How old is the earth

"No. What I did not like was that you failed to address the point and merely "assumed" that half-hearted-response would eliminate the data that so refutes evolutionism's mythologies today.
"

Dude did nothing but a copy and paste. Any response is more than he deserved if you cannot at least present something in your own words. None of us here are really knowledgable enough about the situation to present an original thought, we can at least assemble a coherent argument without resorting to a copy and paste job.

By my counting of the 12, I conclusively showed that 7 were completely false, gave explanations that left room for debate on 2, questioned the logic of 2 and admitted that I did not know what 1 was trying to say. The majority were conclusively refuted and the rest save one had holes punched in them though they were not completely refuted.

"A poster-child example of this was the issue with salts in the sea. Uranium salts are not in equilibrium - they are being added 100x faster than the outflux. "

Two things. First, I believe Paul has by now posted the explanation in the form of a paper on the matter, so another refuted. Second, in none of your posts supposing things out of equilibrium, the U and the He, have you mentioned where they measured the concentrations and found them changing at the same rate as their material balances suggest. Without a rate of change measurment, all we have is their material balance which is easy to get wrong because you miss something, especially in such a complex situation. Without rate of change data, they have nothing but an unfounded assertion. I suspect they might have known what would happen if they took that data and decided it might not be a good idea to do. It would show that things were in equilibrium.

"Intead of "moving on past this salt data" - I continue to "Stick with it""

Then let's stick with it on Wieland. We have an actual paper, dig through the paper to show me that he was being honest.

"The Mississippi River dumps about 300 million cubic yards of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico each year. If that river were millions of years old, the Gulf would have been long since filled. By measuring the rate of growth of the delta (about 250 feet per year) its age calculates to about 4000 years. "

But...

"Two hundred million years ago the mouth of the Mississippi river was at Cairo Illinois, not at New Orleans, Louisiana. The Mississippi and other rivers had to fill in a huge amount of sediment which is now under dry land from Cairo Illinois down to New Orleans.

There are 1,588,604,000,000 sq. meters in the Gulf of Mexico. From seismic data and gravity data, I know that there is an average of 15,200 meters of sediment over this region. We have actually drilled through about 10,000 meters of sediment so that is indisputable. Now, 1,588,604,000,000 x 15200 = 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters.

The Mississippi River carries about 210 x 10^6 tons per year. [see Scott M. Mclennan "Weathering and Global Denudation", Journal of Geology , 101:2, p. 296)

That works out to be 210 x 10^9 kg per year. There are 2400 kg per cubic meter, so dividing we have 210 x 10^9 kg per year / 2400 kg per cm = 87,500,000 cubic meters per year. A good assumption is that the other rivers emptying into the Gulf probably are equivalent to another Mississippi River. Thus we will assume that 175,000,000 cubic meters per year are deposited.

Dividing this into the volume of the Gulf sediments we find 24,146,780,800,000,000 cubic meters/175,000,000 cubic meters per year = 137,981,604 years. That is 137 million years for the river to fill up the Gulf of Mexico.
...
The Mississippi has been in its present place for about 200 million years. Why 200 rather than 137? Because some of the sediment was deposited in the Jurassic at Cairo Illinois was then re-eroded and deposited in Arkansas, where it was then re-eroded and moved to Louisiana, where it is now being re-eroded and put into the Gulf. The net sediment influx is smaller over the past 200 million years than what we see today. This is true both because of re-erosion as well as in the past the Mississippi's drainage area was much smaller so that it carried less sediment. Today the Mississippi erodes from Arkansas. 200 million years ago, Arkansas was under water and thus couldn't be eroded."

Lost another one.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/erosion.htm

"Excellent propaganda UTEOTW! When the data is NOT in your favor (data that you CLAIM does not exist) you call it "an anomaly"!!"

No I call it the truth. If I were to say that isochron dating of meteorites show that the solar system is 4,567,000,000 years old and that fact alone settles the whole debate, you would not take me serious. Yet you expect me to take you serious if you can dig up something that is currently unexplainable. The truth of the matter is that there are anomalies in nature. Scientists are generally fairly well versed in statistics to know how to identify these outliers. You finding a few outliers will not counter all the known information. Go read a few geology texts, then a few astronomy text, then a biology texts, and so on. You'll see innumerable facts that point to an old earth. When you have a tremendous body of knowledge that shows one thing, a few things on the side that cannot be explained is not a threat. You have to find a way to better explain the great body of evidence to be taken seriously, not find a handful of unexplained things. But, as this thread so well demonstrates, those things you think that cannot be explained under an old earth usually can be and show that those initially pushing them as young earth were ignoring something whether willingly or innocently.

"However - evolution "needs" the ability to "Self organize" to have "genetic data infused cumulatively so that beagles give birth to wolves on some regular - albeit infrequent - basis". In the evolutionists fairytale - this must happen "so often" that the wolf offspring being to breed "with each other" and form viable communities."

You are off on hopeful monsters again. No real evolutionists believes in saltation so your strawman has no stuffing. Besides, who out there is supposing that you should be able to back to wolves from beagles?

Though I must say that I love my little beagle mix.

 

UTEOTW & PAUL of EUGENE:

Do you believe Jesus Christ existed or not and why? What is your scientific proof?

 

Yes I believe He exists / existed. I need no scientific proof, it is by faith I believe these things. For that matter, can you tell me any proof that could even be offered? The only thing I can come up with is historical accounts, but that is getting off subject a little bit.

The earth, on the other hand, we can look at it and determine its history. If the world is young, as you say, we would make one set of predictions about what we would find. If it is old, we would make a different set of predictions about what we would find. When we look, the data fits only an old earth. Therefore I can conclude the earth is old.

You initially posted 4 or 5 items together as proof of a young earth that included dino bloodcells and then later posted one of the actual papers from the scientists that did the work. I have alleged that Wieland, the YECer who did the work suggesting that young bones were found, was dishonest in his treatment of the scientist's work. Since you located the actual paper, could you either pull out the part of the scientist's actual work where she found young bone or else withdraw the claim? Thanks.

 

Do you think an evolutionist would be totally honest and creationists cannot be. Rather evolutionists are going to attempt to view the data in the light of evolution. Otherwise any evolutionist would find himself under attack by his "peers".

More for you to view:

http://www.creationworldview.org/Articles/Article%2012.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/Magazines/doc/v14n3_dino.asp

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/38/38_2/Trex.htm

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fossils-rapidly-perishing-detail-preserved.htm

http://www.cmnh.org/dinoarch/1994Nov/msg00285.html

http://www.projectexploration.org/niger2003/ywlcs-siciliano.htm

 

People are people. They all make mistakes. Peer review catches the mistakes of the scientists eventually. If this was some grand conspiracy, don't you think they would have a little more trouble keeping everyone in line and finding new things to publish? If the YECers were being honest, do you think they would hide their "evidence" in drawers for none to see, falsely and out of context quote respected scientists in a way that indicates the exact opposite of what was actually being said, ignore the results and publish what they wish, refuse to submit to peer review, and continue to present false material even after the mistakes have been pointed out to them?

Why do I care about a review of Jurassic Park? Why do I care if a Hollywood movie producer gets his science wrong? Point?

I'll cover peer review in a moment.

That page is 404.

Somebody found a well preserved fossilized bone. And?

Some more people found...Well they found more well preserved fossils. I do not see the point. If you can give me an example of how the fossils could have been preserved so well, then there is not a problem. If you cannot, then what? They are not really fossils? I cannot find a point to this.

Somebody pulled a few strands of DNA that might or might not be dino DNA from a fossilized bone in a coal mine. His peers are questioning what he actually has.

This is actually a read for how science works and how the mistakes are weeded out. I make mistakes in my job. So do you. So do scientists. But they submit their work to peer review where the flaws are uncovered and criticized. Others try to follow what one person did and see if they can get the same results. The work is made better for it. Problems are weeded out. Peer review at its finest.

So, why will the YECers not submit their work for peer review? Well you can fool some of the people but probably not those who are experts in the field.

Some students are going on a dino dig. How nice! How is this germane?

Now, back to Wieland. Can you point to me in the paper to which you posted a link where it says fresh dino bones where found? I still cannot find it and I think Wieland was making stuff up.

 

Interesting that those who claim the earth is round aren't asked to show biblical support for it. It's a matter of history that Jews believed in a flat earth. Verses like Job 22:14 (He walks on the dome of the skies), Revelation 7:1 (I saw four messengers standing at earth's four corners), and Matthew 4:8 ([Jesus was taken] to an extremely high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms), support the Jewish belief in a flat earth.

The idea that the earth might indeed be round was not surmised until Eratosthenes about 200 or so years before Christ, and it took years before his idea caught on.

 

I recently posted 12 processes giving young ages for the earth. UTEOTW responded with arguments as to why the processes were invalid or misrepresented by the author of the article I cited. I will attempt to answer his rebuttals. I’m sorry this post is so long but I didn’t want it to be “without substance”.

The text in italic print are quotes from UTEOTW on page 7 of this thread.

The numbered items are the list I gave previously from this article http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp by Dr. Russ Humphreys.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spiral shape is caused by density waves in the galaxy, not by bands of stars staying in a static line for ages.

The article I cited points out that the theory of density waves, "has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and lately has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope’s discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the ‘Whirlpool’ galaxy, M51."

Postulating a young universe neatly solves the problem of why spiral galaxies retain their shape and aren’t “a featureless disk of stars.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Comets disintegrate too quickly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The comets are resupplied from further out in the solar system. Perhaps you remember the Stardust spacecraft flyby of comet Wild 2 recently. If I remember correctly, it is only on its fifth flyby of the sun after the gravity of Jupiter disturbed it from its ancient orbit and sent it sunward. Or perhaps you read about the recent discovery of the large, icy body Sedna. Some believe it may be the first object of the Ort cloud discovered as its orbit takes it over twenty times as far away from the sun as Pluto. There is a large supply of new comets in the Kuiper belt and the Ort cloud. We have observed many objects in the Kuiper Belt. We can get a good idea of where new comets came from (and yes we regularly observe new comets on their first pass through the solar system) by their orbit.

Sounds like a lot of speculation and assumption to me.

“SOME believe [Sedna] MAY be the first [First??? This Oort cloud is supposed to be well proven is that right?] object of the Ort [sic] cloud discovered” (emphasis mine)? Apparently SOME OTHERS believe Sedna did not originate in the (supposed) Oort cloud. This rebuttal is sorely lacking in substance.

Yes, a number of objects have been detected beyond the orbit of Neptune. These objects have been labeled as Kuiper Belt Objects (KBOs). However, the objects discovered do not resemble what astronomers were expecting to find. Comet nuclei are typically less than 10 kilometers in diameter. The objects labeled KBOs are 100 km to 500 km in diameter. Furthermore, for the Kuiper belt to be adequate to replace short period comets the number of objects in it would need to be a cloud of at least a billion. So far only a few hundred have been found. Also, we have no reason to assume that our solar system ends abruptly at pluto. There are scads of asteroids between Mars and Jupiter, why should we not expect to find matter beyond what has until recently been the limit of our imaging devices to resolve? The support for these objects being KBOs is so tenuous that many astronomers prefer to call them Trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) or use the terms interchangeably. . For more on the Kuiper belt and YEC see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0513_kuiper.asp.

I maintain that a youthful solar system is a good explanation of the existence of short period comets.

For a good discussion of comets from a YEC viewpoint see this article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4108.asp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Not enough mud on the sea floor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of the sediment compacts. Some turns to rock. Some is subducted back into the mantle. If the earth is young, then why is there essentially no sediment where scientists are telling us that the sea floor is spreading apart, forming new crust? And why is the sediment the thickest the furtherest from where the new crust is forming?

The article I cited ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp ) contains the following information regarding sediment on the ocean floor:

There is essentially no sediment where the sea floor is spreading apart BECAUSE the sea floor is spreading apart, forming NEW crust and because the oceans aren't billions of years old, they're only thousands of years old. The sediment gets thicker as you move further from the spreading plates because those areas are closer to the continents where the sediments wash and blow into the oceans.

A very interesting proposed mechanism (involving plate subduction) for The Flood can be found here: http://www.icr.org/research/jb/runawaysubduction.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Not enough sodium in the sea
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Morton, Glenn, 1996. Salt in the sea. This report showed that the rate of sodium entering the oceans was equal to the rate at which it is being removed. Na is in equilibrium and you cannot tell for how long. Therefore it is no good for dating. http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199606/0051.html

I certainly do not think the information in Morton's open letter to Humphreys and Austin shakes the validity of using sodium in the oceans as a geochronometer. Morton makes no allowance for the cataclysmic flood of Noah's day which would have vastly accelerated geological processes. He assumes old-earth numbers and uses them in his calculations. If the earth isn't millions of years old, his calculations are invalid and his assertion that the sodium content is in equilibrium is incorrect. I believe that Humphreys' estimated sodium output from the oceans of 27% of the sodium input is much closer to reality.

There is a reason AIG only gives Na rather than the complete list from their source. The numbers come from taken the total amount of a given species in the ocean and dividing by the rate at which it is flowing into the ocean. It does not take into account how they are removed nor that most species can be shown to be in equilibrium. By this method, Al shows the earth to be only 100 years old. Fe, 140 years. TI, 160 years. Cr, 350 years. Th, 350 years. Do you any of those make sense? Do you see that other processes are at work? Do you see that AIG is hiding and misrepresenting the evidence?

As far as other dissolved metals in the oceans goes, like OETOWT said, their numbers don't make sense in either a young-earth framework OR an old-earth framework, so why would AiG use them as geochronometers. The sodium clock is valid. Yes, I see that other processes are at work. How about the sloshing waters of a violent global flood? I should think that would be a significant factor. Amen?

I believe that AiG has high standards of integrity and does not knowingly publish misrepresentations of truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The Earth’s magnetic field is decaying too fast
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The magnetic field is cyclical. The magnetic field lines in the rocks in places where new crust is being formed, such as the spreading at the mid Atlantic ridge, record multitudes of times where the magnetic field has decayed, temporarily disappeared, and then reappeared but with reverse polarity. If you watch the news, you may have seen where we recently observed this happening on the sun.

Yes the rocks at mid ocean ridges show field reversals, but the layers aren't marked with dates. Baumgardner's model of runaway plate subduction shows that rapid magnetic field reversals would occur. In fact Coe and Prevot have found physical evidence of rapid (<2 weeks) field reversals in thin volcanic rock layers twice --Nature 374, 6564:687–692, 1995. The sun experiences magnetic field reversals every 11 years--Good Point! In contrast to thousands of years (the accepted time frame for reversals on earth), I'd call that rapid.

For more info on the magnetic field and YEC see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3317.asp#r9

Baumgardner’s model of runaway plate subduction is found here http://www.icr.org/research/jb/runawaysubduction.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Many strata are too tightly bent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, but rocks can fold quite nicely when it happens slowly enough.

See the following: Friedman, M., Hugman, R.H.H. III, Handin, J., 1980. Experimental folding of rocks under confining pressure, part VIII -- forced folding of unconsolidated sand and lubricated layers of limestone and sandstone. The Geological Society of America Bulletin 91: 307-312
and
Johnson, Kaj M. and Arvid M. Johnson, 2002. Mechanical Analysis of the Geometry of Forced Folds. Journal of Structural Geology 24(3): 401-410.
http://www.eas.purdue.edu/physproc/pdf%20Files/AnalysisOfForcedFolds.pdf
http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/39/35/57/32/27/abstract.html

Hmm, I wonder how many tons of rock they performed their tests on. Is this really applicable to the real world? What is wrong with the idea that unconsolidated sediments were warped by earth movements and solidified afterward, other than the need for an old earth to make evolution plausible(???). Indeed, the first reference indicates that the experiments were performed on unconsolidated sediments that were still somewhat wet. This is what was written in the article I cited:

How does that reference show that Humphreys' argument is invalid?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Injected sandstone shortens geologic ‘ages’
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure I follow this one. But AIG's record has not been very good so far on this list.

What's not to follow? The article spells it all out. The sandstone was injected while still "wet" but how could it be unsolidified after more than the supposed 400 Ma?

I'm getting the impression that UTEOTW didn't read the article.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic ‘ages’ to a few years
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole polonium halo thing is too long to get into and so complicated that I think your eyes would glaze over if they have not already.

If you are interested see

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

Yeah, it’s heavy but it is valid. If interested don’t forget to check out
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n4_radiohalo.asp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Helium in the wrong places
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Helium has had plenty of opportunity to escape. They must ignor the helium that is ionized in the upper atmosphere and removed along magnetic field lines. When this is taken into account, the atmospheric helium is what one would expect.

The helium found in the rocks is there because it is constatly being made by radiocative decay.

Now that is a weak rebuttal.

Yes, helium is "constantly being made by radioactive decay. Yes, helium "has had plenty of opportunity to escape" from the rocks of the earth. That is exactly the point. It hasn't yet escaped. Why not? Because it hasn't had time to.

No, they didn't "ignor"(sic) the obvious. In fact they tend to be generous in their number crunching so that they can't be accused of minimizing (or maximizing) numbers used in their calculations.

For more helium and YEC see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1401.asp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Not enough stone age skeletons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fossilization is quite a rare occurance.

Uh, the article doesn't mention fossils.

Stone age people buried their dead with artifacts. According to evolutionary anthropology, there must have been billions of such burials. The problem is that there is only a smattering of skeletal remains of these people and their artifacts. Why? The evolutionary time scale is all wrong. People haven’t been around for hundreds of thousands of years. See “Where are all the People” at http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_people.asp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Agriculture is too recent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argument from incredulity. How should he know how long it would take humans to come up with certain ideas?

By way of response here is the text from this section of the Humphreys’ article

Humphreys’ argument is simply common sense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. History is too short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Argument from incredulity. How should he know how long it would take humans to develope the need for a written language?

Again, Humphreys is just using common sense. Here’s the text:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Typical AIG stuff. Not much evidence but a whole lot of hand waving to get your attention. Too bad they have nothing of actual evidentiary worth once they have your attention.

Does anyone have any data that shows a young earth? My assertion seems to be holding true.

Don’t take UTEOTW’s word for it, AiG is a very cool organization with conscientious qualified contributing scientists. They are very careful to avoid using material that can be poked full of holes (like UTEOTW’s rebuttals) because they know they will be hyperscrutinized by those who refuse to take the innerrant word of God at face value. AiG is an amazing resource in support of biblical creationism. Take a quick look at their Question and Answer page http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp.

I hope I have succeeded in providing some “substance” to my previous post and in showing that UTEOTW's rebuttatls are substantially without substance themselves. UTEOTW’s assertion does NOT hold true. Observations from the physical sciences do indicate a young world when properly interpreted. A whole lot more substance can be found at the links I’ve provided in this drawn out post. I urge you to read through them.

There is evidence that the earth is young but some with eyes to see do not see.

 

Well Peter does say in 2 Peter 3:5, that some are willingly ignorant. I enjoyed your rebuttal, good job. Answers in Genesis contains a wealth of information all glorifying God and His creation. Institute of Creation Research is also a great website with many, many well qualified scientists! I have Dr. Morris’ The Defenders Study Bible, which is an all around great study Bible and I highly recommend it, as well as Dr. Morris’ book entitled Defending the Faith.

 

Now, that was a good post, mud.

Arguments, references, rebuttal of previous claims and counter claims, the whole nine yards.

I'll get back to you on the details later, but I have been waiting 10 pages for a good post like that.

 

UTEOTW, believes as he was taught and accepts interpretations of data as he was indoctrinated.
The notion that every student that is trained to look at data from a perscribed perspective and decipher information by a perscribed method will not support the same cookie cutter theories if those theories are not correct is totally preposterous!

The sins of the parent are passed onto the child. The mistakes of the teacher are passed onto the student-----unless there is a change. That is what the Bible tells us. Satan deceives and controls. It is odd to suppose that secular scientists cannot be manipulated (they don't know GOD's ways). If I'm taught 1 + 1 = 3. How am I to know 1 + 1 = 2. Will I not repeat the same mistake and reach the very same conclusions?

If the Bible teaches anything, it teaches us not to rely on man's wisdom. The funny thing is, evolutionists tell us to rely on their understanding and set asside the BIBLE.

 

No, I used to be YEC. The YEC positions themselves changed my mind. It was not until after I had examined enough YEC positions to know that it was not true that I even began to look elsewhere. I was not indoctrinated, at least not as you claim.

Now, about Wieland and the dino bloodcells... Do you withdraw that claim?

 

A_Christian, then how do you know that what you were taught about God and the Bible was not erroneous?

By your logic, the only way to learn about God is to study Him and His Word by yourself. Of course, this is a great way to do it! But it also does not mean that we cannot learn from others, as if they are corrupt and incapable of conveying correct information.

Everyone is indoctrinated. Had you been born in an Islamic country, you would almost certainly be a Muslim. To say that evolutionists are "indoctrinated", while true, is meaningless, because everyone is indoctrinated in some way or another. But evolutionists have a heckuva lot of evidence to back up their "indoctrination".

 

Interesting that those who claim the earth is round aren't asked to show biblical support for it. It's a matter of history that Jews believed in a flat earth. Verses like Job 22:14
</font>[/QUOTE]So your exegetical review for your own claim on Genesis 1 - is to quote Job 22??

How do you deal with the Hebrew statement about the "circle of the earth" and the "four corners" John?

Do you simply pick one and then claim that the other is anti-Catholic?

Again the cirle of the earth

So that entire "cirle of the earth" -- thing - bad thing to read eh?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Whether it is in solution or resides as a precipitant on the ocean floor does not solve your problem.

If the influx is 100x the outflux then the problem remains.

However your response serves to illustrate the point. For atheist evolutionists "any old excuse will do" to "explain away disconfirming data".

What is amazing - is that Christians would do the same - with data that is in support of the Bible account. Tossing it out the window to exault humanism above God - and then add "data WHAT data? I saw no data in support of God's word!" as UTEOTW so glibbly does.

How sad that Christians could allow themselves to get to such a point.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Noticed that to evolutionism's devotees - the scientific data in support of the Bible account - is "a problem to be SOLVED" trying solution after solution for size.

IT is as UTEOTW likes to say "anomallies waiting to be resolved".

Geochronometers consistently showing in measurement after measurement -- young earth ages - are merely an "anomally" to devotees like UTEOTW. Certainly not a reason to doubt his faith in evolutionism at all expense to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Well stated, Bob.

 

One (or even several) pieces of data that do not support a prevailing theory - a theory that has hundreds of thousands of pieces of evidence for it - is rightly called an anomaly, by definition.

In contrast, YECs think that 5 pieces of evidence are indicative of truth while it is the 10,000 pieces of evidence that are "anomalies".

 

No, Brett. It is the interpretations of the data that evolutionists and long-agers depend on, not the data itself. The data itself points toward a very young universe.

 

Thank you Helen.

And we haven't even gotten to the Palonium data yet -- aint it great!?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Then make the better interpretations instead of complaining about them being bad. Show where all these guys have been duped during theor life's work.

Brett is right on with what I have been saying. When you have hundreds, thousands, millions of pieces of data pointing in a given direction, a handful that do not agree ARE anomolies. Unless you can take whatever you think they are showing you and use it to re-interpret the other data, the vast majority of the data, in a way that agrees with the new interpretation AND that better explains the bulk of the dataset. And, as we have seen, these anomalies have a way of being figured out eventually.

Aside: Sorry to hear you got sick and missed your trip, Helen.