Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,044 Year: 5,301/9,624 Month: 326/323 Week: 170/160 Day: 6/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Starlight and Time---question that must be answered
edge
Member (Idle past 1812 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 5 of 84 (3122)
01-30-2002 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John Paul
01-30-2002 4:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
You remove distant starlight from the 'age' speculation game and all you have is radiometric dating. Then all you have formulas based upon meteorites, which would have been subjected to the differing clocking/ general relativity processes. Add to that the fact that we have observed a billion fold increase in decay rates under certain conditions and you have more than enough for the objective person to be skeptical of that technique.
How long have these conditions existed on earth, JP?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:19 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:32 PM edge has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1812 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 18 of 84 (3201)
01-31-2002 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by John Paul
01-30-2002 4:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
As far as I know, the conditions just had to have existed while the Earth was being Created.
"Just HAD to," eh? Hmm, that's pretty compelling logic. What can I say?...
So, after the earth was created you don't think these conditions existed. That means the decay rates have been constant since the creation of the earth and, ergo, radiometric methods are valid on this point.
Somewhere else you said that the change of decay rates was observed. Do you have reference on this? Who observed the change?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John Paul, posted 01-30-2002 4:32 PM John Paul has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1812 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 84 (3202)
01-31-2002 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by John Paul
01-31-2002 9:17 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
John Paul:
Tatsumoto, M., Unrch, D., and Desborough, G., "U-Th-Pb and Rb-Sr Systematics of Allede and U-Th-Pb systematics of Orgueil," Geomechanica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol 40, 1976, pp. 616-634
A 10 billion y Earth would cause a re-write of most, in not all, of what 'main-stream science' holds as true about the universe.

JP, can you give us a quote from this article where the authors suggest a major problem with the estimated age of the earth? I don't believe that they just let it drop without an explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by John Paul, posted 01-31-2002 9:17 AM John Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024