Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Of course the existence of morality is trivially evidence that morality somehow came to be part of us (and some other animals). But the existence of morality is not evidence for any particular means by which morality came to be.

So if the beta decay is increased somehow while the carbon is in the ground, then we will have the reading for a very old bone. The earth radiates alpha and beta particles as if it has a surplus, could this process accelerate the decay rate while the object is buried? A rate which is far slower in lab conditions?

No. That's been tested.

In my opinion, he was correct regardless of what you think.

Correct or not, he is not a top scientist, and he is only one person. "Top scientists" plural is what Percy objected to. But of course you don't address the real issues.

BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone here, only providing the latest scientific information that supports the non-Darwinian view.

That's not scientific information, it's exceptionally silly fantasy.

Pathetic even by the exceptionally low standards of YECs.

If you think you have something to offer, state your sources and briefly describe the measurements, experiments, and analyses that led to your conclusions.

Back in the day we used readings from the Urantia Book as part of my fraternity's initiation rites. Sonorous, impressive, and total gibberish.

The distance to SN1987A was measured by trigonometry, not parallax.

That's an unwarranted slur against teachers. I doubt the best teacher in the world could teach him anything. He knows it all already. Tres Trumpian.

Using a base line from this solar system consisting of millions of miles of space...and time.

Bzzzzzt! Wrong. Thanks for playing, and here's a copy of the home game for you.

The distance to SN1987A was not measured by parallax. As I noted. The baseline was the distance from the supernova to the surrounding ring of debris. Feel free to Google up some of the clear explanations.

The distance to SN1987A was not measured by parallax. Do try to keep up.

Feel free to show a source.

SN1987A
A Geometric Determination of the Distance to SN 1987A and the LMC

And many, many, many more.

But since no distance to the SN is known

Ah, the invincible ignorance of the fundy. Knowing absolutely nothing about the subject you pontificate as if you were the expert.

You aren't.

Learn to read. The paragraph following the one you quoted makes it clear that the paragraph you quoted refers to methods other than the one they used on SN1987A.

quote:

---

The presence of the famous circumstellar ring around SN 1987A has provided a unique opportunity to determine the distance to the LMC directly by using a purely geometric method: it consists in measuring the angular size of the ring from high resolution images and comparing it to the absolute size as estimated from the evolution of emission lines produced by the ring ionized gas (see e.g. [8, 1, 2]).

---

I did leave something out; the other method of directly measuring the distance to SN1987A. http://chem.tufts.edu/science/astronomy/sn1987a.html

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

It doesn't matter if time differs on the radius line. Read the last link I gave.

And we have strong evidence that time is the same on the radius line, because several radioactive elements decayed at the same rate as they do on Earth..

http://www.esa.int/...y_of_titanium_powers_supernova_remnant
https://vdocuments.mx/...om-gamma-ray-line-observations.html

The decay happens there.

The decay is seen here.

You are also forgetting the other non-parallax measurment of distance.

But if something is riddled with the features of intelligent design, inductively 100% of the tally of evidence shows such features altogether are only found in intelligently designed things. 0% of such features found together, are ever found in something not designed.

Lovely example of circular reasoning.