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.
Actually, it is your claim so the burden of proof is on you. Are you trying to put the burden of proof on me to show that no textbooks from your high school era showed a 300 million year figure as the age of the Earth? Are you also requiring me to look at every high school science text from 1990 to today to show that none of them have a 6 billion year figure as the age of the Earth?
That seems a bit ridiculous to me. All you have to do is produce one reference from your high school era that says 300 million years is the age of the Earth. Similarly, you could point me to those videos so I can see for myself.
As to the question of whether I believe you...well, so far I haven't been able to find any text that states the Earth is only 300 million years old so my conclusion is that you are not remembering your high school years correctly.
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.
Never said that. Watch out or CTD might remove your post.
Your responses however indicate that you automatically believe that scientists are always dishonest and always foul things up...at least if their conclusions contradict your infallible beliefs.
Nevertheless, the truth is there for anyone who wants to search it out.
But apparently not available for you to show us or point to it.
Off topic!!
Are 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:
I just finished showing you how the shape of those curves is determined and it isn't from sampling. Saying that there may be external conditions that change the rate of decay is somewhat irrational. That one statement places everything in doubt.
The laws of physics may have changed at a particular place at a particular time so we can't make any conclusions about anything.
The rules of chemistry may have changed at a particular place at a particular time so we can't make any conclusions about how chemicals will react or ever have reacted.
Is this the reality that you live in, to not be able to make reliable conclusions about anything? That's not how you write. You write as if you are sure about almost everything. I don't understand how you can be.
How about backing up your "might have been" with something like evidence. Is there any indication that radioactive decay rates have changed? Is there any evidence of a process or power that can change those rates?
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.
The Bible we see today may have been changed in the past without our knowledge so claiming that it is the truth is unethical, by your standards. Why do you claim it as truth then? Aren't you being unethical?
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 an unsupported assertion. Anyone reading this must realize that when confronted on the apparent mistaken data, Russ refused to provide confirming evidence.
Misstating one's position about "truth" is a dangerous and unethical thing to do. "Science" should be the last to do it.
So should Christians. You should not state that the Bible is the truth if you cannot show that it has not been changed from the original manuscripts. That is your standard as stated, by you, above. The best you can say is that it might be the truth but you don't know.
I'm glad I don't have to live by the standard you set for yourself.
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.
And the ADA's position on amalgam fillings is....? Sorry, off topic.
