Some concluding remarks about the matter:
The focus of the dissension in the matter is on the constant k. But I never insisted that k is absolute or never changes.
Your concluding remarks are to admit that "the constant k" is not a constant.
One mystery remains, which is why, if you admit that it is not a constant, you call it a constant.
I can think of one reason why you would do something so mindbogglingly stupid, but the moderators on this forum would not approve of my explanation.
Interesting that research on tidal rhythmites seem to be consistent with k as it concerns geologic time. Quote: "The tidal rhythmites in the Proterozoic Big Cottonwood Formation (Utah, United States), the Neoproterozoic Elatina Formation of the Flinders Range (southern Australia), and the Lower Pennsylvanian Pottsville Formation (Alabama, United States) and Mansfield Formation (Indiana, United States) indicate that the rate of retreat of the lunar orbit is d/dt k2 sin(2) (where is the Earth-moon radius vector, k2 is the tidal Love number, and is the tidal lag angle) and that this rate has been approximately constant since the late Precambrian." Source: C.P. Sonett, E.P. Kvale, A. Zakharian, M.A. Chan, and T.M. Demko, Late Proterozoic and Paleozoic Tides, Retreat of the Moon, and Rotation of the Earth, Science 273 (1996): p. 100—104.
This will undoubtedly go right over the heads of my opponents but it is extremely significant in this argument.
Wow. A creationist just mentioned the existence of rhythmites, quoted a paper proving that the Earth is old, and said that this would "undoubtedly go right over the heads of his opponents".
Here's a tip. If you wish to make false statements about the age of the Earth,
don't mention rhythmites. Hush them up. This proof that the Earth is old is not something you want to talk about. We know that you're wrong, but you could at least
pretend that you're right, you don't have to rub everyone's noses into how appallingly wrong you are.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
