Quote:

More conspiracy theories ?



Its not a conspiracy. What's happening is what I'd like to call, "Working within a frame." Working within a frame is a good idea, it saves you from wasting time and resources. The only problem is when that frame is wrong, incorrect, whatever.

For example, if I believe that dating methods are correct, why should I question their accuracy every time they're used. If they're right once, then they're right always. Of course, recent discoveries have cast doubt on dating methods. In this case, the frame is bad because scientists aren't going to let their dating methods go without a fight. It doesn't need to be that way. Any true scientist, upon hearing that experimentation could lead to more knowledge, would jump on the chance. We don't see this happen in this case.

Quote:

Sources ?



That will take a short bit of time. At least, since I'm dealing with internet sources, because finding a reliable, non-creationist, pool of references isn't quick. Some of them will require me to refute evolutionists arguments against them immediately. Like say, the dating of recent lava flow (only about 30 years old) as millions of years old. Of course, evolutionists have a way to misdirect the argument away from the evidence, so I'll have to straighten that out before posting details.

Quote:

Hmm... At least, you're honest. Is it only the earth or do you also think the whole universe is 20,000 years old?



My beliefs stem from the bible, which is fairly fuzzy on the subject of the age of the universe. However, I didn't say I thought the earth was 20,000 years old, I just don't think it could be much older than about that age. Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the earth was about 6,000 years old. Why you find that less agreeable, I won't know since both 20,000 and 6,000 are pretty much the same amounts of time on the evolutionary timeline. My immediate guess might be that its because its based on the idea that the bible is infallible.

I also don't think the universe could be much older than 20,000. I know, red shift puts a damper on that. However, there are a lot of problems with red shift that I'd love to get into later.

Quote:

No, you haven't. Just let us know what's wrong with "specific details" of radioactive decay.



Ok. Number one is a dead end. 14C in coal. Since we know its there, all we're waiting on is a way for scientists to find some form of contamination. For now, there is no known source of contamination (just guesses). So based on current evidence, we're able to find inaccurate ratios of elements in material that is 'known' to be too old to have that material.

Number two, conflicting dates between different methods.

Number three, old-age dating of material that isn't more than a few decades old. The 1980s eruption of Mt. St. Helens by example. Now, I'm not going to refute the typical evolutionist counter argument to this one just yet, because its laughably illogical and designed simply to steer the argument away from the problem. I'll wait for your response. However, dating methods giving accounts of relatively large amounts of 'decayed' elements is a problem which leads into...

Number four. We assume that we can know the starting ratio of elements. No evolution-scientist has bothered to experiment against this idea because they believe they have no reason to assume dating methods are false. Creation-scientists have 'tricked' evolutionists into testing this hypothesis, and therefore we've found problems with excess Argon in 'young' material. This calls into question the entire validity of the dating methods, since it shows we can't arrogantly assume we know what the starting ratio was. And if we don't know what the starting ratio was then we may as well not even bother with dating since starting ratios are a HUGE variable in the equation and it means any age is worthless.

Number five. We assume that decay rates are constant and that there is no natural process that can speed them up or slow them down. Frankly, I'll have to research this one myself a bit more, but its still an issue. Don't get me wrong here, I'm sure that the half-life rates are more or less as accurate as it gets. My argument isn't that half-life rates change on a whim, but that there may be processes that change the rates.

Now, that's the last time (albeit only the second time) I'm going to state my problems with the dating methods. If you have a counter argument, great, but if you claim that I have not stated any potential problems with it then I'm done. Third time is not the charm in this case.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 04/26/06 12:38.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."