Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Liberty1970
I realize this discussion is going in slow motion, but have you forgotten that you were the one who posted - twice - about C-14

Go back and read the thread - you raised the subject of C-14, not me. Any sane discussion of the Earth being 4.5 billion years old does not involved C-14, by definition.

You can't even keep track of your own strawmen.

31 posted on 09/17/2010 11:15:57 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: dirtboy
The title of the article and this thread is "Research shows radiometric dating still reliable (again)". Not "Research shows inorganic radiometric dating...". So I addressed both organic and inorganic radioisotope dating. The RATE links I list above deal almost exclusively with inorganic dating techniques. Your own replies kept mentioning C-14, so I replied to them, and now you complain about that?

My common experience has been that apologists for an old earth have been very dogmatic about insisting that decay rates are an unalterable constant. The big story here is the insecurity they feel (as reflected in this overbearing, pompous storyline) having that exposed as another ignorant and incorrect assumption. Creationists aren't making the mistake of claiming this neutrino evidence, itself, solves things in their favor. Our arguments are already out there and this article fails to address them. So who is really presenting a strawman?

32 posted on 09/17/2010 12:11:21 PM PDT by Liberty1970 (http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/lydiablievernicht)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson