I will create rain? Who knows. Maybe he set tectonic movements in place thousands of years earlier, that eventually resulted in volcanic induced rainfall? I really don't know. I can give no better answer. I believe it was a natural disaster that God used to carry out his will. God could have triggered off that natural disaster, I don't know. So I believe its 3 & 4
3. It was a natural disaster , God used it.
4. It could have been triggered by supernatural intervention, maybe not

Thanks for the tips. I have delved into this before, as usual I do not take the standard creationist line.

If I am not precise enough in my explanations, you should rather point out that I am wrong, than jump to the conclusion that I'm a liar. Your approach is not conducive to understanding another's point of view. I agree with biostratigraphy for relative dating. In itself , biostratigraphy does not point to millions of years.Egyptian chronology is a good method of dating, except it should be adjusted according to Rohl's new chronology. Thanks for not calling me a liar this time. This is the greatest layer of basalt known to man. It is pretty impassable. Some rivers flow through the area, I'm not too sure of the extent of their penetration through the basalt.Siberian Traps - Wikipedia
More evidence for mass extinction | Nature Note that this image is showing the high latitudes of Pangea, the red portion is where the basalt layer is, covering nearly all of that portion. Hallam and Wignall claim the high latitudes did not experience the early to mid Permian extinction crisis:http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdf
" Low latitude faunas from carbonate environments were particularly hard hit by the first event; many fusulinids, echinoderms, brachiopods and bryozoans were amongst the victims Jin et al., 1994a There is, as yet, little evidence that the crisis spread to higher latitudes Hallam and Wignall, 1997"So if there were humans in the Permian, their cities were most likely underneath that basalt. I proved a dramatic rise in sea level, all transgressions cause coastal flooding, i proved this was a particularly dramatic transgression. It also involved flooding into the interior of Pangea that is now discovered across 3 continents. And you still deny flooding at the P-T bounday? C'mon you can do better than that. I only pointed out those anomalies to show you that Russia is a hotspot for the discovery of organisms that should be recent, but are discovered in ancient layers. contradicting traditional evolutionary theory). More research needs to be done on exposed layers in northern Siberia. Pre-boundary pollen has been unexpectedly found, and I agree with you that I need pre-boundary human skeletons to be found there to add strength to my case.

General comments are not evidence. Sure cheetahs showed recent bottlenecks (during the last couple of hundred years).How does this disprove bottlenecks 4500 years ago?I need actual evidence that there are no 4500 yo genetic bottlenecks among large terrestrial animals. So far you have just given me unsubstantiated claims.

There is a definite seasonal pattern to radiometric decay:
From the Annals of the Impossible (Experimental Physics) | Observations on Quantum Computing & PhysicsThey have not yet discovered the cause/effect of this pattern and yet brush off the changes as negligible. I agree that the currently recorded changes are negligible, but unless we can discover the actual cause we do not know if the changes would be significant under past weather conditions which were vastly different through the ages. I will deal with possible cause and effect in the dating forum when I have time, and how rates could be vastly affected.Known causes of changed decay rates in heavy elements are neutron bombardment and heat.
Heat is an unlikely cause of inaccurate dating, but neutrons do occur in nature. I will also deal with this in the dating forum in future.

The consilience is due to most methods measuring specifically the decay of heavy isotopes. The remaining methods are calibrated against those methods.Please see my previous post, this isn't the forum to discuss radiometric decay. These were mainly evolutionists who required long time frames for their evolution to work. So their "knowledge" of long timeframes was based on assumptions that remain unproven.Radiometric dating was acceptable to science because it compared well with evolutionary theory. If they looked at erosion rates or salination rates they would have seen how little sense there is on these long timeframes and it radiometric dating would not have been accepted. It was unintentional cherry picking based on the presumption that evolutionary theory is the truth.

I was referring to radiometric dating as a whole, not specifically C-14. Please see my posts below.

I can't find exact figures. It was far more extensive than today's glaciation.http://www.pesa.com.au/...cations/pesa_news/june_01/abs4.htm
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/28/3/279.abstractThe Permian terrain was vastly different to today. There was a vast shallow ocean, the Tethys, and landmasses had generally flatter terrain. Widespread coastal wetlands dominated the coasts. Tectonic mountain building events mainly occurred later. These conditions made the coasts and even the interior far more conducive to flooding than current conditions.

Are you giving me Hebrew lessons? Why don't you give me an in depth analysis on the specific Hebrew word for "make" in that sentence? That would help your case. Or you could just continue with your strawman argument. That will not help your case.

Good point, and thank you for taking the time to look at the link. I'm also reluctant to use religious sites for evidence, but felt that the references would speak for themselves. But obviously Peczkis has misinterpreted the data. When I have time I will look through some of the other alleged anomalies to see if there are any decent ones I can use in future discussions.