Re: slightly OT, but still connected


"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Klazmon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns964798649DBFAKlazmonllurdiaxorbgo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Clayton Doyles" <cd@xxxxxx> wrote in
> news:jrdce.888$V01.247@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> >
> > On the other side of the coin, I don't see any evidence that the
> > universe is really billions of years old. We have two schools of
> > thought here that are similar in one way: both ages come from man.
> > Man, through the disciples, wrote The Bible with Divine guidance; and
> > it has also been man who has determined the age of the universe in the
> > billions of years. Are we so sure that radiocarbon and other methods
> > of dating aren't invalid?
>
> Well radiocarbon dating is only good for sixty thousand years or so. It
> has nothing to do with determining the age of the earth. Radiometric
> dating based on long lived isotopes is used for that. As far as being
> valid you would have to come up with a plausible reason why is isn't.

Here's one: can you tell me, in fact, whether or not U235 will continue to
have the same half life it currently does over the next thousand years? Do
you not think some environmental or other factor could possibly affect half
lives? It may in fact seem as perfect as clockwork, but not everything is
as perfect as it may seem.

> Since it is based on physics that is identical in everything from a
> modern nuclear reactor, to the ancient naturally occuring Oklo reactor in
> Gabon, to the radioactive decay of elements in the aftermath of Type Ia
> supernovae explosions detected at vast distances and therefore times in
> the past. There is overwhelming evidence that the earth and the universe
> are billions of years old.

Ok, but only if you accept the fact that there is no possibility of error in
half life calculations or even the half life concept itself. I can't agree
that there isn't a chance that half life can't vary beyond the norm.

Clay
> Klazmon.
>
>
> <SNIP>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats the Problem?
    ... We know that the universe happened. ... Whether we can ever find evidence for it is a different matter. ... includes the specifics of just the right gravity, ... I'd think that would happen only when we have the means to detect life on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: funny creationsist
    ... But there ISN'T any direct evidence - not one single scrap/ Care to ... show me ANYTHING in this universe which just came into existence ... is the supposed effect on other bodies, an effect for which scientists ... Your never having had a supernatural event occur in your life has no ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Big Bang
    ... being sufficed by evidence. ... one of them is out of whack then the picture of life and the universe ... know our universe to be. ... atheism because of their sexual mores. ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: Lets get this straight - Mudbrain is a moron.
    ... Ah, right, you don't depend on evidence, you insist that we depend on ... A universe is born entirely thru natural processes (from previous ... probably many, planets led to life. ... there was no matter to start with - it was all energy. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Lets get this straight
    ... Ah, right, you don't depend on evidence, you insist that we depend on ... Another alternative to Yahweh and also to magical planets is: ... A universe is born entirely thru natural processes (from previous ... probably many, planets led to life. ...
    (talk.origins)