VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 12:24:56 06/08/99 Tue
Author: David C. Wise
Subject: Re: Time continued
In reply to: daniel 's message, "Re: Time continued" on 15:58:26 06/04/99 Fri

Sorry I've been gone for so long, Daniel. I got caught between a rock and several hard places, time-wise, and am still in the middle of an extremely busy design schedule.

I'm still trying to find the time to respond to your email, but I had to quickly respond to a couple of things you wrote here:

<Daniel:>
> P.S. Dr Gary Parker of AIG told me that the rate of
> radiometric decay has been seen to change under high
> energy bombardment.

Again I ask you (in order of decreasing priority):
1. how much did their rates change?
2. just what effect do you wish to claim that that rate change would have? (i.e., just how much do you want to claim that radiometric dating is off by; e.g., do you wish to claim that it falsely makes 10,000-year-old rock look like it's 1 billion years old?)
3. which isotopes?
4. what kind of decay was involved?

I have searched through the Web, including through the ICR's Impact index, and have not been able find any actual values given.

<Daniel:>
> > > Have you read the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical
> > Journal?
> > >
> >
<Kevin:>
> > I have read many of it's articles.
> >
>
<Daniel:>
> And so it should be quite obvious to you that no real
> scientific effort has been made by anyone that has
> published in this magazine. Reminds me of studying
> the devil's work. I study it so that I can know that
> what ever is said is likley untrue. I will maintain
> my subscription so that I will always know what
> scientific claims are made in this poorly,
> unsubstantiated Journal are substantially untrue.
>
> Thank you for the opportunity for me to easily
> identify error. All articles written in the creation
> ex nihilo journal are false.
>

Does this mean that you have finally seen the light about creation science?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.