Changes

::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago.  As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific).  I'll tell you what I told them about this article.  First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable."  This is irrelevant.  I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers.  This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is).  The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates.  I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.   

::::I have actually read that article you linked to long ago.  As I stated in my original edit summary, I am friends with, and have great respect for a few evangelists who I have debated on these issues before (open air preachers Micah Armstrong and "JK", to be specific).  I'll tell you what I told them about this article.  First of all, the author states that "A further problem is that the 4.3 billion-year-old zircon, dated according to the U/U method, was identified by the U/Th method to be undatable."  This is irrelevant.  I don't see why there would be any thorium in the zircon crystals, so of course the U/Th dating will not be reliable (either the author doesn't understand the ''Nature'' article, or he is intentionally trying to confuse his readers.  This, by the way, is one example of what pseudoscience is).  The author makes a big deal about how most of the crystals dated produced different dates.  I don't see why the factors that resulted in the formation of those crystals could not have existed in that place for millions of years, so crystals of different ages could be expected.   

If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one.  But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used.  He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down.  I've measured the speed of light myself.  Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value.  I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate.  I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.   

::::If you force me to agree with one of your three reasons for me calling the speed of light decay thing pseudoscience, then I guess it would have to be the second one.  But it's not just that the guy's conjecture is so obviously incorrect, it's the method he used.  He just took the fact that measurements taken centuries ago usually produced a higher value of ''c'' as evidence that the speed of light is actually slowing down.  I've measured the speed of light myself.  Even with (somewhat) modern instruments, it's very hard to get a precise or accurate value.  I believe Mister Setterfield's thing is pseudoscience because of the weakness of the thought processes he tried to advocate.  I definitely do not consider all research conducted by people who believe in creationism to be pseudoscience.   

You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means.  This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science.  But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.   

::::You are correct in saying that assumptions must be made in order to determine the age of the earth using any observation-based means.  This is true for any observational (as opposed to theoretical) science.  But it is extremely unlikely that any lead entered those crystals through chemical processes, and it is extremely unlikely that the decay constant of the uranium in those crystals has been altered.   

The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article.  I think that is irresponsible.  --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::The composition of these crystals is the strongest evidence against the conjecture of Young Earth Creationism, but until yesterday there was absolutely no discussion concerning them on this article.  I think that is irresponsible.  --[[User:MichaelK|MichaelK]] 13:42, 30 April 2008 (EDT)