Okay, the problem has been resolved; LindaLou and LinearAq are no longer allowed to post in this area.

Myself, I'm going to take another stab at explaining margins-of-error. If folks are still having trouble understanding things, there's a good chance it's because of the '±' sign involved in the notation. It's not very big on my screen, so here it is again '±'. It just means "plus or minus". Sometimes it's written '+/-'. So 63 +/- 1.5 means a value which must be between 61.5 and 64.5, and could be any value withing that range, get it? It's how they say "give or take", and communicate how much one is permitted to give or take when employing a given piece of equipment in a given manner.

Why has it come about? We don't have tools which will allow us to measure physical things perfectly, with infinite precision. The very lines on a ruler do themselves have a length. You might measure something and say something is 1 cm long, but can you say with scientific certainty it isn't 0.0001 cm shorter or longer? Not with a typical ruler, even using a magnifying glass.

Scientists acknowledge the imperfections of their measurements. One of the most common acknowledgements of inaccuracy is found in advertisements for watches and clocks. Ever seen claims like "accurate to within 3 seconds per year"? Well, that translates, at the end of a year to 1 year ± 3 seconds; after 2 years it'd be ± 6 seconds.

A good deal of effort goes into establishing margins-of-error. They're pretty important. They're certainly not "pulled out of thin air". Let's try it out on, oh say a number like 292.6441 ± 0.0012. What's that mean? It means a measurement was made, and the actual value could be anywhere from 292.6429 to 292.6453. See how that works?

Now if a second measurement of the same thing comes in at 292.6449, the two measurements agree because the second value falls within the range permitted by the first. Even when the centers of the ranges disagree, if there's any overlap, the measurements are considered to be in agreement. "12 ± 2" agrees with 16 ± 2" because both overlap at 14. Of course 27 ± 3 is not in agreement with either of those, because the lowest value it permits is 24 and 24 is outside of the range of the other measurements.

Now different methods of taking measurements will have different margins-of-error. When a method is improved, and becomes more accurate, the margin-of-error shrinks. The notion that this invalidates the old measurements isn't found in science. The old measurements are still considered accurate within their larger margins-of-error.

This is just common sense. Take track records in racing for example. Are old records thrown out every time a new timing device is introduced? Does anyone consider them invalid? Certainly not. If the record on a track is 4 minutes and 17.22 seconds, set in 1971, that's the record everyone still has to beat even if the new timing equipment is accurate to 1/100,000 seconds.

Now nowhere in either of my links was it suggested that the margins-of-error involved in the previous measurements were too small. Nowhere was it suggested that those who took the measurements made mistakes. A refinement in one technique was discussed, which resulted in improved accuracy. Know what? This improved accuracy shows right up, just the way any scientist or thinking person would expect it to show up: the margin-of-error is smaller.

So much for tossing aside the inconvenient earlier measurements - it's not scientific; and it's not advocated in either report.

Every bit as inexcusable, for anyone who claims to have read the report, is the false idea that the "new" measurements somehow match. (The "old" measurements were from 1971 - not "more than a century ago (heard of the Curies?)")

The authors of the 92Sr pdf report obtaining fresh new results of decay time measurements which do not match up. Table four lists the measurements, and right beneath table four, it says
"Discrepancies were sometimes beyond their reported uncertainties" means they took measurements of values, and the measurements did not match, even allowing for the inaccuracy of the method. Plain as can be. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Now as to the question of what to make of it, there are two approaches. One can look and see here's a measurement, and here's another measurement; since they disagree I conclude a change took place.

Or one can assume change is impossible, and misinterpret things based upon that assumption. Likewise one can assume any wrong idea one prefers, and misinterpret things 'til doomsday. "Racial" supremacy, heliocentric universe, and flat earth can all be "proven" by stubborn, steadfast assumption and refusal to properly address evidence. A technique which can potentially prove anything true, even that which isn't, is irreconcilably opposed to all scientific endeavour.

Add to this technique a willingness to make false claims about the content of links and the very nature of the evidence being discussed, and you get... goodbyed.

Those who would take a better approach are always welcome to participate here. I know evolutionists exist who don't routinely misrepresent arguments and evidence, and I'd like very much to have more positive evidence of their existence to present to my fellow creationists. ...And to the run-of-the-mill evolutionists, for that matter.