Replies

If the earth had a canopy at the time which filtered a lot of the higher spectrum, I don't think you can sustain that argument. Further, you'd have do know the output of the sun at that time. In short, you're assuming a lot of things, again, that you can't sustain.

So he can't make reasoned assumptions about the sun based upon nuclear physics, but you can make assumptions about a "water canopy" despite absolutely no evidence whatsoever. Nice double-standard.

Not a double standard. I didn't make an assumption there at all. I noted that his assumption of the absence of one changes the outcome of the bs he was shovelling. When you ultimately don't know the conditions, assuming the conditions only tells us what would be IF you were right. That's a pretty big IF. Amazing how you choose to construe it. Assuming light speed was constant - that was a major screwup on the part of science - one with far reaching consequence still being felt in the community. Accumulation rates for 14C were assumed constant - look where that got you. Seems it's only reasonable to you that everyone play stupid so you can have your way until you're proven utterly wrong again. What I find reasonable is saying "I don't know" when you don't know. But that doesn't make you look smart - apparently. I assume that's bad.