Posted on 12/07/2009 7:30:12 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
You need to go and demand your money back from that college or HS; half-life of a radioactive decay is an exponential effect, it is constant with time not with mass (which would be a linear effect - like water evaporation).
The reason radiometric time dating is even possible is because it is an exponential effect; if it was linear, at some point in the future you would have zero radioactivity left. As an exponential decay you never run out with radioactivity, just an ever-decreasing amount.
You are misunderstanding what I meant.
the halflife never changes, regardless of where you pick on the scale. (I probably should have said constant, but even that would have caused someone to object)
Only if you accept the false assumptions of age of fossils that were used to date the rock and project back the quantities of radioactive elements for their decay /age calcs. Its all circular reasoning aimed at allowing enough time for evolution to work. Unfortunately there still isn't enough time!
In your dreams
They all ‘slide’ together idiot.
I see... So because you reject the theory of evolution, geological strata aging must be wrong. Nothing about radioactive dating at all - just strata in the ground.
If you accept the ability to use geological strata for dating artifacts, then you accept it. It’s independent of the theory of evolution. The age of the Earth being a few billion years old has no bearing on the theory of evolution; evolution is not required for the Earth to be that old.
The simple fact is that geological evidence overwhelmingly points to an Earth MUCH older than 10,000 years, meaning that the evidence overwhelmingly disproves the YEC approach.
Surely as a "non-idiot" you would recognize and acknowledge that different materials have different half-life decay rates. Oops, makes your statement a bit ignorant, doesn't it?
No, it doesn’t, since nobody can fix the beginning Q for any element, and it was the creator’s choice as to how much to create.
Nice try though.
Its a purely sociological concept.
The accumulated amount of accumulated daughter elements in a sample millions or billioins of years old will be substantially different that one that's only several thousand years old. The only way to duplicate that is for the sample to have formed with those daughter elements already present, and in exactly the same proportions as natural decay would produce. You can't slide past that.
The simple fact is that geological evidence overwhelmingly points to an Earth MUCH older than 10,000 years, meaning that the evidence overwhelmingly disproves the YEC approach, according to the biased analysis placed into the record. GIGO. I believe God created the "heavens and the Earth". There is no mechanical description of His process, though a "Big Bang" seems to show things emanating from a central location, and could be the motive force moving out as "God spoke"! It is good.
FWIW, I am not an YEC. I do not know how old it is, but don't have much respect science's self-determinations of the "record", by those with an "axe to grind". With the ADW crowd, we see evidence of "science" making it's own results look good, in the face of the opposite. I see nothing in Scripture at odds with creation. but I do not see evolution as a "series of accidents" against overwhelming odds.
Chaos does not yield these kinds of results, in my humble uneducated opinion. There's too much evidence of a guiding hand..
Work the rates backwards, and you’ll end up with ages MUCH older than 6,000 years, or 10,000 years or whatever it is that the YEC crowd claims...
Why does everyone conflate an old Earth with evolution? The age of the Earth is NOT dependent upon evolution! The facts are pretty irrefutable that the Earth is a lot older than 10,000 years.
Evolution has nothing to do with the age of the Earth.
So then you do not accept geological stratification for dating artifacts?
Backward to what? - Its irrelevant, since you are pushing back arbitrarily past the creation point.
In archaeology all strata are very local. Sometimes only a few acres. that is why the ‘pottery clock’ method is used for a preliminary date assumption.
That is utter nonsense. Its all arbitrary assumption, based on the need to conform to assumed dates. Nothing is dependant on evolution, but nevertheless evolution is used as the initial control in all assumptions.
You have an idea stuck in your head, but it disregards the fact that any distribution is possible since the Qs were most likely based on need rather than anything else.
So you accept stratification? We can look at the strata of earth in a given area, and the artifacts contained therein. And then we can keep looking at even deeper strata, and going backwards.
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.