Radioactive Half-life measurement

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I seem to remember you saying this in the past and completely failing to come up with any kind of proof.

Strange that recorded History is never sufficient proof for anything.

Yet you are so quick to fall for anything that supposedly happened 5 billion years ago.[/b]

We'll start with every Greek mathmatician and philosopher and all the Muslim mathmaticians (to whom we owe the zero).

The founders of math, the basis for almost all science?

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
We'll start with every Greek mathmatician and philosopher and all the Muslim mathmaticians (to whom we owe the zero).

The founders of math, the basis for almost all science?

1+1= lightbulb?
2+2= antibiotics?

Originally posted by dj2becker
1+1= lightbulb?
2+2= antibiotics?

lightbulbs and antibiotics are products of science not science itself, just as mathematics is the foundation of much of science not the science itself

Originally posted by dj2becker
Strange that recorded History is never sufficient proof for anything.

Yet you are so quick to fall for anything that supposedly happened 5 billion years ago.

Sadly you left your statement open enough to backtrack and reinterpret it after being proved wrong. The word developed is so vague, please give a more explicit statement.
All branches of science have been "developed" by nearly every major religion on the planet.

Originally posted by twhitehead
lightbulbs and antibiotics are products of science not science itself, just as mathematics is the foundation of much of science not the science itself

Huh?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I don't have a problem with Science my dear man.

You are the one that seems to have forgotten the roots of Science.

You also seem to have forgotten that almost every major branch of science was developed by a Bible believing Christian.

You also seem to forget that the University where you got your Phd was also started because of Christianity.

Yes, and my Mum and Grandparents are religious. Doesn't mean I have to fall into those traps too. Never heard about learning from the mistakes of others?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Based on the presupposition that matter has existed for 4.5 billion years, of course...

No, other way about.

if the current laws of physics hold true, and there is copious evidence that they have, then the planet MUST have been around for 4.5 Ga. If they had changed there would have been evidence - or a deceitful god.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]I seem to remember you saying this in the past and completely failing to come up with any kind of proof.

Strange that recorded History is never sufficient proof for anything.

Yet you are so quick to fall for anything that supposedly happened 5 billion years ago.[/b]

What recorded history???

Recorded history is wrong all the time - ever heard of bias?

Using your brain to work things out using logic and the simplest of physical descriptions of the world has to be a better way.

Even ol' Lord Kelvin realised the world had to be at least 27 million years old or so - it just couldn't cool down quickly enough otherwise.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What recorded history???

Recorded history is wrong all the time - ever heard of bias?

Using your brain to work things out using logic and the simplest of physical descriptions of the world has to be a better way.

Even ol' Lord Kelvin realised the world had to be at least 27 million years old or so - it just couldn't cool down quickly enough otherwise.

He also said that if another source of heat was found his estimate would be too low. Rutherford discovered radioactivity a few decades later.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
He also said that if another source of heat was found his estimate would be too low. Rutherford discovered radioactivity a few decades later.

Indeed, absolutely.

Don't worry Xanthos - everyone else may think you a bigot, but I knows you're a good guy really, Bro.

[edit; wasn't it Henri Bacquerel that discovered radioactivity though??]

Originally posted by dj2becker
I don't have a problem with Science my dear man.

You are the one that seems to have forgotten the roots of Science.

You also seem to have forgotten that almost every major branch of science was developed by a Bible believing Christian.

You also seem to forget that the University where you got your Phd was also started because of Christianity.

Well lets see about that. Astronomy, theres a nice science. Lets see, what happened when Galileo tried to tell the clergy about other planets, other moons?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Always as in the last 50 years, and 4.5 billion years. If this were not the case, that
would require a change in the fundamentals of physics. If you want to assert that
physics changed such that essential forces within it acted in completely different ways,
that's your prerogative, but you must recognize that such an opinion is highly absurd
and, certainly, has no basis being taught in school.

Nemesio

Of course not, thats not what he and his ilk are after. They will be satisfied with nothing less than the Iranization of the worlds' educational system. You know, the part where the religion IS the state?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Indeed, absolutely.

Don't worry Xanthos - everyone else may think you a bigot, but I knows you're a good guy really, Bro.

[edit; wasn't it Henri Bacquerel that discovered radioactivity though??]

You may be right, Rutherford presented (to an audience including Lord Kelvin himself) that destructive radiation could mean an older earth in 1904. That's why I mentioned him.

Originally posted by dj2becker
1+1= lightbulb?
2+2= antibiotics?

That is the dumbest thing you have said yet and you have said some amazingly dumb things. Don't you understand even a little bit what Xanth was saying? Without maths what lightbulb? What antibiotic?
Math would be confined to counting how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
deej. You, sir, are an idiot.

I have explined this many times. There are a huge number of websites that you have been directed to that explain this. You just refuse to switch your brain on, don't you?

deej, your lot always expound the fact that few evolutionary biologists are willing to debate with creationists; now I see why. You lot don't sti ...[text shortened]... es. Maybe if you spout off long enough the moon will become comprised of green cheese too.

No radioactive dating method has ever scientifically proved that the earth or the moon are more than 6,000 years old. Radiometric years are not the same as calendar years and all radiometric “dates” are entirely dependent on the assumptions used. If, despite the existence of the global fossil record that could have been produced only by a global flood, you merely assume that no global flood happened, you will get billion-year radiometric “dates” as a result. If you conclude from the scientific evidence that a global flood did happen, you will get only thousand-year radiometric “dates” as a result. Radiometric “dates” are only as good as your assumptions. They do not constitute scientific evidence for the universe being supposedly billions of years old.

http://www.sloppynoodle.com/csotalk2-6.shtml