@shinyblurry said:
1. Constant decay rate
2. Ratio of daughter to natural
3. Beginning conditions known
4. No leaching or addition of parent
5. No leaching or addition of daughter
6. All assumptions valid for billions of years

If all of those assumptions are valid, the date can be trusted. The problem is that there is no way to determine whether all of those assumptions are true or not. And that is, if there were just one date. The experiment actually gives a range of dates, which is then further interpreted by what is called "field relationships" between the rocks. There are many technical problems with this, but I won't get into them here. There is also the problem that different dating methods give different results for the same rock, and that when we measure things we know the age of, we get incorrect dates. If we get incorrect dates for things we know the age of, why should we trust the dates it gives for things we don't?

Uh, things like constant decay rate is fare more than an assumption, and it certainly requires no form of faith to be believed in. Sure , we werent standing by actually watching the decay taking place for billions of years, but you know we have things like chemistry and physics where people have studied the properties of atoms and particles and figured out mathematically, and confirmed experimentally, the stability of different isotope-configurations This isnt a mystery or magic anymore, people know this stuff. Read some quantum chemistry that Kent Hovind didnt write.

But suppose, for the sake of argument, that it was a bit of an assumption to say that decay was constant, lets just linger with that idea for a second. We see some decay happen, and we assume its contant backwards in time. well what would be the alternative? Well, a non-constant decay, of course. The problem is just that we have no information, that is, no evidence, that the rate of decay has ever, or even can, change. Worse still, since there is no evidence, we cant say how the rate has changed. Is it decaying slower and slower, (which would imply a younger universe) or faster and faster (which would imply an even older universe) or does it fluctuate wildly? There is of course no way to tell, except to concede that there is no evidence for any of these three scenarios. According you Young Earth Creationists, the earth is something like 6-12000 years old, which would mean a MASSIVE, impossibly weird and complicated, and seemingly undetectable deceleration in the rate of decay of all known elements. Worse still, in order for the math to work out, all the different elements would decelerate at different rates, for some, again, inexplicable reason. And again, without this being detected by todays best scientists.Talk about making assumptions, about having faith All in order to make a magic book remain magic.

Oh well.

But of course, thats just be beginning, because it just so happens that the assumption we made (that the rate of decay is constant) lines up pretty damn nicely with other known facts about the universe, like how big it is, what stars are made of, how massive they are how long they have burned, how the whole universe is expanding, how tectonic plates move, how animals evolved, how fossils were buried by Satan to fool us all laid down in order over the eons, genetic diversity and the relationships and relatedness of all living things. It all pans out pretty fucking nicely to an emerging picture of a universe thats 13.72 billion years old, and an earth that is about 4.6 billion years old.

But I guess all these aligning scientific facts make the baby jesus sad and must be ignored, or at least made out by believers to be "based on faith" (The very thing that, by definition, underpins the entire worldview of a believer!) So that they can dismiss it because its just faith. Oh the irony, it burns.

The people who don't want to hear this are the people who have made up their minds that they are responsible only to themselves. The idea of a higher power offends their selfish ideals. If you think you can stand on your own merits before a Holy God, feel free.

>> ^acidSpine:
Since your video has only 43 views and not a single vote, I'll just assume it's you and I talking here. Nobody can really untangle the mess of religiously-motivated psuedo-scientific conspiracy theories you subscribe to for you, least of all me. When you get all your information from Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, the Discovery Institute and silly little videos like these it's no wonder you believe so much crap.
If these guys are so confident evolution is a lie and Jesus is the answer why don't they do the research, publish peer reviewed articles and step up to accept their Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Biology? What's that? Because they have no evidence, can't compete in the scientific arena and must resort to convincing unscientific plebs evolution is an ivory tower conspiracy set against Jesus? Spot on.
For the third time, do you wonder why thinking people don't want to hear this?

Since your video has only 43 views and not a single vote, I'll just assume it's you and I talking here. Nobody can really untangle the mess of religiously-motivated psuedo-scientific conspiracy theories you subscribe to for you, least of all me. When you get all your information from Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind, the Discovery Institute and silly little videos like these it's no wonder you believe so much crap.

If these guys are so confident evolution is a lie and Jesus is the answer why don't they do the research, publish peer reviewed articles and step up to accept their Nobel prizes in Physics, Chemistry and Biology? What's that? Because they have no evidence, can't compete in the scientific arena and must resort to convincing unscientific plebs evolution is an ivory tower conspiracy set against Jesus? Spot on.

For the third time, do you wonder why thinking people don't want to hear this?

Not Ken Hogan, it's Kent Hovind.

Die, Kent Hovind, die! Also *dead

Is it possible that Russ is also Alms4him. He did make a comment in this video about Kent Hovind. Is he from New Jersey?

1. What is your idea of perfect happiness?
Being in love.
2. What is your greatest fear?
Dying (not death, because by then I'll be dead).
3. What is the trait you most deplore in yourself?
Jealousy.
4. What is the trait you most deplore in others?
Dishonesty or abuse.
5. Which living person do you most admire?
Daniel Dennett
6. What is your greatest extravagance?
I don't think I really have any great extravagance. Maybe my computer?
7. What is your current state of mind?
Relaxed and thoughtful.
8. What do you consider the most overrated virtue?
Altruism and faith.
9. On what occasion do you lie?
Rarely, but if my lie can save a lot of grief, by avoiding an unnecessary confrontation about something stupid, I might.
10. What do you most dislike about your appearance?
My gut.
11. Which living person do you most despise?
Hmm, so hard to choose: Kent Hovind, Kenn Hamm (all those creationist dumbfucks), and televangelists. And Rasch187.
12. What is the quality you most like in a man?
Honesty, humor, friendship, intellect.
13. What is the quality you most like in a woman?
Awesome beewbage. Heh. Nah, humor, honesty, straight-forwardness, intellect, friendship.. I look for the same qualities in both guys and girls, to be honest.
14. Which words or phrases do you most overuse?
"Fantastic", "super", "In a minute"
15. What or who is the greatest love of your life?
For now, music.
16. When and where were you happiest?
I don't know. Maybe when I was in Ireland in 2002 and was entangled with a girl from my high school, or one summer in 2003 I think, where we were a bunch of people in a summer house where I played guitar and we all sang and stuff. I liked that.
17. Which talent would you most like to have?
Better song-writing skills.
18. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
Physically, I'd trim up. (Already on it)
More cosmically, I'd like to be able to have a better overview of a situation during, instead of after it happens.
19. What do you consider your greatest achievement?
My education, my music skills and the website I ran in 2004-2007, which I was very prolific on. (www.edb-tidende.dk it's dead in the water now though)
20. If you were to die and come back as a person or a thing, what would it be?
I would come back as a young version of myself and try to change things up, see what would happen if I made different choices.
21. Where would you most like to live?
With a loved one. Don't really care where.
22. What is your most treasured possession?
My mind. Of things outside myself, then I think the things I can't replace. The data on my computer, pictures, documents etc. I think. All other "possessions" can be replaced. They're just things. I would say friendships, but that's hardly a possession.
23. What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Depression, then everything sucks. Been there, no fun.
24. What is your favorite occupation?
Playing music, engaging in reasonable discussions, masturbation. (at the same time)
25. What is your most marked characteristic?
I say my mind. I'm a pretty straight-forward, no-nonsense kinda guy. Other than that, I don't know. Other people are better judges of that than me.
26. What do you most value in your friends?
Honesty and humor.
27. Who are your favorite writers?
Frank Herbert, Neal Stephenson, William King, Scott McGough.
28. Who is your hero of fiction?
Randy Marsh. Heh, or Rorsharch and Dr. Manhattan. Randy epitomizes the human condition, weak, narrow sighted and everything. Rosharch represents a view of the world in black and white, which I like the concept of; and Dr. Manhattan represents the way the world is and he is basically intellect personified, which I also like.
29. Which historical figure do you most identify with?
This requires me to know a lot of history. I don't, because I don't care much about it. I identify with me, because I am me, no one else.
30. Who are your heroes in real life?
The four horsemen, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens.
31. What are your favorite names?
Lisa, Cecilia, Michael, Jason, off the top of my head.
32. What is it that you most dislike?
People lying to me or in general who are dicks to me. I have no interest in these people.
33. What is your greatest regret?
Two things, I think. Not doing anything about the girl I had a serious crush on for most of my elementary school until high school; and not realizing that Computer Science was not for me earlier, instead of fucking around there for two years.
34. How would you like to die?
I'd rather not.
35. What is your motto?
"Don't be a dick" is something I can stand by.

>> ^robdot:
i think the feds are seizing this place,tax fraud.


Nope, that would be Kent Hovinds park "Dinosaur Adventure Land" Just as loony, of course, but atleast they dont abuse the word "museum" as much.

hovind?
as in "ken hovind" progeny?
the same ken hovind who lied about his science credentials and was incarcerated for fraud?
THAT hovind?
looks like ken hovind has taken his charlatan show family style.
douchebags.

KENT HOVIND!!! Raaaghhr!

bah..
hovind again..sighs..
i have already ranted enough about this charlatan.
but 50 points to eric3579 for using "FUCKTARD" in his title!

>> ^Alms4him:
You will see Kent Hovind on the Day you stand before your Creator and Intelligent Designer of all things. Kent Hovind will be sitting in Judgment of you, with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Whoa, that's quite the promotion Kent has received... I must've missed that announcement somehow. What did he do to get it?

Whenever i think of Kent Hovind, I think of this..
http://www.videosift.com/video/Kent-Hovind-is-a-fucktard

BTW - that Kent Hovind is now in Prison for TAX evasion... HAHA

ok....
this is pure tripe.
first,there is no sign of a debate.
for a debate to happen there has to be two opposing views.
second,while this teacher may have had a "born-again" experience,which is fine,he seems to be more prosyletizing than debating,which is not fine in the realms of a "debate".
i have seen kent hovind debate,his skills are less than extraordinary,and is usually left shackled by his own inept and circular logic by an experienced person of science.think it was dr bennet,but i could be mistaken.
the man built a museum in order to perpetuate his premise that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time.that alone disqualifies him in any rational discussions about creation.
mr hovind claims to be an evangelical,but in actuality he is a fundamentalist.
the written word IS the word of god...period.
to entertain any other theory,premise or reality is to deny his whole belief system.this is the main reason he promotes creationism so fervently.
the fact of the matter is:the bible is the written word of man and anybody who looks deeper into the matter will see that plainly.

so let me throw my two cents here:
first:there are 66 books in the bible (73 if you are catholic),yet there are in actuality 267 books of the bible,all by biblical authors.
why so many books not included in the bible?
nicea council of 325 a.d emperor constantine played a large role in its canonization.understand that before this time christianity looked far different than the christianity you see today,the current christian churches roots started in 325 a.d.
the bible contains the gospels (the good news) of mathew,mark,luke and john.
but there are actually 24 gospels.
*for all you heretics out there i suggest reading the gospels of mary,judas and thomas.you might enjoy the revelations of paul also.all are apocryphal books.
second:understanding that in the time of the biblical writings of the old testament (from the hebrew torah),sacred geomancy,astrology,numerology and a huge dose of superstition,influenced almost all religious texts.they were almost entirely metaphorical.
for example..the book of genesis,which has been written and re-written over and over,is actually a metaphorical representation of the tetragrammaton,which in itself is a graphic representation of creation itself,yet having little,or nothing,to do with religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
to use the book of genesis,and all its obvious flaws,to explain and argue the validity of biblical creationism,is not only a poor platform,but lacks imagination.
the only reason i can surmise that seemingly intelligent people keep re-visiting this dead horse,is that they believe whole-heartedly in the "word",
and to allow any other belief is tantamount to having to rebuke god.
this is the fundamental flaw in..well...fundamentalism.
when your belief system is so rigid,based in bad science and even worse theology,you are doomed to either break or dismiss all evidence as heresy.
this is dark ages material,and should be rejected,but sadly its not.

one final note...
if the definition of science is:the study and observation of the natural,physical universe through testing and experimentation,to reach a consensus based on theory and fact.
and if you believe there is a creator.
a creator who created the known physical universe.
would it not then make sense that science is actually the study of god?
is that NOT a more poetic,and beautifully harmonious way of looking at the universe?
because to me science reveals creation to be a much more complex,profound and poetic place than the book of genesis.
who wants to be dust and a rib?
booooooring.
now the story of a single-cell organism fighting,scratching and ultimately co-operating with other single-cell organisms to form more complex,and ultimately what we see today.creatures of all unique and incredible forms.
now THATS impressive!
so ends todays sermon..
please dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses.
next week!
sink or swim wednesdays!