Free Republic

You need to go and demand your money back from that college or HS; half-life of a radioactive decay is an exponential effect, it is constant with time not with mass (which would be a linear effect - like water evaporation).

The reason radiometric time dating is even possible is because it is an exponential effect; if it was linear, at some point in the future you would have zero radioactivity left. As an exponential decay you never run out with radioactivity, just an ever-decreasing amount.

Exactly. And most dating of fossils and geological formations are based on the same technique - layering. And that technique often leads to ages that are millions of years old.

Sure, it's not exact, but even if your 1,000,000 age is off by 250,000 years, well, that's still a LOT older than the YEC group.

Always wondered how they allow layering for dating of artifacts in the Bible, but disallow it for geological aging beyond things in the Bible...

I’m doing way better than you are.

Learn to read!

It gets tiresome when fools with no knowledge try to work behind a smoke screen. You could use a search engine and do better than this!

What does that change? A sample of uranium undergoing decay will accumulate daughter elements in proportion to their relative half-lives, on their way to becoming lead. That process will produce specific ratios of those elements in the sample during the decay process. What's the probability all of those samples formed with exactly those elements, in exactly those proportions to produce what appears to be naturally decaying uranium in a newly-formed sample?

What does that mean? All the transuranic daughter elements between uranium and lead have their own half-lives. In a state of natural decay, they would accumulate in proportion to their relative half lives. You cannot "slide the index arrow" on the transuranics between uranium and radiogenic lead.

Halflifes are essentially linear; you must have touched this at some time in HS or early college.

The dating you are questioning is based on the known rate of decay of the elements trapped in the rock when it was formed. The rates of decay of the known elements have been observed and are based on physical laws. For those rates of decay to be incorrect that means that the current physical laws were not that the same when that rock was formed, so what would have changed those physical laws?

However I must give you credit for attempting to set up your straw-man. Let’s see so far we have seen avoidance, and the misdirection via your straw-man. My bet is next comes the name-calling.

There is no statistical issue WRT the proportions; its just a matter of where you slide the index arrow to.

The statistical problem is for the ‘chance’ occurance of something as complex as life in any amount of time. And the development of irreducibly complex structures just adds to the already impossible dream.

And you submit that all of those samples solidified having exactly the elements and proportions consistent with long-term (billions of years) natural radioactive decay.

All that you've done is demonstrate my statement that you do not understand this at a very basic level!

The decay rates are not the issue; the false assumptions for the original composition of the planet are the issue. The decay rates work quite well when proper composition proportions are used.

Dr Rohl does not maintain that his dates ‘refute’ Exodus. He applies an adjustment to the ellapsed time from Moses to Christ of about 250 years; that does no particular violence to the word.

What it really does is upset the British Egyptologists to the max.

BTTT

Nice attempt at avoiding the question, however those assumption are based on the observed rate of decay and that is based on the physical laws of the universe.

So for the rate of decay to have changed from what we see in the present then the physical laws would have to change. So what is your special pleading to get around this fact?

What's the statistical probability of all those samples having solidified with exactly those elements, in exactly those proportions?

Do you support Dr. Rohl's findings that the revised pottery clock refutes Exodus?

Be honest for a change; there is no evidence for their assumptions; just a deep desire for something statistically impossible to the 40 trillionth power to be true.

So many areas are perpetually 'wrong', but swear they are correct and scientific 'at the moment'.

The liberals have for years used any area that involves speculation as a means to further their political goals.

Most of them are secular humanists or they have an axe to grind against the Bible, so their speculation will always be the same as that of the liberal's.

After all, they have been on the kick for years to destroy our religious traditions in order to further their own 'philosopical' beliefs.

The 'experts' are as politically motivated as any old Al Gore, but they all assure they are not.

That's always gives me a moment of pause for a disgusted smirk and a big horse laugh.

Including the assumption that no amount of evidence justifies making any assumption.

That is the million dollar question. Artifacts are usually dated based on layers, and the style of pottery found in those layers. About 10 years ago Dr. Rohl was able to demonstrate that the then current pottery clock was in fact wrong, based on writings on the Egyptian archives, and currently the question is not settled.

I realize that you don’t understand any of this, but we are not talking about the physical laws.

What we have is a set of arbitrary assumptions of the original distribution of the chemical elements at the time that the Earth was created. The assumptions were back-calculated from an assumed age, which will obviously then fit that age when samples are examined.

That is it in a nutshell. As long as you get to make assumptions, you get answers that you like.

Why would the physical laws have changed over time?

What would have caused this change?

Do you have any evidence that physical laws have changed has?

And discovering those rules of the Creator through science will point back to Creation. Obviously.

Of course not - it's understood that Vishnu created the world, right?

I would consider other facts such as the reliability of its historical claims (which can be tested through archeology) to test the truth of one religion as apposed to another.

How do you know the archeological artifacts you dig up/reveal are accurate in terms of dates and times?

I didn’t say that the information present in the world de facto proved the God of the Bible. I was simply arguing that the information present in nature is a compelling argument for a Creator and that it is unscientiffic to rule out any possibility of a God by definition. I would consider other facts such as the reliability of its historical claims (which can be tested through archeology) to test the truth of one religion as apposed to another.

Good luck with that.

Basically.