• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Original Ratios at Creation and Radioactive Decay dating

Status
Not open for further replies.

dad

Undefeated
Once again you are incapable of providing evidence to support your own claims. All you can provide is feeble attempts to badmouth science, and no one is falling for it.

Provide evidence to support your own claims or admit you have nothing.
Spam and blather.
 

dad

Undefeated
As opposed to your posts which are full of supporting evidence for your position and rational claims...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
It is easy to post mistaken nonsense from the la la land of so called science. Yoo can't defend your religion. Hahaha
 

dad

Undefeated
You know, for someone who accuses others of spamming, it's a good thing you never do it, isn't it...?
Posting science articles and asking for reasoned discussion is not spam. The criminally insane off topic spam of some posters is spam.
 

leroy

Well-Known Member
Good luck. He's been told all this before, and he just claims that whatever changed the way one method works changed all the others as well in just the right way to make it all look like an old earth. Appeal to coincidence is all he has.
Yes, it’s a coincidence, it’s the anthropic principle, “if we wouldn’t be living in a world where isotopes show an “old earth” we wouldn’t be wondering about them”

You see, we live in a multiverse all showing different rations (and different ages) of isotopes……….we happen to live in a universe where the ratios show a 4.6Byo earth (despite the earth being 6,000 old)……. Given that there are probably potentially infinite universes (and potentially infinite earths) there is a warranty that some of these universes would be 6,000yo despite them showing an ratio of isotopes that seems to show a 4.6Byo age.

Most universes have an age consistent to what the isotopes show, but we simply happened to live in a universe where this is not the case simply by chance.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Posting science articles and asking for reasoned discussion is not spam. The criminally insane off topic spam of some posters is spam.

I agree, that is not spam.

What is spam is when people show you the science that proves you are wrong and you dismiss it by saying science is a religion and you have an old story that says otherwise, and that somehow makes your old story more reliable than testable science.

You aren't fooling anyone.
 

dad

Undefeated
I agree, that is not spam.

What is spam is when people show you the science that proves you are wrong and you dismiss it by saying science is a religion and you have an old story that says otherwise, and that somehow makes your old story more reliable than testable science.

You aren't fooling anyone.
More spam.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Radioactive decay. Can you prove that the current laws/nature existed on earth long ago so that any decay would be occurring?
You have already had your *** handed to you by other members on that point.
In fact, post #2 completely destroyed your creation.com talk point.
 

dad

Undefeated
The physics of atoms suggests that the atomic decay rate does not vary with the time period in which the material is decaying but only with the mass of the material that is in close proximity. The decay rate is a measurement. Of course if this were not true everyone would be interested. Everyone. Would. Be. Interested. They are not, because there is currently little or no reason to think that the rate varies over time other than by the size of the clump. Since there is no reason to think so, there is no hypothesis to be made or reason to waste time arguing about it.
Hard to believe you could be so genuinely clueless as to think that post 2 even relates to the question. Gong! The issue is not whether rates of decay were slower or faster but whether any decay at all existed. We would need a nature the same as today for that. Proof?
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Spam somewhere else, defeated one.

HA! You haven't come close to defeating my arguments. If you disagree, I say we put it to a vote. Or are you afraid of having people tell you what they really think about your DSP arguments?
 

dad

Undefeated
HA! You haven't come close to defeating my arguments. If you disagree, I say we put it to a vote. Or are you afraid of having people tell you what they really think about your DSP arguments?
Boring spam, defeated one. Try defending your religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top