Replies

No - and actually I apologize bc the creationscience site may not have much (if any) to say about radioisotopes. I would ask you but apparently you can't be bothered w/ research so I'll go and google it myself.

I'm almost certain their are assumptions (probably unstated at that) in radioisotope dating. After all, my hs and college teachers were all adamant that the speed of light is a constant. Even though that flys in the face of thermodynamics as well as the improved speed of light measurements that any can review.

I won't comment on whether Barry Setterfield's other work was discredited or not bc it is not really relevant. The simple question is: Is the speed of light decaying or a constant? And if it is concluded that it is decaying then please tell me how one would know if the decay was uniform over thousand, millions or billions of years? I know I know - this is probably all related to carbon-dating so off I go to read up on radioisotopes.

BTW before I was addicted to internet learning I was 'indoctrinated' in public schools 5-12 but also was an avid encyclopedia worm. The funny thing is how society defines 'experts' yet they all are still full of fallacy and error that far outweighs whatever true knowledge they have attained - wouldn't you agree Mr. RWP?

After all, my hs and college teachers were all adamant that the speed of light is a constant. Even though that flys in the face of thermodynamics as well as the improved speed of light measurements that any can review.

Oh for heaven's sake.

I teach graduate thermodynamics and also optical spectroscopy. There is no conflict between a constant speed of light and thermodynamics. Nor is there any evidence the speed of light has changed with time. In fact, there's ample evidence none of the fundamental physical constants have.

BTW before I was addicted to internet learning I was 'indoctrinated' in public schools 5-12 but also was an avid encyclopedia worm.

One problem with internet learning is that every crank these days has an internet page, and unless you have a way between discriminating between credible sources and hooey, you can 'learn' a whole bunch of things that just aren't true.

The funny thing is how society defines 'experts' yet they all are still full of fallacy and error that far outweighs whatever true knowledge they have attained - wouldn't you agree Mr. RWP?

Now, I think that's utterly crazy. Experts can be wrong, sure, but they are far more likely to be right than wrong. That's why they're experts.

You said you were a computer programmer/analyst. Would you say your errors far outweigh what knowledge you've attained? If so, why is anyone employing you?

?? You assume there are assumptions when you apparently don't know how radiometric dating works and merely throw out a source when someone asks what assumptions there are, and then when he refuses to go look up what your objections might be you accuse him of not researching??

Your initial post is friendly on the face of it, but it's rather backhanded. Underneath are assumptions that evolution proponents are wrong and are too stupid/spiritually unenlightened to realize it.

Most modern dating methods are isochron dating methods. A lot of the sources of error that plagued more primitive methods have been removed. This page talks about isochron dating methods and their benefits and the means of detection of error. Enlighten yourself.

Now I will go respond to your other rude post.