Posted: Dec 27, 2012 7:20 pm
by Rumraket
Atheistoclast wrote:
Weaver wrote:Uh - no.

That's not how it works, you see. You aren't debating yourself - you can't simply put up something you think is interesting or good, then declare victory and refuse to engage in discussion.

Who says I am refusing to engage? I am merely showing how isotopic concentrations can be altered other than through decay.

But you know that scientists know that, right? When you're "pointing it out" you're not making the case for a 4.5 billion year old Earth any less solid, you're only demonstrating your own ignorance of the subject matter(or your ideological motivations).

The estimate for the age of the planet wasn't just invented out of thin air and then subsequently scientists started ignoring cases such as these you bring up here.

When geologists estimate the age of something, they usually take a lot more factors into account than just an age extracted from radiometric dating. The type of rock, it's structural composition etc. can tell a lot about what processes the rock went through during and after it's formation, and these influences often have impacts on the dating of the material. Scientists are aware of this, and they almost always try to correct for it.