Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

Are you suggesting that the decay of Potassium-40 is reversible? And that that would call into question the validity of Potassium-Argon dating? If so, pertaining to the topic, how do you explain the correlations with all of the other dating methods? Wouldn't they all have to be reversible at an exactly coincidental rate?

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. The gist of this thread (and its several companions) is that different dating methods, based on entirely different processes, produce the same dates. To show that one method is invalid, you'd have to show that they are all invalid.

Before you try to criticize science, you should learn what some of the terminology means.

What else do you use?

Because we have no reason to think that reality has magically changed. If water is wet today, it seems reasonable to assume it was wet a million years ago. Why wouldn't you? Creationists don't.

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 know that the Bible is fiction because it doesn't match reality. There were no plants before sunlight. The Bible is just wrong about that, and about a thousand other things.

That's what we've been telling you. You need to LOOK at reality, not just prattle that reality was different in the past. Again, if you want to claim that the "current nature" is different from the "past nature", you have to have evidence. Show us some evidence. You can claim that pigs could fly in the past but you need evidence to back up your claim. Unfortunately for you, all of the evidence we have shows that the "past nature" of the earth was the same as the "current nature".

Look again. Creationist nonsense has been kicked out of the schools time and time again. It's YOUR world that is being rocked.

Almost everybody I know is a Christian. I don't hate them.If you want to discuss Christianity or the Bible, we have threads for that. You're clearly out of your depth in the science threads.

You're just repeating yourself. Try learning how science works before making a fool of yourself in the science forums.

No, it's pretty easy to believe. Do you answer posts at all?

You're making the same mistake that rookie creationists always make. You're giving your 'profound' replies to a dozen different topics.Pick one and discuss it in depth. Then you might understand why creationists can't win.

You have no depth. Pick a topic and discuss it in depth.Hint: this topic is about age correlations - i.e. it's about a lot of different, unrelated methods that all come up with the same answers. Even if you could shoot down one of them - and nobody ever has - you'd still be at square one. You'd have to shoot down all of them to prove that the conclusion is false.

Nope. Many of them are completely independent. Take your own examples: Tree rings...starlight...decay...fossils...etc. Show us how they are interrelated. You're the one who has to bring it if you want anybody to take you seriously.