Church Discipline

[margin overa]

I haven't seen it. There's some horror/slasher film coming out soon, IIRC, about the Germanic Xmas bogie called the Krampus, which is a figure associated with St. Nick who punishes the naughty kids (and unsurprisingly, looks like traditional depictions of Satan).

[Ivy]

I haven't seen it. There's some horror/slasher film coming out soon, IIRC, about the Germanic Xmas bogie called the Krampus, which is a figure associated with St. Nick who punishes the naughty kids (and unsurprisingly, looks like traditional depictions of Satan).

BH would LOVE this!!!

[B.H.]

I haven't seen it. There's some horror/slasher film coming out soon, IIRC, about the Germanic Xmas bogie called the Krampus, which is a figure associated with St. Nick who punishes the naughty kids (and unsurprisingly, looks like traditional depictions of Satan).

BH would LOVE this!!!

Germans make some bad-ass-nasty-to-the-point-of-perversion horror films. Did anyone see Centipede? Nasty. I couldn't watch it because it just made me sick.

[Ashes64]

OK, so back to the John Clayton thing.

You mean the John Clayton that preaches that the city where his home church is was going to be overrun by prostitutes "on every corner" because of the casino being built "right across the street from the church building" John Clayton? Yeah, my sister's shopping for a different church because she can't handle him anymore.

FTR, he is a false teacher, but not for the reasons that letter stated. More because there's no prostitution problem in the teeny, tiny little town and the casino is about a mile away from the church

[KLP]

Sorry, klp. Not the same thing. Agricola gave you plenty of real and demonstrable research to work from; there are voluminous scientific works and proofs to back up the facts upon which scientific theories are based.

Willful ignorance or obstinate refusal to acknowledge reality to support a "faith" based fantasy are not virtues and really unworthy of a thinking and reasoning human being.

oh boy
Yes I know you are an atheist and you believe what you have written here with all your heart (I assume at least on this you are sincere). But that still does not make it so. Because no amount of research can demonstrate something that by definition is not demonstratable much less repeatable. I am sure you must know this by now. So stop with the personal comments.

[KLP]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is this the method of your argument?

1. Suggest an explanation, with no scientific evidence, to a scientific question.
2. Point out an unlikely but technically possible flaw, again with no scientific evidence, in the methodology used to establish the dominant scientific understanding of the issue.
3. Conclude that the dominant understanding is incorrect and the suggested, unsupported explanation is correct.

You are wrong, that is not my method of argument. I was asked did I have any reason to think there has ever been any variation or influence in decay rates. I gave my reason and I guess you don't like it...so what, good for you.

My response is that pretty much everything is known to have variation and influence, so why would it make reasonable sense to assume this one thing is rock solid? (snicker) It would seem reasonable (or at least not unreasonable) to suspect that variation occurs...after all that is the basis of pretty much everything in the Anti-Creationism world of "dominate understanding", that there is always randomness and variation. If an assumption about decay rates must be made, then why assume that in this case no variation has occurred?

[agricola]

klp, I think you are confusing the laws of physics with the effects. The EFFECTS vary, but the physics don't.

Compare chemistry - if you mix and acid and a base you will get a reaction. Exactly what that reaction is, depends on variables (things that vary) like which base and which acid, how much of each, what material might also be present, etc.

But the chemical reaction WILL occur, and the rate at which it occurs is determined by the specific variables.

Now radiometric age dating (which is what we are talking about) is just like that chemical reaction: certain elements decay at certain specific rates. Radiometric age dating, in fact, can measure several DIFFERENT parent and daughter products of decay, each of which decays at a different rate, and come up with a MORE accurate age for a rock because the methods can deliver more than one 'clock'. Each clock runs at a different rate - but the age each rate delivers is consistent.

When those methods are used on a single body of rock, each different 'clock' gives the same age for the rock.

The rate of decay doesn't change WITHIN ANY SPECIFIC PARENT_DAUGHTER combination. That's physics (and chemistry). The original composition of the rock matters and can vary. The final composition of the rock can vary, and does. But the RATE of the radioactive decay from parent to daughter is constant.

[B.H.]

Did anyone read about the scientists who shot a beam of light through a box with a temperature right above absolute zero, as cold as they could possible make it be with current tech. The beam of light which normally would go over so many thousands of miles per second slowed to a creep. So I think KLP may be on to something here.

KLP, I'll help you battle the evolutionists just like I helped you on the gay marriage thing. What a team we make when we agree.

[KLP]

Acid and Base reactions can be influenced by temperature, surface area, pressure, and concentration. Something may act as an ion donator or as a receptor based on conditions. And yes these conditions are readily observed and repeatable not an assumption on something 3 million years ago.

The decay rate clock is assumed and trusted not to vary or to be able to be influenced. That may or may not be true. The starting condition and composition is not exactly known but is assumed. These two assumptions are used to then calculate a multi-million year old age that the Anti-creationist is already expecting and so knows how to calibrate the process to look for current expected amount of decay. This is not the same as knowing what base/acid is about to be mixed and what salt will result.

But I agree, using these methods and definitions then certain rocks can appear to be multiple millions years in age, that is not news.

[agricola]

Acid and Base reactions can be influenced by temperature, surface area, pressure, and concentration. Something may act as an ion donator or as a receptor based on conditions. And yes these conditions are readily observed and repeatable not an assumption on something 3 million years ago.

The decay rate clock is assumed and trusted not to vary or to be able to be influenced. That may or may not be true. The starting condition and composition is not exactly known but is assumed. These two assumptions are used to then calculate a multi-million year old age that the Anti-creationist is already expecting and so knows how to calibrate the process to look for current expected amount of decay. This is not the same as knowing what base/acid is about to be mixed and what salt will result.

But I agree, using these methods and definitions then certain rocks can appear to be multiple millions years in age, that is not news.

That's absolutely right - variables can (and do) vary. But the reaction still proceeds.

Never mind, klp - to go much further would mean writing a book. But nobody doing this kind of work started out in the morning as an 'anti-creationist' expecting some kind of absolute really old age so he could 'prove' creationists wrong. Far from it! The conclusions were not pre-determined, and the starting assumptions are known and well defined, and the methods do indeed work, and they work for ANYBODY who does the procedure in the same method. Anybody. Anywhere in the world, anybody running the protocol will come up with the same results.

That's pretty reasonable 'proof' that the method itself results in valid answers, especially when the same method can be applied to known historic rocks (volcanic flows) and these also give accurate real dates.

Never is anything 'under' a known date younger, and never is anything 'above' a known date older, in an intact sequence.

Basically - your objections have already been heard, and answered over the past many decades, and found to be unwarranted worries. The method works. The dates are appropriate (and the older the rocks are, the greater the error bars, which is also appropriate). It doesn't matter who runs the test or what that person's individual views may be.

Here are some references:

h**p://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#radio

That should link to the index page which has the radiometric dating information on it. Have fun, everybody.