disproving evolution in 5 minutes or less

[one.opinion]

2 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

The effect is minimal on the shorter half-lives. And not measured on the ones relevant to radiometric dating.

A half-life of 300,000 years is a long half-life. Remember that 300,000 years is roughly 50X longer than most YEC expect for the age of the universe.

5 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

You are welcome to do your own research, you have been asking me to do your research. 

That's not how this whole "do your own research" works. I am stating that there is virtually no supporting evidence for your hypothesis, so you would need to produce evidence to contradict my claim.

[one.opinion]

5 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

I laid out my logic

Your logic is not supported by evidence. Mine is.

[ARGOSY]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Your logic is not supported by evidence. Mine is.

Emphatic denial is how you deal with the possibilities of the magnetic field? One.op that's not evidence

Edited April 11, 2019 by ARGOSY

[ARGOSY]

3 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Your logic is not supported by evidence. Mine is.

You obviously never understood my logic concerning small effect is currently showing small changes, the logical projection is that a large effect could cause large changes to decay rates. You don't see the logic, oh well.

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, ARGOSY said:

One.op that's not evidence

I don't have evidence related to the magnetic field. What I have is evidence that multiple, independent radiometric dating studies performed with different isotopes consistently show the same results. You have conjecture, not evidence, that magnetic fields to affect radiometric dating. Do you understand the difference between conjecture and evidence?

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, ARGOSY said:

You obviously never understood my logic concerning small effect is currently showing small changes, the logical projection is that a large effect could cause large changes to decay rates. You don't see the logic, oh well.

I understand your conjecture and your logic. But it is never evidence until have you have facts that support it.

[ARGOSY]

6 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

I don't have evidence related to the magnetic field. What I have is evidence that multiple, independent radiometric dating studies performed with different isotopes consistently show the same results. You have conjecture, not evidence, that magnetic fields to affect radiometric dating. Do you understand the difference between conjecture and evidence?

There currently exists tangible evidence that the extent of solar particle penetration directly affects decay. Fact. 

The strength of the magnetic field, and air pressure directly affect solar particle penetration. Fact. 

Science is based on evidence-based based theories. Mine is a direct evidence-based theory that the strength of the magnetic field and atmospheric pressure directly affect solar particle  penetration, fluctuations which are proven to affect decay. 

Put your head in the sand, my theory is evidence based, and science is based on evidence-based theories.

[one.opinion]

8 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

The strength of the magnetic field, and air pressure directly affect solar particle penetration. Fact. 

There is zero evidence that any of this significantly alters radiometric dating. Fact.

My friend, my head is not the one in the sand.

[ARGOSY]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

There is zero evidence that any of this significantly alters radiometric dating. Fact.

My friend, my head is not the one in the sand.

Let's agree to disagree. If you think a lack of studies in a needed area dispels my evidence, feel free to think that.

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, ARGOSY said:

Let's agree to disagree.

Sounds good, I probably should have agreed a few posts ago :-P Love ya, brother!