Geologists and dating (India Basins Half a Billion Years Older Than Thought)

Obviously creationists will look at the data differently using other assumptions to question evolution assumptions. It reminds me that its politically correct to say were in global warming in spite of the fact that the Ocean currents are moving north (record snowfalls) evidence the suns solar cycles are whats driving us into global cooling. Gore interestingly quiet all those adds he promised funny how fossil fuels are not the cause of global warming.Joe not letting us all see the raw data or is Joe afraid of the powers that be? Ben Stein movie expelled, etc...Being politically correct does not mean Joe's assumptions are correct from the raw data.Its interesting that Joe says a university lawyer would be interested. Apparently? at the college level Joe has a lawyer concerned about misrepresenting whats politically correct in Joes mind? Perhaps due to the proposed freedom for those teaching at the K-12 level to question the status quo without fearing tenure, losing ones job, for not being politically correct.P.S. Hopefully these proposed laws will be extended to protect those at the college level too to critically question the theory of evolution apparently some of the props (not all) holding up the conspiracy are in the process of being undone (Florida laws?) to allow teachers to critize the theory of evolution ?-----------------------------------------------------------------Here’s how the Florida House staff analysts summarize the effects of the proposed legislation:Effect of Proposed Changes:Teacher’s Rights and Prescribed Curriculum:The bill provides that every public school teacher in grades K through 12 has the “affirmative right and freedom” to “objectively present scientific information relevant to the full range of views regarding biological and chemical evolution in connection with teaching any prescribed curriculum regarding chemical or biological origins.” If a teacher determines that certain information is sufficiently “scientific” and “relevant,” the teacher has a “right” to teach that material irrespective of whether such information is contrary to the curriculum adopted by the State Board of Education through the SSS ["Sunshine State Standards"] or by the school district through its instructional materials. The principal, the district school superintendent, the district school board, or the State Board of Education may disagree that the information is “scientific,” “relevant,” or “objectively present[ed];” however, that fact does not affect that teacher’s “right” to present the material. If the principal or other school district staff attempts to restrict a teacher’s ability to teach such information, or govern the manner of presentation, it appears the bill grants the teacher a cause of action to enforce the “right” granted in the bill.11The bill, in effect, with regard only to biological or chemical evolution restricts the ability of the State Board of Education or the district school board to define and regulate curriculum content.http://curricublog.org/2008/04/13/florida-house-bills/Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Thats a biggie but more than that when was the earth created might well be different when those elements that your dating were created by the big bang, cosmic radiation? I suspect a lot of other assumptions heck you kind of sound like an uniformitists?It seems you are talking about decay rates but how old are the elements since the big bang. Were they formed from a collapsing star, cosmic radiation, the big bang, etc...If you believe the earth was created from the elements in space like space dust travelling at near the speed of light. If so then these elements including lead would of not have been aging before the earth itself was created from these elements.If the space dust is not older than 6,000 years, just because their atomic clocks are wound up from the big bang means nothing as to the age of an element. The entire universe could be 13,000 years old but the space dust might not of aged at all, like a photon.If a photon is ageless well then the earth elements might well be only 6,000 perhaps 13,000 years old since the big bang. It might well be about relativity the spaceship twin analogy but do we really know when the elements were created all we have is different decay ratios it seems uniformitists? assume an old earth.But were the decay rates constant over time, before the earth was were the elements (space dust) aging since the big bang, before earth time was created through the creation of the earth from space dust 6,000 to 13,000 years ago, by our creator, etc...If you believe the decay rates have been constant then you don't believe neutrons or alpha radiation affects or contributes to the decay rates of lead, C14 within the earth. If the elements did not form within the earth then scientists really are clueless as to the exact age of the earth all these uniformitists can do is assume an old earth and that the decay rates have been constant over time.The space ship twin analogy kind of supports the young earthers, the decay rates were pretty much set in concrete before the earth was created. Does a photon age at the same rate as the earth presently ages, etc...P.S. Because of relativity the elements and the earth could well be only 6,000 to 13,000 years old since our creator created present earth time, etc...

Sometimes wonder if the "old earth" is a better example of a desperate two word salad. Is it that they all know the missing links are not missing so all the old earthers have left is to press the earth is an old one and to somehow include the fossil record.Kent Hovind one of the greatest scientific minds of our day called this circular dating, or fraud saying a fossil is old. Thank God we have the RATE Boys, etc...They have found enough ratio left in most fossils to date them directly and interestingly all date young!!!!!!!! The old earthers cry foul, because its proving the earth is but a young one. Creationist are moving science forward yet the old earthers keep trying to take science backwards, etc...P.S. I think most people agree time is not relative meaning your seeing light photons that have not aged yet the earth is aging faster due to the earth resting on nothing (space curving inward not outward) propelling the earth forward not backwards in time.Since akjv genesis 1:1 says heaven does not say heavens like the altered bible versions. Its interesting one can press the case the earth is a young earth because the elements in space not believed to be aging at the same rate as the rest of the heavens. The rest of the heavens could be 10 billion years old yet the elements in space might well be not aging. The earth might truely be a young earth, etc...Since genesis creation days does not take credit for the creation of the heavens its no mystery that there was light from the heavens to shine thru the heaven of the earth on day 4 to provide light for the creatures and that this starlight is good.P.S. If the creationists would just read the bible as written they would not include the heavens in genesis 1:1. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Shows we need more conservative federal judges, so science can move forward in respect to questioning the theory of evolution in public schools. Florida law (killed Terry in spite of her family willing to care for her)we all saw her slowly die after they took the feeding tube away, etc... however Kent suspect will be part of Zechariah 14:5.P.S. The Feds appeared to use Kent as an example so you too would not challenge the idiocy of the IRS.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Your fossils the Word says were destroyed in the world flood by the earth the sediments according to the creationists models happened approximately 5,400 years ago, which explains the lack of glacial evidence.P.S. This evidence can be spinned to support a young earth from the creationists models. Evidence for a Young World | Answers in Genesis Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.