Some species do. Some don’t. Some are more reliable indicators than others.
2 Likes
You will not find evidence. No the earth would not be pulled apart. Think of it this way. Any supposed annihilating forces that might be expected if this were happening in 4D spacetime have been “mitigated” and “absorbed” in the 5th dimension of time.
Is the existence of people who disagree somehow proof that God wasn’t clear? Do you think God’s word is dependent upon people agreeing about it? Do you think people always agree with God if he is clear about something? (Hint: we can look back to Adam, Eve and the serpent to get an answer to this).
Did PDPrice ever come up with his YEC explanation for why the tree ring data so closely agrees with the lake varve data which agrees with the ice core data which agrees with the speleothem data which agrees with the ocean sediment core data which agrees with the coral growth band data? Or is the consilience of all that independent evidence still sitting like a big fat elephant in the middle of the room? 
3 Likes
Why not? If there was sudden expansion then shouldn’t we see it in the redshift of distant stars and galaxies?
If there was massive and sudden expansion of space, yes the Earth would be pulled apart.
That’s a bare assertion.
1 Like
No, Hartnett is way ahead of you here. You would see normal redshifted galaxies as per his Eq (15)
Well, you do not understand the physics of a line metric, so no, you are incorrect.
See answer above.
Then the old Earth interpretation of decay rates is the only interpretation that stands, it would seem.
Next, let’s move to basic chemistry. When zircons form the exclude Pb but include U. This is due to the basic charges and chemistry of zircon formation. In order for zircons to include Pb to any degree in the past we would need to change the most basic laws of chemistry to the point that the most basic chemistry of life and geology impossible.
What is the YEC interpretation of U inclusion and Pb exclusion in zircon formation? What evidence do they have that would allow us to get any significant Pb into zircons during their formation. and do so in a way that would balance the Pb isotopes with U isotopes with respect to the decay of different U isotopes (i.e. concordia/discordia)?
3 Likes
You need to read a basic dendrochronology text. Nobody claims that every growing season is of the same duration, as in a “uniform” clock tick. You are confusing the existence of a tree ring with the variety of characteristics of that tree ring. For example, a tree ring can be quite “small” in terms of growth during a colder and dryer year but very “large” as it grew during a warmer and wetter year, for example. That doesn’t invalidate its significance as a valid “clock tick.”
I assume you will be tempted to cite a YEC source which describes atypical situations where a tree will produce more than one ring in a year. An extra ring (known as a “false ring”) can be produced during a drought that arises midway through a growing season. Dendrochronologists are not unaware of this and it is all documented in the peer-reviewed literature. Indeed, scientists know which species may be prone to this phenomenon. In no way does it invalidate the “clock tick.”
Please do your homework before telling scientists they’ve got all of this wrong. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is very real and we must all be wary of it.
2 Likes
No, it doesn’t “stand”. It’s a self-serving and cherry-picked body of evidence which is selectively applied only where it suits the paradigm.
I don’t think Humphreys had a problem with the atomics of the zircon, he merely challenged the helium diffusion I believe. What are you implying?
You’re projecting again PD. Do we need to remind you again of all the evidence you’re dodged in your YEC apologetic “science”?
But it actually does. Now we know that rings can be false, and a new layer of subjective interpretation is introduced into the mix. It’s always the same basic story: hubris. Hubris to assume we can figure everything out apart from God. God’s word is the starting point, and we can learn more as we branch out from there.
Where are the observations of a wildly changing decay rate for the isotopes used for radiometric dating?
1 Like
I totally agree. If something I wrote appeared to say otherwise, then I failed to communicate clearly. My point was that scientists understand these differences and know how to regard the characteristics of different species and they aren’t fooled by things like “false rings.”
2 Likes
The real hubris is claiming over 200 years of scientific evidence and millions of professional science researchers are all wrong because some scientifically untrained internet YEC doesn’t like the findings.
1 Like
This is actually funny. The “wildly changing decay rates” occur when it suits your paradigm. You are the ones changing the dates.
Examples?
2 Likes
You are as much entertainment to us!!
Really? Did you read the article that Price supplied? You all change dates literally all the time and I think you know it.
1 Like
Yes and no. Technically it’s not the decay rates they’ll throw out, it’s any number of the many other assumptions involved. The point is the same regardless: radiometric results are always cherry picked to fit the paradigm.