- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:0Z_Pqj7nQYEJ:www.maranathamedia.com.au/Download/Books/RADIO_DATING.pdf
yes deej, it reset seven independant chronometers to give an age within 100 million years of each other (~2% ). Yeah, right.
Couldn't happen. I need a PEER REVIEWED work of SCIENCE from a REPUTABLE JOURNAL from you to back this up. I can happily provide you with details for science search engines (although Google scholar should suffice, really).
I can send you a PDF if you like. 😀
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZI think you might want to read this one:
Here is the reference dj should have posted:
http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html
It's interesting that the data is within the last 325 years (and has numerous points excluded as they 'don't fit the data' ) and is then extrapolated backwards 6000 'calender years'.
Basically what they've done is claimed that 6000 calender years ago the speed of ligh ...[text shortened]... years worth of data and extrapolating it backwards 6000 years. You can't do that.
http://www.ldolphin.org/bowden.html
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou misunderstand, deduction is not the property of any one person (though I worry that you think atheists hold it dear as if theists do not...) my castigation of dj was based solely on his appalling use of it, not on his religion.
[b]Where are you getting this from? I never did anything of the sort, I suggest you take a crash course in beligerent[sic] sarcasm.
Page five of this here thread, post two and post ten. First, you castigate someone for displaying (what you determine to be) un-Christian-like behavior.
In post ten, you assert their "temerity" for venturing i ...[text shortened]... it is not because they cannot, it is because they will not.[/b]
And vice versa, to be sure.[/b]
No double standard.
And the post you quoted was purely sarcastic, as I'm sure dj knows,and not intended to be serious at all.
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSee this is what I don't get about you. You're the one who brought the topic up in the first place and now that we're at the point where you can either say 'okay, I get you' or can discuss the issue further, you just chuck in a 'whatever'. Now either you're just being churlish or you're a bad loser, which is it?
It was a nice way of saying, "Whatever."
Or perhaps it's just that you cannot abide settling an issue with an atheist, please tell me you're not that small.
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarrmanI don't really get you, although I don't think it has anything to do with being either churlish, a bad loser, or overly small.
See this is what I don't get about you. You're the one who brought the topic up in the first place and now that we're at the point where you can either say 'okay, I get you' or can discuss the issue further, you just chuck in a 'whatever'. Now either you're just being churlish or you're a bad loser, which is it?
Or perhaps it's just that you cannot abide settling an issue with an atheist, please tell me you're not that small.
I did not read sarcasm in your posts, so I must have read into what you were saying otherwise. If I was wrong, I was wrong. Because I don't see it that way, and because the point is rather insignificant, I don't see the use in arguing it further. Thus my "Hmmm." If it makes you feel better, I retract the accusation of a double standard (but reserve the right to assert it again, should the need arise).
28 Mar 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNow that's so much better than an hmmm. I will have to be on my guard so as not to double my standardsin the future 🙂
I don't really get you, although I don't think it has anything to do with being either churlish, a bad loser, or overly small.
I did not read sarcasm in your posts, so I must have read into what you were saying otherwise. If I was wrong, I was wrong. Because I don't see it that way, and because the point is rather insignificant, I don't see the use in ...[text shortened]... on of a double standard (but reserve the right to assert it again, should the need arise).
28 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerConsidering the claim is made that C is slower now by about 2% or so, just how do you think the speed of light was even KNOWN within 2% 300 years ago? And considering the fact that C is now measured to within parts per million, unless magically C has stabalized now, there have been no changes on the order that would suggest even a 2 % differance possible 300 years ago. I mean if present measurments show C to be exactly the same ten years ago as it is now, then going into the past, mathematically it would be impossible to see that much change in that short a time, 300 years.
I think you might want to read this one:
http://www.ldolphin.org/bowden.html
28 Mar 06
3 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo. It's gibberish, like something they'd have Scotty say on Star Trek. Neutrinos don't have anything to do with decay rates of radioactive isotopes though some can be emitted by the beta decays in the chains of certain isotopes. They are a result, not a cause.
Does 'anisotropic neutrino flux' ring a bell?
EDIT: "Anisotropic" means "the property of being directionally dependent". How an elementary particle like the neutrino could be "directionally dependent" is a mystery to me. I suppose it's another "Goddunnit".
28 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerNot Peer reviewed - or from a Journal. My question wasn't an "either from peer reviewed OR from a reputable journal", it was an AND. Feel free to try again.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:0Z_Pqj7nQYEJ:www.maranathamedia.com.au/Download/Books/RADIO_DATING.pdf
I can send you a PDF if you like. 😀