However rigorously you test Radionuclide dating, you can only truly verify it if you can test it against other means of establishing the age of things. While I lack the physics and math background, it seems to me, given the differing decay rates of the various primary and daughter elements, that had yhwh done so, as time goes on there should be an ever growing error between the expected ratios and the observed ratios, i.e. Perhaps you could try bringing some references to the table instead of your incredulity? All of those completely independent means of dating overlap. You need to explain why independent means of evidence acquisition that arrives at a consilient position does so if it's all wrong. Please read the above sentence sufficient times until it sinks in.
We don't know what happens to properties of elements once you go beyond certain parameters which can't yet be tested. if yhwh had done this, would it not provide an arrow pointing at 6 - 10,000 BCE, and NOT at 4.7 billion years? You've just ignored the entire point of the post, haven't you? You need to do that BEFORE making authoritative statements that really reflect only your ill-informed opinion. If you aren't aware that science is about experimentation, and you think scientists sit about chucking out good ideas and sitting on their arses, then it's understandable why you'd make such a stupid assertion as the above. If you then continue to post by making only confident assertions, you will reap what you sow.
I suspect the answer to this is already here somewhere, but I keep getting sidetracked by all the other fascinating stuff. Or did you mean that none of these are permissible in your opinion? We can only scientifically verify data if we can actually test it.
Last Thursdayism So, in their ongoing and ever more baroque, yea, verily I say unto thee, even rococo, attempts to somehow rationalize their faith in the face of overwhelming and ever increasing evidence to the contrary, they now have the Great Pumpkin cleverly hiding his hand in the creation of the universe in such a way as to render it totally indistinguishable from a universe in which The Great Pumpkin does not exist. And that feeling is the most important thing in all the universe. Perhaps you can tell us why your opinion should be considered as factually established as the confidence with which you assert it suggests.First post, so if this is the wrong place please move it to the appropriate one. Perhaps you could try bringing some references to the table instead of your incredulity? But you need to look at from a real world point of view. And, of course, the way we interact with dating partners has changed. It was more present in the physical world and less in the clouds.We had to find out information the hard way — by getting to know the person.You may physically be there, but mentally you're somewhere else. Romance doesn't disappear on its own; our efforts are what dwindle it. Or maybe we feel that, since we already have our prize, we no longer need to try. Modern dating (not including booty calls and having friends with benefits, which is not real dating) lacks the romance that once was standard etiquette.
Little things (i.e., giving flowers, opening doors, having candlelit dinners) and bigger things (i.e., keeping it in your pants for the first couple of dates) no longer exist.A genuine eagerness to get to know the person, even on a level that feels like small talk, will allow for real chemistry to happen. Constantly interacting with your phone removes you from reality altogether.I understand you find it more convenient to know about people before you meet them in person. And if you're experiencing anxiety just reading this, you have a problem. There's something about face-to-face interaction that cyber interaction will never be able to compete with. There's a wonder man or woman sitting with you and spending time with you.Throwing in a little bit of old-school romance never hurts.Too much romance can backfire, true, but having no romance at all will prevent your relationship from flourishing anyway.However rigorously you test Radionuclide dating, you can only truly verify it if you can test it against other means of establishing the age of things. We don't know what happens to properties of elements once you go beyond certain parameters which can't yet be tested. I suspect the answer to this is already here somewhere, but I keep getting sidetracked by all the other fascinating stuff. Or did you mean that none of these are permissible in your opinion?