forastero
Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011
|
| Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 14 2011,21:20) | JonF whips out some maths and some of us are left to stir our toes in the dirt. (Hope he doesn't call on me.)
But now forastero-Kong has some shiny new tools with which to approach these questions:
1) 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 of the age of the earth 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?
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%, so you've a long way to go.
2) 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?
Does Elvis leave buildings? |
This uniformitarianism mindset also makes you believe that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
So called millions of years of sedimentary and magma mixing, flooding, erosion, and uplift, yet no contamination in the rocks? Nah, just more more radiomagic formula waving from crony academicism.
|
