Can science prove how old the earth was?

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i have some material from NASA on my hard drive, some from the "pioneer" missions.
i was perusing one of those PDFs and ran across something interesting regarding this.
could this fluctuation in decay rates be cause by "magnetic scattering effects"?
from the pioneer PDF i mentioned it showed that sunspots emit both a "fast" stream and a "slow" stream. where these two streams intersect there is a magnetic scattering region.
i will get back with the name of the publication.

edit:
"pioneer odyssey"
NASA sp-349
page 96 is a graphic that explains what i'm talking about.
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=pioneer odyssey AND mediatype:texts

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

go away james, you bore me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And in DNA, and in embryo development. Quadruple confirmation.

 

Of course they could. In chaotic systems rotational momentum is conserved only at the macro level, not at the micro level. Examples from the natural world abound. (tornadoes, hurricanes, whirlpools etc.)

[/QUOTE]

 

Those are my words setting down with clarity the words that you clearly imply with your own words. To remind you, this is what you said:
"the theory itself seems valid, but you must admit that it is an indirect method.
you will also have to admit that scientists are not immune to fraud."

The use of the word "also" solidly links your reservations about the method to the practice of fraud by scientists. It clearly implies a strong belief that fraud may well have been involved in the determination of geological dates.

If you did not intend to imply that, then there was absolutely no reason to write the sentence "you will also have to admit that scientists are not immune to fraud." You might as well have written "Beach sand comes in a variety of sizes, I think you will agree."

But your sentence is clearly linked to the method of dating and the implication is clear cut: scientists have fraudulently calculated false dates for the age of the Earth.

So, Leopold, what exactly is going on here?
a) You wrote an irrelevant sentence because you are incapable of coherent thought.
b) You wrote an irrelevant sentence beacuse you are thick.
c) You wrote a relevant sentence to attempt to undermine a casual reader's confidence in the dating methods.
d) You wrote a relevant sentence because you think scientists are fraudulently calculating dates

Which of these is it Leopold? Or if there is another explanation please be so good to give it now - directly, without innuendo or obfuscation, which are your normal tools.

 

you left the question i asked you out of the quoted post.
answer mine, i'll answer yours.
simple as that.

 

And you couldn't go to the bother of repeating the question? I took time to locate and duplicate what I thought to be the important parts of your message, but you couldn't be bothered to take the time to repeat the quesiton to which you wish to have an answer?

I'm not sure whether that is rude or dumb, or perhaps both.

Here is the post you are refering to:

Please identify for me what question of yours it is that I am not answering?

 

To clarify - you did not ask me a question in the quoted post. My question remains:
what exactly is going on here?
a) You wrote an irrelevant sentence because you are incapable of coherent thought.
b) You wrote an irrelevant sentence beacuse you are thick.
c) You wrote a relevant sentence to attempt to undermine a casual reader's confidence in the dating methods.
d) You wrote a relevant sentence because you think scientists are fraudulently calculating dates

Which of these is it Leopold? Or if there is another explanation please be so good to give it now - directly, without innuendo or obfuscation, which are your normal tools.

Once again you have avoided answering a direct question. This is intellectually dishonest. That is what you have been accused of. That is a charge you are refusing to answer and in so doing are simply providing further evidence of your dishonesty.

Edited addition:
And perhaps you can, at the same time, explain what happened to this post of yours:

 

in post 127 you quoted a post of mine.
you answered what you wanted to and edited out the question i asked you.

 

Again, what question of yours to me did I leave out. I have now quoted the entire post from which I took the extract. Please point me to the question you want answered, but also note that -as is clear from the entire quote - you asked no question of me.

 

to clarify - i did ask you a question in that post.

see my earlier response to this.

 

Listen - you are being deliberately obtuse and indirect. That is, put very simply, pure intellectual dishonesty. All you had to do was to repeat the question, or to direct me to the post you were referring to. Instead you mount this three ring circus of obfuscation. I now see you were talking about a more recent post on the matter, not my original quotation of your words from your response to JamesR.

I mean really fellow, get a grip. would it have been so difficult to make your intent clear form the outset. Apparently it was.

The quesiton you asked was something to the effect, did I think scientists were never guilty of fraud. Obviously scientists can be, have been and will be guilty of fraud. That is not what is implicit in your posts. The concrete tying of your reservations about the dating process with an observation about scientific fraud are absolutely suggesting that thousands of scientists are conspiring to fraudulently misrepresent the age of the Earth.

I have now answered your question. You answer mine:
what exactly is going on here?
a) You wrote an irrelevant sentence because you are incapable of coherent thought.
b) You wrote an irrelevant sentence beacuse you are thick.
c) You wrote a relevant sentence to attempt to undermine a casual reader's confidence in the dating methods.
d) You wrote a relevant sentence because you think scientists are fraudulently calculating dates

Which of these is it Leopold? Or if there is another explanation please be so good to give it now - directly, without innuendo or obfuscation, which are your normal tools.

PS - a personal message detailing exactly what I think of your snide behaviour in this thread will be on its way to you shortly. Feel free to share it with your solicitor.

 

Send me your address. I'll send you a dictionary. You can look up the meaning of "to clarify".

 

you ain't nothing but an anti science, creationist, religious bigot for EVER implying scientists are fraudulant.
your anti science views are bullshit.
why, i never in my life EVER heard of such nonsense as fraud in science.
fucking anti science bigot.

you just stated above that fraud is not unheard of in science.
is there ANY reason it should magically disappear in this area?

see your statement about fraud in science above

okay

 

Do you understand that I have agreed to the following: there have been instances of fraud on the part of a handful of scientists. You will note that this fraud has been uncovered by other scientists. There is a message there. I'll spell it out for you:-

A very small number of scientists commit fraud, but the scientific method leads to its exposure.

You are proposing that all scientists engaged directly or indirectly in the dating process are practicing fraud. This is either dumb or dishonest. I am still waiting for a direct answer from you. Which are you, dumb or dishonest? Or both?

Edit:

Your reading comprehension needs work. I did not imply that scientists are fraudulent, I agreed by direct statement that some scientists are fraudulent.

 

This is complete and utter intellectual dishonesty. The above trite crap is the refuge of someone who clearly knows that they do not have a leg to stand on. You are wrong, you know you are wrong, so you obfuscate to avoid having to admit that you are wrong - how embarrassing for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The retrograde moons will have been picked up from the asteroid belt. Depending on whether they were in an initial solar orbit outside or inside the relevant gas giant they will have clockwise or anti-clockwise orbits.