Originally Posted by Russ
While it is true that I disagree with young-Earth-creationists on the age of the universe, I don't believe the universe is over 13 billion years old. I stated that I do not know how old the universe is.
Since you don't know, and we can see galaxies that are 13 billion light years away, the common sense conclusion is that the universe is at least 13 billion years old.

Quote
Quote
I guess that since we agree on the age of the universe and the Earth, you no longer need to debate with me on this topic. Thanks for your participation.

I have noticed that no one who believes that God created the entire universe only 6000 years ago, has bothered to show up here. It's only been a short while though. Maybe they are just putting together their detailed response to refute the conclusion that the Earth and universe are eons old.


Again, you are building misinformation upon assumption, a tactic so very common when studying evolution-related beliefs.

What assumption is that? My assumption that someone will actually show up and try to refute my initial statement with something akin to evidence? Perhaps you need to be a little more detailed in your criticism of my post.

Quote
This is not intellectually honest, and because this subject is so important, we should do our best to maintain integrity in our information.
Which part of my "information" lacks integrity? Please be detailed in your criticism. Otherwise I would have to conclude that you are just spouting off generalized bull... in order to satisfy the rah-rah faithful on this board.

Quote
Quote
Technology like the measurement of radioactive isotope ratios.


That's right. These measurements have recently been shown to have fundamental issues. The ratios have been distorted because of preexisting assumptions about decay rates.

For example, some isotopes are assumed to decay over millions of years following an exponential curve, yet, we have only been able to observe these curves for 70 or 80 years, so we've only been able to actually measure a very tiny portion of the curve while assuming (predicting) what the rest of the curve will look like.
Your response indicates that you understand very little about radioactive decay.
Radioactive decay is based on observation, certainly. However, this observation has never been shown to be in error regardless of the decay rate. Therefore the radioactive decay law: N(t)=N(0)*e^(-L*t) is shown to apply to all radioactive elements and is only affected by the radioactive decay constant, "L", for that particular element.

The only way to change it is to change the decay constant which changes the rate at which the decay would occur. Even if the decay rate changed, the exponential curve would still be the result. It would just be more steep in the beginning.

Are you suggesting that the decay rates of all radioactive elements were much higher in the past?

Quote
This is perfect example of a vast assumption, and this assumption is used as the basis for other conclusions, such as the age of the Earth.

These types of assumptions are the reason that 25 years ago, science thought the Earth was several hundred million years old. Now, 25 years later, science claims it is 6 billion years old.
Show me a quote from a geologist in 1984 that said the Earth is only several hundred million years old. The first estimated age of the Earth was adequately supported by radiometric data occurred in 1953. That age was 4.55 billion years.

Today, creationism suffers from an epidemic of nonsensical assumption assumed as truth.


Quote
"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."

—James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.
James Conant, the chemist and Harvard president died in 1978. Obviously, the quote in 1982 is not a direct interview in 1982. So, what was the context in which he was talking about science and history? What is the original document from which the text is quoted? Are you not interested in getting anything accurate or do you just blindly trust Origins Research because they pay lip service to your belief structure?

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke