The dating game

Nobody's afraid of changed or changing values of constants. Research into the possibility of changing constants is a minor but active part of mainstream science, andmany mainstream scientiss think they have changed. Real scientists just don't bother to fish in dry wells; significant changes in constants and any changes in the last few billion years have been ruled out by observation.

Why? The constants of physics don't reproduce with variation. I'm afraid someone has been lying to you.No-one is "vey afraid of changes of constants".The reason scientists think that constants are constants is that when they measure them, they're constant. Let me know if there's any part of that you don't understand.

Then your memory is as faulty as your arguments.

Isn't this all developed based on a uniformitarian philosophy?I'm sure some admin or mod will say i'm off topic, and to side step the question. GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME A NEW FORUM NAME!like "Evolution Think Tank", or "Evolution Circle Jerk" or perhaps "The Average Person Just Doesn't Grasp The Complexity or Understand The True Logical Behind Our Precious Evolution Fact/Lie" or "Were Obviously the Highest Evolved Unlike Those Niggers."

No. It is based on a uniformitarian assumption that can be (and has been) verified by the usual scientific methods.- This repitition is going to get tedious. Are you a troll? It appears that your main purpose here is to disrupt things.

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

You can either seach for an existing topic on uniformitarian philosophy or start a new one.Instead of whining that nobody will listen to you, involve yourself in a topic.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

As has been noted you seem to have trouble paying attention to the forum guidelines you agreed to.You will not be "stifled" in your criticisms of evolutionary science in the science thread if you can stick to the guidelines. If you don't agree with dating methods then you may say so. In the science threads you are required to back any opinions or assertions up with evidence and reasoning.Continued arbitrary disruption of threads will force us to suspend you for short (and then longer times). Simply discuss in good faith and you can carry on as much as you want.

It's based on science. See Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective, by Dr. Roger C. WiensRadiometric DatingI suggest you bookmark it read the opening sections down as far as your interest holds, and come back to it when you have a question on a specific method.One thing to consider is how tested and validated the different methods are -- extensively -- and the possibilities for wild errors -- small, very very small.Enjoyps -- goading is likely to be self fulfilling.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ok, again with the wording hoopla.
Assumption:
5 a : an assuming that something is true b : a fact or statement (as a proposition, axiom, postulate, or notion) taken for grantedsee:
Philosophy Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Websteruniformitarianism has been verified? Stop the presses! I'd like to see the article on that. You really like saying science. It's like your religious mantra. Because if SCIENCE says it! What science? Science is your god and idol. lolWhat about the ww2 planes in greenland?> Ice core bad for HOE.
WWII airplanes are now beneath thousands of "annual" ice layers (Talk.Origins) - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science : a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore inhabiting caves or hillsYes.How does uniformitarianism not apply to this thread? We are talking about dating, so the fundemental aspect of radiometric dating is based on a religious worldview. Your religiousity scares me.

Another content free post.Please address a prior post per Forum Rule 4:Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.And bear in mind Rule 10:Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.Please limit your remarks to radiometric dating.

Yes, your posts basically are. It will be interesting to see whether you are capable of making an argument based on facts and logic, or whether disposable one-liners are all you have.- Sure has. Every prediction made in geology, evolutionary biology, cosmology and the like is based on the assumption of the laws of physics and natural processes behaving as we understand them. So, tests of geologic, evolutionary, and cosmologic theories are tests of uniformitarianism. And so, every time a prediction is actually observed to be confirmed, the uniformitarian assumption is confirmed.- What about them?

---

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

So by this logic how would you know which ice rings came from what glacier if I were to say mix them up? The argument from talk.orgins proves nothing in fact it makes little rebuttal.Response 1. Is a red herring. The method of dating isn't in question. The fact that airplanes 50 years ago would date to millions of years is the question.Response 2. I agree with the top half. Yes the planes were buried under snow. The fact they only take samples from "stable ice fields" is erroneous, explain to me how antartica isn't an active glacier. And in the last sentence its uniformitarianism all over again. How do they know that it's always been like that? Short answer: they don'tResponse 3. Couldn't be melt layers that would ruin the theory. wait...., they are melt layers! The assumption is that it's summer/winter etc., not hot/cold.

argument ad hominem. STAY ON TOPIC or else molbiochick will FREAK OUT! First, whateva! That's assumptions on assumption on assumptions. I could predict the future of a character if I was writing the book. Means nothing.
Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation.evidence please.

Why you run your mouth-fingers, your also not on topic. MODS HELP! IS SHE A MOD??! THEN WHY IS SHE ACTING LIKE ONE!?I would like to introduce you to a relating topic. HERE

Vashgun,Members wouldn't have to point out the Forum Guidelines if you were abiding by them.Per the Forum Guidelines: Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

​

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.Argue the position, not the person.Clean up your act if you wish to be a welcome addition to this board.Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.

​

Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.Thank you