Uh, so the recent variance of radiation from the sun is a one time event, and you know because you were there? Obviously the constant of the suns output, ain't. I can't believe you do not comprehend this. Besides, one meteor shower of radioactive materials would change the background radiation, or a passing dust region that the solar system passes through. One increases background radiation, the other decreases it from the sun that is not a constant anyway.
If the background radiation was shielded with Ice rings as the Biblical story hints, your starting radiation would be drastically smaller than you calculated for. Tell me, would that make your test show an item as much older than it is? As a few feet of water is an excellent radiation shield in a nuclear reactor, I suspect the background radiation would have been infinestetimaly small. It may even have something to do with the reported longer life span.
Was that the story, WE DO NOT KNOW, just like YOU DO NOT KNOW that present variables were constants for millions of years.
Your radio metrics depend on no variablility of radiation rate, but in a dynamic system it just does not work that way. In real life recent measurements of the SOPHOS satellite have shown increasing radiation rates that is affecting the ice caps of all the planets in the solar system. (So much for man being the cause of global warming, the sun is hotter and, suprise, its getting hotter)
Now tell the scientists at NASA that they are all liars and are Creationists, they could use a good laugh. It's better than thinking up ways to insult me for things you cannot seem to comprehend.
Uh, so the recent variance of radiation from the sun is a one time event, and you know because you were there?
Would it be too much for me to ask that you learn how to actually read and understand plain English?
No, that's not what I said, nor does what I said depend on any such goofy thing as what you wrote.
Hint: I specifically said that past amounts of radiation -- i.e., PAST VARIATIONS -- have already been taken into account.
Are you playing stupid? Or are you not playing at it?
Obviously the constant of the suns output, ain't.
Obviously the quality of your reading comprehension, ain't.
I can't believe you do not comprehend this.
I can't believe you do not comprehend simple sentences.
Besides, one meteor shower of radioactive materials would change the background radiation, or a passing dust region that the solar system passes through.
Not by any measurable amount, it wouldn't. Or are you that ignorant of the magnitude of the mass difference between the Earth's atmosphere and interplanetary matter?
Don't bother to reply, the answer is entirely obvious.
Look, son, I know that you think you're more brilliant than all the professional scientists who have worked on these issues over the past many decades, and that you've somehow managed to think of factors that just never occurred to them before, but... no, you really aren't that good. These have all been considered long before you were born, and already been either ruled out after being studied and found to be not an issue (e.g. in the case of your goofy "what about the meteor shower" example) or taken into account and appropriately adjusted for (e.g. in the case of fluctuating solar radiatino levels).
You just don't have anything to add to the topic which is going to suddenly make everyone go, "gosh, we never *thought* of that before, how *could* we have been so foolish as to think this might actually be valid, when something so *obvious* comletely invalidates it!"
You creationists crack me up, you're so arrogantly confident of your ability to destroy entire fields of science with something you thought up on your lunch break, despite the fact that you know next to nothing about the field itself, and much of what you do "know" is laughably wrong.
If the background radiation was shielded with Ice rings as the Biblical story hints, your starting radiation would be drastically smaller than you calculated for. Tell me, would that make your test show an item as much older than it is?
No, because a) ice rings are totally unworkable in the first place, b) they wouldn't "shield background radiation even if they weren't, and c) past radiocarbon levels for every one of the past 45,000 years have already been independently determined using multiple cross-confirming methods. For example, here is a table of adjustment factors for the Southern hemisphere for the past 10,000+ years. The scientists are *waaay* ahead of you, son.
So you can forget about all of your fantasy "what if what if what if" scenarios.
As a few feet of water is an excellent radiation shield in a nuclear reactor, I suspect the background radiation would have been infinestetimaly small. It may even have something to do with the reported longer life span.
Any such effect would already have shown up in the calibrations. They don't. Your hypothetical case doesn't work, sorry.
Was that the story, WE DO NOT KNOW, just like YOU DO NOT KNOW that present variables were constants for millions of years.
No, WE *do* know, even though obviously YOU don't.
Your radio metrics depend on no variablility of radiation rate,
Repeating that creationist lie doesn't make it any more true, son.
but in a dynamic system it just does not work that way.
Scientists have realized this for decades, and they've long ago dealt with it. By what arrogance do you presume to think that you've suddenly realized something they "must" have overlooked?
Now tell the scientists at NASA that they are all liars and are Creationists, they could use a good laugh.
If they need a good laugh, I'll just send them your post.
It's better than thinking up ways to insult me for things you cannot seem to comprehend.
That's not what I do, son. I insult you for things *you* cannot seem to comprehend, but which you insist on lecturing us about anyway as if you did. When you (and the other creationists) keep doing that sort of thing, you've richly earned all the insults you get.