Replies

[to Stultis:] You never mentioned: What makes them billions of years old?
If creationists invented this science, the rock and fossil evidence did not indicate to them the billions of years. So it still doesn't.
Because Darwin required long eras, he changed the dating, and neo-Darwinism changed it much further; "systems" may be contemporaneous but "eras" may not. So since "biostratigraphy is independent of evolutionary theory" it cannot evidence the great ages needed. What does?

What, you still haven't read the link that PatrickHenry provided for you in post 47 and which I referred you to later?

You know: Something about "radiometric something-or-other"? Um, "radiometric whatzits"? ...

No, I read the review in 62 instead. But starting to skim, it is hard to get past the statement on page 4: "There is no evidence of any of the half-lives changing over time. In fact, as discussed below, they have been observed to not change at all over hundreds of thousands of years." This talk of observation over all those years smacks of hasty advertising, I really don't know what he means.

Your question as to why I haven't read a 33-page link is a little off-point. Stultis is not providing evidence for great age by evidence from physical strata or from fossils. The article above also doesn't describe in detail how it dated the fossils. If I have time maybe I'll come back with the generic problems in radiometric dating, unless someone has some specific evidence involved with dating specific fossils.

I know light generates heat, but here it is anyway. The primary error in Wiens' OEC article is on page 20: "Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives."

The Setterfield hypothesis of lightspeed decay is obtaining multiple independent verifications in peer-reviewed journals. Even Hawking admits inconstant lightspeed to support his no-boundary condition, and Wiens at least admits it as a rival theory. It doesn't reject Einstein but expands him, because lightspeed is still constant to all observers at the same time, but not universally. If lightspeed has been decreasing by a factor of a million or trillion as suggested, it accounts for all the evidence.

Let the speed of decaying particles in the supernova be nc (which also works for those who think n=1), and let t be the time the observed decay actually takes. The half-life was then today's observed half-life, over n. If lightspeed is slower, an event that takes t will be witnessed today in nt, and the half-life will be observed to be over n times n. In other words, if lightspeed changes, Wiens' assumption that we could tell by supernova half-lives is false, because the factors cancel. This casts global doubt on all radiometric dating.