<Yes, the rate of decay is entirely consistent in radiometric dating.>

Do you have any reason, <other> than radiometric dates not being consistent with your preconceived idea of Earth's age, to think radiometric dating would <completely consistently> return the age of one layer a few thousand years old as 70 million years, another as 50 million years, and another as the correct few thousand years? If those layers formed at the same time, tiny changes in the rate of decay would make no difference; in fact, even a sudden 100000-fold increase in the rate of decay would make no difference.

<But you've never given any thought to this? You've never had this hypothesis presented to you?>

The problem is that sometimes we can observe that changes in the earth occur neither gradually nor uniformly. Dramatic changes, for instance, were caused by the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's, and recorded on film. Some of them look like they took millions of years to occur, but we know it was only a matter of days or weeks. And if the earth gets tossed around violently enough, even superposition of rock layers may not be reliable.

So you might as well stick to your guns and proclaim Young Earth. I know we are all supposed to fall down and worship radiometric dating; but in light of all the other sure-fire dating methods that preceded it, I'm not impressed.

<YouRang: It's only a deception if one is forced to accept the premise that God created the universe within just the past 10,000 years. >

I don't think it's a deception even then and feel I've made a good case for that. I have to reiterate my point that believing the witnesses cited in the Bible is my evidence for accepting what the Bible has to say on other issues beyond the historic. It's not like I had an a priori inclination to believe what the Bible says. It stands up to examination. To suggest scientists should give that no weight would be the same as saying scientists should ignore what 100 witnesses said about the death of Abraham Lincoln and should appeal only to whatever issues of science they can distill out.

<whatthefat addressing my point of the consistency of processes besides radiometric dating: Which processes are we talking about?>

My point from March 12: <The decay of the magnetic field, the breakdown of hydrogen into helium, the orbits of comets, etc, are all processes, observable, predictable, and all point to a young earth. >

<Switching: Do you have any reason, <other> than radiometric dates not being consistent with your preconceived idea of Earth's age, to think radiometric dating would <completely consistently> return the age of one layer a few thousand years old as 70 million years, another as 50 million years, and another as the correct few thousand years?>

There have been some obvious examples of false ages produced by radiometric dating. Mt. St. Helen's is the last but there's a bundle of others.

<Switching: Furthermore, if there's no link between era and depth, why are zero per cent of animals still existing deep-downers? >

Google "Living fossils" and you'll find a lot of evidence that your statement is incorrect.

<whatthefat: Impressive find - if only it was always so easy! >

I wish I could find oil like that. I was greatly amused by the story.

<TCE: Do you guys believe in the biblical account of the great flood? Do you guys believe that the Bible is a guide for moral behavior?>

Yes. Yes.

Of course radiometric dating occasionally produces ages far from real. This occurs when a) your equipment malfunctions or wasn't properly prepared (=contained either the parent nuclide or the decay product to begin with) or b) you're measuring something radiometric dating doesn't work with. b) occurs when the decay product is present in the system to begin with, or the system has in fact remained open (so that either the parent nuclide or the decay product could have entered or left the system). a) doesn't apply with so many measurements taken by so many different parties; b) just possibly might (in the specific case of sedimentary layers), but if it did, measurements for any given layer (or any given isotopes) wouldn't be nearly so uniform. There are other cases where it's very hard to see b) applying even with those caveats; I don't see any reason to suspect for example the reliability of uranium->lead dating in zircon.

The "obvious false ages" at Mt. St. Helens, on the other hand, were not reliable at all. <One> group of researchers (who were, incidentally, creatonists) applied <one> dating method to a very small number of samples (in fact, I believe, <one> sample). The one dating method they used (with nothing else to back their results up) was developed for measuring much older ages, and is therefore extremely susceptible to even tiny problems with either a) or b). I'm sure you can see the difference between this and hundreds of researchers applying dozens of (much more appropriately picked) dating methods to thousands of samples.

<whatthefat: Could you please expand on these? I'm not aware of any findings in these fields that contradict the currently accepted age of the Earth.>

Ditto. "Orbits of comets" is particularly interesting. Comets and asteroids (and their orbits) in fact point to plenty of evidence that the Earth (and the universe) aren't young.

For instance, the amount of impact craters on Earth and the rate at which comets and asteroids impact are completely incompatible with a young Earth. (Not to mention the fact that some of the biggest impactors made Noah's flood look like a junior angel's half-hearted attempt at smiting. In other words, people would have noticed if any were around.) And it's not just Earth: every solid Solar System body is much, much more cratered than could be expected if they were young.

1. The ark described in the bible would not have been big enough to hold all the animals plus food enough for six months.

2. There isn't enough water. To flood the earth up over the Himalayas would take five times the amount of water in all the oceans.

3. A global flood as described in the bible would have made the atmosphere so heavy that people would have drowned by breathing air.

There are some places in the Bible that can be used as a guide for moral behavior, but other places that cannot. Here are a few examples.

Deuteronomy 21:21 Should we stone our children to death?

Exodus 21:7 Should we sell our daughter's into slavery?

Exodus 35:2 Should we kill those who work on Sundays?

I've always found this passage amusing.

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

<1. The ark described in the bible would not have been big enough to hold all the animals plus food enough for six months. >

Why do you think that?

<2. There isn't enough water. To flood the earth up over the Himalayas would take five times the amount of water in all the oceans. >

The mountains rose after the flood. There is a great deal of water in the earth's mantle. A recent discovery found that a reservoir at least as large as the Arctic Ocean is under Asia.

<3. A global flood as described in the bible would have made the atmosphere so heavy that people would have drowned by breathing air. >

What makes you think that?

<There are some places in the Bible that can be used as a guide for moral behavior, but other places that cannot. Here are a few examples.

Deuteronomy 21:21 Should we stone our children to death?>

No, but if you were a person answerable to Deut. 21:21, you should.

<Exodus 21:7 Should we sell our daughter's into slavery? >

No, but if you were answerable to Ex. 21:7, you could.

<Exodus 35:2 Should we kill those who work on Sundays?

I've always found this passage amusing. >

No, but if you were answerable to Ex. 35:2, you should.

<1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Is Jesus himself not commonly portrayed as having long hair? Is it not nature that gives men long hair?>

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> Why do you think that?>

Because it's true. Think about it.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> The mountains rose after the flood.>

Why do you think that? Do you not accept that mountains are formed when continents collide? Does the Bible not say that the flood waters rose up over the highest mountains?

Genisis 7: 18-19 The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. 19 They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

According to the Bible mountains were present long before the great flood.

<<<<<TCE>>>>3. A global flood as described in the bible would have made the atmosphere so heavy that people would have drowned by breathing air.>

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> What makes you think that?>

Science knows that this is true. Too much water would have evaporated into the atmosphere.

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> No, but if you were a person answerable to Deut. 21:21, you should.

No, but if you were answerable to Ex. 21:7, you could.

No, but if you were answerable to Ex. 35:2, you should.>

I don't understand these answers. Are the passages of the bible only relevant if we wish to be "answerable" to the authors?

1 Corinthians 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

<<<<<TCE>>>>Is Jesus himself not commonly portrayed as having long hair? Is it not nature that gives men long hair?>

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>>Yes. If men don't cut their hair, then they will eventually have long hair because of the natural process of hair growth.>

<I don't think it's a deception even then and feel I've made a good case for that. I have to reiterate my point that believing the witnesses cited in the Bible is my evidence for accepting what the Bible has to say on other issues beyond the historic.>

My issue with you has never been about what *you* choose to believe based on your faith in the Bible. My issue is that you expect science to also believe what you choose to believe based on your faith in the Bible. They don't, and thus you have accused the majority of scientists of being liars. I think this is a false accusation.

Scientists cannot come to conclusions based on the writings of ancient witnesses. I'm sure you are aware that there are all sorts of myths and legends among ancient writings, and they are all useless for the purposes of science.

<To suggest scientists should give that no weight would be the same as saying scientists should ignore what 100 witnesses said about the death of Abraham Lincoln and should appeal only to whatever issues of science they can distill out.>

In one case, you have Moses writing a simplistic explanation (subject to interpretation) for the creation of the unfathomably complex universe which happened long before he was born and doesn't agree with independent scientific observation.

In the other case, you have 100 independent witnesses who actually saw an event, whose testimony agrees among themselves and with the observed facts of a dead president with a fatal bullet wound and an identified assassin.

Per the flood, yes, there were mountains before the flood but they rose even higher after the flood.

Per the atmosphere, I guess <Science knows that this is true> doesn't persuade me. What I suspect it means is "I read this on an anti-Christian website and copy/pasted it over here." A lot of water would make the earth uninhabitable?

<<<<<TCE>>>>Is Jesus himself not commonly portrayed as having long hair? Is it not nature that gives men long hair?>

<<<<<OhioChessFan>>>>Yes. If men don't cut their hair, then they will eventually have long hair because of the natural process of hair growth.>

<TCE: That doesn't really answer the question. Is it a shame or not? How does nature teach us that it is a shame?>