Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The fatal flaw with radioactive dating methods
CMI ^ | July 30, 2009 | Tas Walker, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/30/2009 10:42:38 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-232 last
To: betty boop
Well then, good luck with your life!

Exactly!

And the same to you, my friend! :)
221 posted on 08/05/2009 10:17:14 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

To: Filo

So you have kids?


222 posted on 08/05/2009 10:18:57 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
So you have kids?

Yes. And that matters why?
223 posted on 08/05/2009 11:00:20 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

To: Filo

If the only reason for the existence of the universe is for you to have kids, it would have been a failure if you didn’t.


224 posted on 08/05/2009 11:07:35 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
If the only reason for the existence of the universe is for you to have kids, it would have been a failure if you didn’t.

You seem to misunderstand my position. Probably deliberately.

The reason for the existence of life is propagation.

The universe needs no reason although it may well have one. If it does I can guarantee you it doesn't have squat to do with a bunch of semi-sentient parasites dominating a tiny, insignificant planet orbiting a completely unremarkable star at the ass-end of an average galaxy in a smallish cluster of galaxies amongst billions of others.
225 posted on 08/05/2009 11:51:59 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Filo
The reason for the existence of life is propagation.

Says who?

Sounds like you're saying that the reason life exists is so that it exists.

The universe was certainly created, as we are here. But for no reason?

Or just so life begets life?

226 posted on 08/06/2009 11:02:31 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
GodGutsGunsGibberish Alert.

Actually, the article is correct, as far as it goes. The radioactive dating method does in fact depend on an assumption concerning the initial concentration of isotopes in the item being dated.

The question is, then: how reliable are the assumptions being made? Can those assumptions be tested in any way?

The article of course doesn't dwell on that aspect of the problem ... the author would apparently have us believe that those assumptions are essentially unfounded.

227 posted on 08/06/2009 11:12:52 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
Says who?

Me.

Sounds like you're saying that the reason life exists is so that it exists.

Kind-of. Life exists to continue its existence. Once life comes about it either propagates or vanishes. In order for it to be life it actually has to propagate. . .

The universe was certainly created, as we are here.

No, the universe certainly exists, as we are here. The creation part is assumed by some, rejected by others.

But for no reason?

Why does it need a reason?

Why would that reason have anything to do with us, if there is one?

Or just so life begets life?

That's just a fact, not really a reason.


228 posted on 08/06/2009 11:49:57 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: Filo
No, the universe certainly exists, as we are here. The creation part is assumed by some, rejected by others.

The creation part is based on the currently available evidence. There are 2 satellites in earth orbit continually measuring it.

Thank you for our pleasant exchange. I was just curious what you thought when I saw your post.

229 posted on 08/07/2009 9:54:14 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
The creation part is based on the currently available evidence. There are 2 satellites in earth orbit continually measuring it.

I'm not aware of any evidence or satellites supporting/studying that.

Thank you for our pleasant exchange. I was just curious what you thought when I saw your post.

Thanks! Same back at ya. It's always nice to have a pleasant chat.
230 posted on 08/07/2009 10:46:51 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 229 | View Replies]

To: Filo
I'm a full service quizmaster. If you're interested, check these out;

WMAP and Planck

231 posted on 08/07/2009 11:06:15 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
I'm a full service quizmaster. If you're interested, check these out;

WMAP and Planck


Ahh, those I'm familiar with. They aren't seeking/studying "creation" - they are seeking origins. Different concept. . . creation implies a creator.
232 posted on 08/07/2009 11:09:08 AM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220221-232 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson