Starlight and Time---question that must be answered

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
You remove distant starlight from the 'age' speculation game and all you have is radiometric dating. Then all you have formulas based upon meteorites, which would have been subjected to the differing clocking/ general relativity processes. Add to that the fact that we have observed a billion fold increase in decay rates under certain conditions and you have more than enough for the objective person to be skeptical of that technique.

---

How long have these conditions existed on earth, JP?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
As far as I know, the conditions just had to have existed while the Earth was being Created.

---

"Just HAD to," eh? Hmm, that's pretty compelling logic. What can I say?...So, after the earth was created you don't think these conditions existed. That means the decay rates have been constant since the creation of the earth and, ergo, radiometric methods are valid on this point.Somewhere else you said that the change of decay rates was observed. Do you have reference on this? Who observed the change?

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Tatsumoto, M., Unrch, D., and Desborough, G., "U-Th-Pb and Rb-Sr Systematics of Allede and U-Th-Pb systematics of Orgueil," Geomechanica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol 40, 1976, pp. 616-634

​

A 10 billion y Earth would cause a re-write of most, in not all, of what 'main-stream science' holds as true about the universe.

---

JP, can you give us a quote from this article where the authors suggest a major problem with the estimated age of the earth? I don't believe that they just let it drop without an explanation.