million... billion

slight difference. I thought you were one of those 6,000 year old earth guys?

BR-

I have tried to PM a couple of people. To apologize for some comments. When I hit submit. What I typed just stays there.

Make sure you title your message. It will not send without a subject.

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Machiavelli Wrote:million... billion

slight difference. I thought you were one of those 6,000 year old earth guys?

No, you rarely think at all. There are many old Earth creationists (OEC). I do have questions about dating of the Earth. Not the science behind it, but rather whether it can be applied to billions of years because of the assumptions needed to use it that way. For example, the physical and chemical properties (i.e. solubility) of K and Ar are dramatically different. Changes in ratio of concentratons for those species may occur for reasons other than nuclear decay. Given the 4 billion year leeway for unknowns, and the low concentration levels to start with, any event would alter those numbers dramatically. The error bars on those numbers are already pretty large, and that's w/o really knowing billions of years of history.
However, the mechanism of nuclear decay, and dating from relative abundances, is empirically based. That's why it's really science. But, that's far different than current evolutionary theory.

If you really want to talk about physical chemistry, I'm pretty sure I can address those questions.

Quote:No, you rarely think at all.

Well,

At least that's better than what my wife says! ;-)

Your all right Torchy. I know sometimes I get under your skin. I shouldn't be so confrontational.