Posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.
Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
“Creation science journals are all peer reviewed.”
No “Creation Science” journal is ever peer reviewed. Who are you kidding? Don’t you ever get tired of breaking Commandments, or do the ends justify the slimy, greasy, foul-smelling “creation science” means?
Has that claim been peer reviewed?
NO?....Then out with it, out with it all, for it stands in the way of the naturalist utopia.
“You again assumed radiometric and dynamic time are equivalent. “
So “creation science” depends on the existence of the “flux capacitor?
Can you provide the exact quote in context. Thanks.
You are proof that a little bit of knowledge leads one over the cliff. All motion is not relative to the position of the observer.
I provided you with source for the citation. If you don’t understand the implications of General Relativity, I’m not sure I’m the one to help you.
But, Fred Hoyle agreed, and wrote upon it. George Ellis agreed, and not only wrote upon it but has gone so far as to publish a theoretical, geocentric structure of the universe. It’s actually quite lovely, like a scroll.
You have fingers to depress keys on the keyboard. Go to your favorite search engine and get busy.
From the position of the observer, yes, it is.
Journal of Creation = Peer Reviewed.
Answers Research Journal = Peer Reviewed
Creation Research Society = Peer Reviewed
Baraminology Study Group = Peer Reviewed
Etc, etc, etc...and IMHO, they are far superior to the so-called “science” journals put out by the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism.
That is not what I said. Please don't imply I said something I didn't. Thanks.
And that is EXACTLY WHAT THEY WILL DO if given the chance.
No. You are incorrect.
“Einstein's theory of special relativity is fundamentally a theory of measurement. He qualified the theory as “special” because it refers only to uniform velocities (meaning to objects either at rest or moving at a constant speed). In formulating his theory, Einstein dismissed the concept of the “ether,” and with it the “idea of absolute rest.” Prior to the generation of Einstein's theory of special relativity, physicists had understood motion to occur against a backdrop of absolute rest (the “ether”), with this backdrop acting as a reference point for all motion. In dismissing the concept of this backdrop, Einstein called for a reconsideration of all motion. According to his theory, all motion is relative and every concept that incorporates space and time must be considered in relative terms. This means that there is no constant point of reference against which to measure motion. Measurement of motion is never absolute, but relative to a given position in space and time. Returning to Galileo's cannonball, Einstein considered this: the cannonball falling from the mast of the ship would appear to an observer standing on the deck of that ship as though it dropped straight down; however, to an observer standing on the shore, the cannonball would appear to follow a curved trajectory on its way to the base of the mast. Which trajectory did the ball actually follow? According to Einstein's theory of special relativity, the answer is, both—and neither. Each observer's observation is valid in its own reference frame, yet each is no more than an artifact of the measurement, or observation, undertaken by the observer.”
Insults won't make you correct.
No, but truth does make me correct. You are citing the SPECIAL Theory of Relativity which is not valid for all motions. Please go back and finish your homework.
Maybe Special Relativity is just an allegorical account of something.
Just admit you were wrong.
But is Special Relativity Theory valid for relative motion?
The source for your assertion?
Show that I am and I will, unlike yourself.
From you post:
“He qualified the theory as “special” because it refers only to uniform velocities (meaning to objects either at rest or moving at a constant speed).”
You see that it is not for all motion.
What the the theory means From my post:
” According to his theory, all motion is relative and every concept that incorporates space and time must be considered in relative terms. This means that there is no constant point of reference against which to measure motion. Measurement of motion is never absolute, but relative to a given position in space and time”
Do the velocities of earth and sun qualify as uniform or non-uniform?
Citation? Are you saying your original post was a quote without citation? That is plagiarism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.