Quote
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",


I'm not sure you read my response because this is exactly my point.

We really don't know what L is because it has never been observed. This value is based on assumption.

Since L is based on an assumption, the result of the calculation is arbitrary until we really know what L is.

Quote
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.


Furthermore, we really don't know that the formula is correct. We really don't know that the curve is exponential because it is not based in observation. It is based on faith.


As I keep saying, this is not science, it is broad speculation and I wish people would not insult science by associating guesses and speculation to the name science.

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


I've said nothing to resemble this statement, although decay rates could be affected by conditions that may have existed. We cannot rule this possibility out.

Quote
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.


I don't have the textbooks that we used back then so I can't show you the quotes. Nevertheless, that's what they said.

I would suspect that the dating you are referring to in the 50's was also in conflict with other dating which is why it was not used in many/any/some textbooks.

Quote
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?


If you view the quote reference information:

—James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.

You will see that it clearly indicates that it is not a first-reference.

You have found "flaws" with quotes I have cited in the past, I then researched them and found, to date, that none of your objections have been valid.

None.



"Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must have been created by some omnipotent intelligence."

—D.J. Futuyma, Science on Trial (1983), p. 197.


"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs."

—Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

The Captian
Today they call you "crazy". Tomorrow they call you "ahead of your time."
Global Skywatch Learn about Chemtrails - You're breathing them now!
OnlyTheBestHerbs.com World-class supplements
Mercury Talk Why you are sick.
OneUp Domains Domains, Hosting, Email
1-800-358-4278 (U.S. & Canada)