Question About the Universe

So rock mechanics theories are 'railroaded' by being amoral?Wow! Who knew?

C'mon, you're just making stuff up as you go, aren't you? Are you saying that bacteria, for instance, either have these values or are not alive?Your post appears to be a bunch of utopian platitudes. Are you a 'new ager'? Have you tried crystal therapy?

But there you are, contesting the validity of evidence by claim that some is not 'real' evidence... And I'm sure they all merit equal attention...

How certain do you need to be?Can you give us an idea of the total error in irregular ring growth in trees? Some statistics would be good to support your position. Okay, show us the error. Give us some kind of support for you skepticism.As a YEC I'm sure you are skeptical of the counting process. The numbers can get really big.But my main question is, if you are so skeptical of annual ring growth and the ability of people to count them, do you apply the same degree of skepticism to your own dating methods? Are you sure that a count of generations in the Bible is accurate? Are you certain that all generations are included?Remember, it isn't actually written in the Bible that the earth was formed 6ky ago.

We've seen this argment before. All it means is that YECs get to ignore some of the evidence when it is unpleasant. But what you suggest by necessarily results in ad hoc explanations. I've often felt that YECs should be patients at some institution or another. And dispose of the absurd ones.Wait, that's been done. Several times.

And exactly where does this variability occur? Edited by edge, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fix quote box. Someone got a bit spastic with the space key.

From your reference, Republikslot: Daftar 10 Situs Judi Slot Dan Casino Online Terbaik So, in the case of 14C, if the rate varies by 0.1%, that would mean that the half-life would vary by 5.7 years in 5700 years.And that, of course, would be if the variation from the accepted half-life was continuous, which does not appear to be the case.Now, as I look up the C14 half life, I get this value: 5730+/-40 years.(Carbon-14 - Wikipedia)Note the error bounds, which, if I understand correctly, would include more than the 0.1% variability that we are talking about here.So, what is the significance of this effect, in the context of a 6ky old earth?Weird, eh?I will defer to any physicists here who can correct me on this. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

So, let me get this straight. You want to produce an extreme discrepancy with an insignificant process.Do I have that right? Oh, I have little doubt that rates vary, but for me the question is how much? We also know that the speed of light varies depending on the medium, but it still makes sense to call it constant by referring to the speed of light in a vacuum. Well, in this case the geophysicist is wrong and it doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

I have already agreed that constants may not be absolute, but your line of thinking is going to take you places you don't want to go. Do you realize that all measurements have limits to precision? That's just the way it is in the real world. I can accept that the measured half-life of C14 has a +/- precision of 40 years. Does that really turn a 60ky old sample into a 6ky old sample?You are living in a fantasy world. I want a concrete explanation here. What makes the discrepancy significant in the sense of the age of the earth?The problem is that you are an absolutist, particularly when it comes to other people's assumptions and measurements. You don't question your own measurements or assumptions, do you?

Not sure what you mean by this, but there are probably some who would disagree.

Why would anyone have predicted it? The point is that there is an explanation for unexpected C14.

Heh, heh...That sounds about right.All we have to say is 'God didit' and we are relieved of the burden of supplying support.

So, let me get this straight.If the decay rates vary independently by isotope then the consilience of dating methods is purely coincidental.Right? So, you have uncertainty in your evidence.Why is it, then, that when we acknowledge uncertainty in measurements, it means that you can say we are just plain wrong?Seems like a bit of a double standard, no? And it is equally clear that any variation (that we actually know about) is insignificant with regard to the difference between our age of the earth and yours.

So, you want us abandon every measurement technique that we know of, based on your concept of 'mechanisms not yet known'?Then it's true that YECs want us to base our understanding of the universe on what we don't know rather than what we do know.That sounds like a real winning argument. Edited by edge, : No reason given.

I believe that radon is in both decay chains and does produce the appropriate neutron energies.I like also the fact that dissolved uranium can be fixed in coal because of the ambient reducing environment. Add to that the fact that groundwater residence time have been calculated at on the order of 10s of thousands of years in some cases, and we are looking at a robust explanation for C14 in coal.ETA: And yes in some of the coal seams I've seen in Wyoming, the coal itslef is the main aquifer, even more than some of the sandstones. Edited by edge, : No reason given.