OgreMkV
Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
|
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 13 2011,00:49) | | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 12 2011,21:41) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 12 2011,21:44) | | Again, No because its only a "part" of the reason that your dating is way off. |
("Again?" LOL!)
So, it is NOT your belief that "accumulative" errors in radiometric dating techniques are sufficient to account for a finding for the age of the earth that is 227,000x that of your wishful fiction.
Stated another way, you concede that, even given worst case inaccuracy, the radiometric evidence continues to indicate that the earth is significantly older than your wishful fiction of 20,000 years.
You don't credit that evidence "because its only a 'part' of the reason that your dating is way off." But stay with the radiometric data another moment.
Given your concession that the errors you cite in radiometric dating of the age of the earth do NOT account for the entirety of the 227,000 to 1 ratio of the scientific estimate versus your wishful fiction, what percentage of error DO you allege?
Do errors in radiometric dating result in an overstatement of the age of the earth by 1%, in which case the earth is actually 4.49 billion years old? By 10%, indicating an earth of 4.08 billion years? By 50%, giving 2.27 billion years, more than 110,000x your Biblically derived age? By 90 percent, indicating an earth that is 22,700x older than your wishful fiction?
If corrected dating techniques were to indicate that the earth is 22,700x more ancient than your Biblically motivated surmise, would you conclude that the radiometric evidence supports your Biblical view of the age of the earth?
Whichever number you arrive at, please justify it in terms of the literature you cite. To date the most generous estimate of possible error is 1/2 of 1%.
| Quote | | Btw, being obtuse is just another hand waving excuse to not put up your intellectual dukes |
I posed this question nine times over two solid days before you muttered your response. Enough said.
ETA: a more accurate quote. |
I think think the scientist plum lie a lot, including to themselves just like many of you
The decay rate topic didnt even come up until November 7th and I answered you the very next morning so you are believing your own faulty hype.
Btw, it came up after Ogre insisted that there was no evidence for fluctuating decay rates. Then when I proved the evidence, he suddenly claimed to have known about it all along, which is just lack of integrity |
Quote me, liar.
--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.
http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat
|
