deadman_932
Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006
|
Ah, I see AirHead's use of "range" Pfft. Not that he made himself clear by adding "I do understand that this graph has the appearance of a legitimate age but I am not convinced yet. This is 23 meteorites, true, but how many meteorites have been analyzed?"
I have a subscription to both Nature and Science, AirHead, but I'd rather see you go to a library and look it up yourself. Or buy it. (remember, your money goes to publishing horrible, godless science) While you're there, you can look at the data on lunar rocks and find out if "dates were thrown out."
And you can look at why there are no atomic nuclides around with a half-life less than 80 million years.
C'mon, AirHead, I want to hear you say " there was accellerated decay in the past" and then " but creationists don't invoke miracles."
Do "the heavens declare the glory of God..." (Psalm 19)? Apparently not, since the heavens (according to AirHead) mislead us about the nature and age of God's creation. They appear very old, but are quite young. The heavens "declare the deception of the Creator?" Stars that are created to "look old?" Accellerated decay? For shame, oh ye of little faith.
In the meantime, chew on these for a bit:
Apollo 15 Sample : 15555 (olivine) dates in billions and billions of years
**********************************
Ar-Ar whole rock 3.29 +/- 0.05
Ar-Ar whole rock 3.25 +/- 0.06
Ar-Ar whole rock 3.28 +/- 0.06
Ar-Ar whole rock 3.24 +/- 0.06
Ar-Ar whole rock 3.19 +/- 0.02
Ar-Ar plagioclase 3.27 +/- 0.02
Ar-Ar pyroxene 3.24 +/- 0.09
Rb-Sr 6 isochron 3.23 +/- 0.08
Rb-Sr 6 isochron 3.27 +/- 0.09
Rb-Sr 7 isochron 3.25 +/- 0.04
Neat concordance, eh? Darn those evil scientists. Yet you said whole rock dating was flawed,fatally...oh, noes! I gave you the reference...go see if dates were "thrown out"
--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism
|
