I have asked these things before:
1. Please provide a quote from a textbook published in 1976 or later that states the Earth is only 300 million years old.
2. Please provide a quote from a recent (1990 or newer) science textbook that says the Earth is over 6 billion years old.
Unfortunately, I don't have access to textbooks at this time.
As far as the 300 million figure, I saw this myself, regardless of whether or not you believe me.
As far as the 6 billion figure, I've seen this in textbooks through videos I've watched. The producer of the videos showed pictures of the textbooks.
I can only tell you the truth about what I've seen. I'm not willing to go and search out what I've already seen for your benefit. That's personal research and that's your responsibility.
Although I do understand your frustration as you clearly infer in your posts that believe that science is virtually infallible and that virtually all scientists have perfect integrity.
Nevertheless, the truth is there for anyone who wants to search it out.
The Global Vaccine Agenda (Modern science at work.)
http://urlbam.com/ha/M001RAre you saying that the assumption of radioactive decay depending upon the number of atoms present is incorrect for long-lived isotopes?
I don't recall anyone saying any such thing.
I've only been repeating that the large extrapolation in the following curve is an opportunity for error and that there may be external conditions that change the rate of decay:
![[Linked Image]](http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/leyurbjogz.jpg)
Image: The area in red has been observed. The area in black as been calculated to be accurate under an assumed set of conditions. Furthermore, the area in red is grossly exaggerated simply so it's visible on the diagram.
What you have left is the assumption that radioactive decay rates haven't changed over the time that Earth has existed. You and the RATE project group say that the radioactive isotope half lives have changed. Got some evidence?
Don't have any evidence either way, but that's precisely the point. This unobserved claim is being treated as observed knowledge, and I'm saying that this is not ethical. We should call it what it is, but what we hope it to be.
This is exactly why the claimed age of the Earth has changed from 300 million years to 6 billion years in the past 25 years.
This is why millions are sick with mercury poisoning.
This is why millions have suffered from NutraSweet.
This is why so many suffer with various diseases that show strong evidence of being caused by vaccines.
Misstating one's position about "truth" is a dangerous and unethical thing to do. "Science" should be the last to do it.
The RATE researchers don't dispute the exponential nature of radioactive decay.
For decades, neither did dentists dispute the fact that mercury does not leach from amalgam fillings.
Oops. Well, actually it does. Sorry for the trouble folks.
My Mercury Story
http://herballure.com/mms"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end—no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).
