I can read and neither paper claims that the decay rate changed.
They report changes in measured rates. This is data. It's simple and easy to understand.
Both claim that it was imprecise measurements or failure to account for all variables that caused the previously posted rates to be incorrect.
No they don't.
Why do you agree with the scientist's measurements yet disagree with their conclusions
The measurements are measurements - what's to disagree with? The conclusions are reached by assuming the rates cannot change. There's no other way to reach that conclusion.
especially since the new measurements are the result of accounting for the variables that they claim caused the incorrect measurements?
Simply untrue. They took fresh, new measurements.
I'm reporting you as well. I missed your posts before, but apparently someone's following your lead.
The margins-of-error are reported, and are right there for everyone to see. Saying it's a matter of imprecise equipment doesn't cut it, and you'd know that if you actually read the pdf.
At least that is what I understood from the papers you presented. Perhaps you could quote places in the paper that show my understanding of them to be incorrect.
At least that's what you think you can bluff the readership into believing. I've about had it with the blatant dishonesty game.
The reports clearly state that different results were obtained at different times, using modern equipment and techniques. The discrepancies are
larger than the margins-of-error. There is no reasonable interpretation other than to admit the rates were different. None whatsoever. Evolutionists would like to pretend the margins-of-error overlap.
Then you could say it's a matter of equipment or technique. The margins don't overlap. It's simple, clear observation.
I'm closing this thread for now. You're as transparent as the other one.
