I'm not sure about the elements involved in radiometric dating, but I think that the speed of light is pretty constant.

That's assuming that light has been around longer than Earth, and did not teleport from the stars to Earth when God created it. See? Flawed arguments on both sides.

Video for you guys.

Seemed kind of interesting, though I watched most of their debate and the news segment and it does not seem they actually talk about evolution/creation but rather creation/atheism.

The pro-creationists really seem to be making plenty of assumptions in this segment they assume that because something is intricate or complex it must have a designer and they assume that this designer is their god. They also express difficulty with the idea of the universe always having existed, but they apparently accept an eternal existence for God.

The sad thing is when arguments like this are made without sarcasm. At least it seems to me that you're being sarcastic it can be hard to pick up on over the internet.

I'd be shocked if AJ was being sarcastic when he said that.

What I meant was that a creationist might say that God put light on Earth and then had it delivered at a constant rate, rather than light has traveled at a constant rate since its source was [created, for lack of a term less relevant to the conversation at hand]. That's the thing. Creationists can counter every evolutionist argument with something like that.

[Watches Video]

I don't have a comment on it. It seemed to me like a conversation about American history and then the guy for Christianity layed down all the usual arguments.

Okay I lied. I do have a comment. How come they assume that because the universe seems specially catered to house life as we know it, the chances of this happening on its own are almost nothing? If the laws of nature were different, would life not also be different? Is the Universe one thing and Life something else entirely?

And now I'm done.

The problem with this claim is that all the different methods of determining the age of the earth and the universe match up. How can all the different dating methods science use to date the earth all be completely wrong and at the same time all give us the same age?? Could you possibly give us an explaination why 44 different methods of radiometric dating, all based on measuring decay of different isotopes, all give us the same wrong dates? And how could these wrong dates match up with dates gleaned from luminescence dating techniques? If you want continue to make this claim, support it or admit you're wrong........
As to changing decay rates. Since we know a great deal about radioactive decay, there is no evidence that the decay rates have ever radically changed as creationists so desperately claim. We can observe super novas in deep space going back at least 200,000 years and with spectrometers we can see that the decay rates were the same then. So when did these decay rates change, as you claim, and why......

There's not much more that needs to be said. Obviously, if all thinks were created at more or less at the same time by God, they would all return about the same age if tested by certain means of dating that are only accurate if they have always been at a constant rate, and obviously they haven't always been at a constant rate since they were all created. What more of an explanation could you want? SINCE ALL THINGS WERE CREATED, YOUR DATING METHODS ARE NO GOOD.

Also, see the videos I posted on this post:
http://www.puretalkforum.com/f69/evo...html#post17335 (Evolution vs creation)
It offers a VERY in-depth scientific explanation as to why your dating methods are no good.

I just wonder how they test the accuracy of the dating methods. You can say that all of your tests suggest something is X years old, but you have no way of actually proving that unless you were X years old yourself...

WHOA, SAME GOES FOR GOD.

OMG.