Lui did.Don’t remember linking any videos. Big fan of evidence though, post all you want, start with a few peer reviewed articles from top journals giving the case for YEC, technical as you like (not ID though due to the ban).
They were right after all.Keep in mind something.
Thanks for that, a good piece of research.
Consider this - radioactive decay has only been known about for what, 60 years or so. To project back so far and extrapolate is quite a stretch, don’t you think? As I posted, let’s wait and see what develops.
Keep in mind that I only said that my beliefs are equally strong. Based on your argumentation believing in God would make no sense because there is much less factual evidence that he exists than there is evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
The RATE group were trashed because they used bad science. Deliberately picking xenocrysts to date a lava flow is appallingly bad science, and the RATE group was rightly excoriated for it.Lui did.
Now the RATE groups claim was radioactive decay was not constant. Of course they were trashed by the old earth establishment. And now what do we see?
SN 1987A is over 150,000 light years away. We have measured decay rates in its light from 150,000 years ago. Similar work has been done on other astronomical objects.
There is a limit on the length of posts, so here is a link: Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective.
Any bad science on either side should be challenged. As I ponder this, maybe it is a good thing. Both sides are “purifying” themselves.
Doesn’t this process assume there is only one point in time when the isotopes (both radioactive and decayed) are intoduced as well as only one way these items can appear?
Bingo! - the other assumption is how much was there to begin with. How to solve? Well there must have been enough to come out to 4+ billion years.
No. Read the article. If there are later introductions into the rock then results are inconsistent and the inconsistency can be detected. For example, you will get two isochrons, rather than just one.
Bottomline - RATE used deceptive measures and were caught red-handed.
Buffalo, you really should stop calling everything you don’t know the answer to an assumption. You don’t know the answer, but that’s because you don’t have the years of education necessary to understand, nor, from what I can tell, have you tried to find it. For what reason do you conclude that how much there is to begin with is an assumption?Bingo! - the other assumption is how much was there to begin with. How to solve? Well there must have been enough to come out to 4+ billion years.
You have to consider that Buffalo considers his ideology IDvolution as the absolute TRUTH. Evolution is only a vague theory but his theories are all FACTS. All leading scientists who believe in the theory of evolution are all quacks who know nothing and all people who believe in evolution are apostles of scientism…correct me if I’m wrong
Can’t resist the Ad Hominems can you?You have to consider that Buffalo considers his ideology IDvolution as the absolute TRUTH. Evolution is only a vague theory but his theories are all FACTS. All leading scientists who believe in the theory of evolution are all quacks who know nothing and all people who believe in evolution are apostles of scientism…correct me if I’m wrong
I just got that impression a couple of times but I apologize for being sarcastic which was unnecessary.Can’t resist the Ad Hominems can you?
Put your facts on the table and we can debate, otherwise just lurk and learn.
