Worldnetdaily Tries to Science. Fails.


Scientists recently unveiled an exciting new find, a fossil whale skull found in Virginia, and the Worldnetdaily has an article about it that is so embarrassingly ignorant that they don’t even have a byline for it. Apparently, no one wanted their name attached to it. I can’t blame them.

When scientists at a Maryland museum announced the discovery of the fossil of a whale skull on the banks of the Potomac River in Virginia, they calculated the age to be approximately 15 million years old.

The age, according to a Washington Post report Monday, was determined by the geologic formation in which it was found, the Calvert Formation.

Scientists call this the relative method of dating, which assumes the fossils in a particular sedimentary layer are within the same geological epoch.

No, actually. The data of the Calvert formation is determined by absolute dating, not just relative dating. Relative dating merely notes that if the strata are undisturbed, lower layers (and the fossils found within them) are older than higher ones. But the Calvert formation is very well studied and undoubtedly has been dated radiometrically as well, which is an absolute number rather than a relative one.

But how do scientists know the age of the formation? Most believe various methods of radiometric dating, based on the rate of nuclear decay of radioactive elements, provide a reliable estimate.

Georgia Purdom, however, a researcher with Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis who earned a Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University, contends research by creation scientists has shown that the decay rate is variable, making radiometric dating an unreliable method.

“All radiometric dating methods are based on unverifiable assumptions about the past,” said Purdom, whose scientific research focuses on the roles of natural selection and mutation in microbial populations.

Really? Please show the data. How was the experiment done? Under what conditions do the decay rates vary? How were those conditions applied? How much did the rates vary? Inquiring minds want to know.

The Post said scientists who have been studying the Calvert Formation for more than 100 years have dated the various layers of rock, dirt and sediment, making it possible to determine the age of a fossil in relation to where it is discovered.

Purdom, a speaker this week at the International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh, which began Monday, told WND the consensus among her colleagues there is that the Earth is 6,000 years old, based on the Genesis account in the Bible and scientific experimentation she says is “consistent with the Earth being less than 4.5 billion years old.”

Again, wouldn’t you just love to see these alleged experiments? None are detailed. There’s a reason for that, of course.

Purdom argues that any dating method is based on assumptions about the past. Hers, she acknowledges, is based on her reading of Genesis and her belief that the Bible is “the infallible word of God.”

Then we need take you no more seriously than we would someone who bases their analysis of the evidence on Alice in Wonderland.

“Evidence is always interpreted in light of your worldview,” she said, whatever one’s beliefs about God or convictions about how the Bible should be interpreted.

“When you’re starting with nothing, and your own ideas about the past, you can come up with whatever you want,” she said.

Sure, because obviously those are the only two choices, the Bible or “nothing.” How did someone who makes such stupid arguments get a PhD?

Comments

  1. blf says

    How did someone who makes such stupid arguments get a PhD?

    Send 100 USD and an SASE, and get a decree of your choice in a field of your invention!
    Discount! For 350 USD you can get three degrees! (Only one SASE needed.)

  2. unbound says

    The decay rate is variable? I guess all those nuclear reactors used to generate power around the world (and much of our navy) are figments of my imagination. No way in heck they would be useful if the decay rate was variable.

  3. doublereed says

    HOLY CRAP! DECAY RATES ARE VARIABLE??? THIS IS NOBEL PRIZE WORTHY! I ASSUME THEY HAVE EXPERIMENTS TO BACK THIS UP AND THEN ARE GOING TO WOW THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY!

  4. Ben P says

    With apologies for giving Answers in Genesis hits, this is their biography of Georgia Purdom. She is the “Director of Scientific Research” for AIG

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=52

    AiG-US speaker, researcher, author and online instructor

    To our knowledge, Dr. Georgia Purdom is the first female Ph.D. scientist engaged in full-time research and speaking on the Book of Genesis for a creationist organization (i.e., which accepts Genesis as literal history, including a young earth).*

    Even at her young age (it was in 2000 that she received her Ph.D. in molecular genetics from Ohio State University), Dr. Purdom has already developed into an expert on the growing creation/evolution controversy. She is a compelling, dynamic lecturer. (For example, at AiG’s extremely well-attended “Creation Mega Conference” in the summer of 2005, she spoke on the topic of the Intelligent Design Movement and some of the cautions Christians should have about this growing movement.)

    She is obviously also an excellent fit to speak to women’s groups (formerly unreached by AiG) and young people’s gatherings.

    Dr. Purdom told AiG that “the creation and evolution issue is so important because it is foundational to biblical authority, a Christian worldview and to the whole of Christianity. Therefore, it is necessary to have a solid understanding of the issue of origins.”

    Dr. Purdom became a Christian when she attended a youth camp (she was eight years old). Six years later at a Christian youth conference, she dedicated her life to serving the Lord

    Professional experience

    Among Dr. Purdom’s professional accomplishments include the winning of a variety of honors, research presentations at national conferences and the completion of six years of teaching at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University (Ohio), where she served as a professor of biology.

    Dr. Purdom has published papers in the Journal of Neuroscience, the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research and the Journal of Leukocyte Biology. She is also a member of the Creation Research Society, American Society for Microbiology, and American Society for Cell Biology.

    She is a peer reviewer for Creation Research Science Quarterly and has attended several creation conferences held by AiG and the BSG (A Creation Biology Study Group). She is also a member of the research team for the GENE project being conducted by the Institute for Creation Research. Dr. Purdom helped design several exhibits for the Creation Museum and serves as an instructor for the online apologetics classes offered through AiG.

    Dr. Purdom’s main area of specialty is cell and molecular biology. Her graduate work focused on genetic regulation of factors important for bone remodeling. Her creation research interests are in the role of microbes before and after the Fall and the speciation of animals after the Flood.

    She also enjoys pointing out the problems with mutation and natural selection as the driving forces for evolution. Dr. Purdom says: “Many people believe mutation and natural selection are responsible for the widely varying animal species and races of humans seen on the earth today. They are wrong.” (See Evolution or Adaptation? for one of her articles on this issue).

    Another one of Dr. Purdom’s keen interests is the Intelligent Design Movement. In addition to her talks and articles on the IDM, she has designed and taught (via distance learning) a course entitled “Intelligent Design Biology.”

    Regarding the IDM, she commented that: “On the surface, IDM looks very attractive to Christians in that it supports the existence of God through science alone, while leaving out the Bible. It seems less controversial because a ‘god’ is not named and therefore, could be taught in schools in opposition to evolution. Many Christians are not educated about the IDM and the implications that it is teaching, which I think are problematic.”

    Dr. Purdom first heard Ken Ham speak several years ago when she was a student at Cedarville University (in Central Ohio). She soon had a dream of being able to work in creation studies, especially after noticing that there were not very many women engaged in even part-time creation research and lecturing. (To learn more about how she came to AiG see My Journey to AiG)

    Current endeavors at AiG for Dr. Purdom include:

    – Research to develop models to understand the role of microbes before and after the Fall and speciation of animals after the Flood.
    – Writing articles for the website, Answers magazine, and the online technical journal.
    – Expanding AiG’s outreach to women’s conferences and youth.
    – Designing and instructing online education courses offered through AiG.
    – Designing and conducting workshops for the Creation Museum

  5. raven says

    When you’re starting with nothing, and your own ideas about the past, you can come up with whatever you want,”

    Which is exactly what she did.

    She assumes science is wrong and her version of the bible is correct. It’s pure Postmodern Presupposalitionism.

  6. gshelley says

    All radiometric dating methods are based on unverifiable assumptions about the past

    All science, and pretty much everything we do relies on the unverifiable assumption about the past that it happened and we weren’t all created yesterday with false memories.

  7. gshelley says

    Also

    Evidence is always interpreted in light of your worldview,” she said, whatever one’s beliefs about God or convictions about how the Bible should be interpreted.

    This is actually true. There worldview is that the bible is right and their interpretation overrides observation and reason ie science. The scientific c worldview is that science is the best way of understanding the world. However, they will realrely be explicit in this, as I think they want the uninformed to assume that the two worldviews are “God exists” and “there is no god”

  8. raven says

    the two worldviews are “God exists” and “there is no god”

    This is one of the most common lies of fundies.

    There aren’t two worldviews.

    There are thousands, millions, or billions of worldviews depending on where you draw the line. You could claim with justification that eveyone has their own individual worldview.

    There are enough xian wordviews for 42,000 sects and a few bloody wars among themselves that killed millions.

  9. hatchetfish when it's not at home says

    blf: not likEly with Ohio State unless you’re implying forgery. My guess is either the be lies about when she converted, or she’s one of the ‘take down evolutionism from within’ submarine students they’ve encouraged for years. ie she lied, all through her academic career, to get the rubber stamp.

  10. says

    Really? Please show the data. How was the experiment done? Under what conditions do the decay rates vary? How were those conditions applied? How much did the rates vary? Inquiring minds want to know.

    The evidence for the variability of decay rates is pretty incontrovertible, and well-established. Assuming non-variable decay directly contradicts the previously determined 10,000-year age of the earth. Ergo, decay rates must be variable. This is easily explained: as the universe ages, and the atoms get older, they don’t have the energy they once had. Once you re-calibrate your dating formulas to the completely-true 10,000 year old earth, you find that radiometric dating absolutely proves the world is only 10,000 years old.

    Now if you will all excuse me, I will go home, sit on my couch, drink some beer, and think up some more science.

  11. says

    And, lo, radioactive decay was much sped up
    to make it appear that most of 4.5 billion years
    was really ten months or so of rainy deluge,
    And the LORD looked down upon the world and said
    ‘Holy fuck. Everybody’s dead.’
    And promised to do better next time.
    And it came to pass that the LORD started all over again,
    trying not to boil and irradiate everything.”

  12. raven says

    contends research by creation scientists has shown that the decay rate is variable, making radiometric dating an unreliable method.

    nbcnews:

    By peering at alcohol molecules in a distant galaxy, astronomers have determined that a fundamental constant of nature has hardly changed at all over the age of the universe.

    The constant — the ratio of the mass of a proton to the mass of an electron — has changed by only one hundred thousandth of a percent or less over the past 7 billion years, the observations show.

    Purdom is just lying without really trying to sound coherent. Her audience is near illiterates.

    In point of fact, we can see into the past. A long ways. 13.8 billion years, almost all the way to the Big Bang.
    It’s astronomy and cosmology. The variations in the microwave background radiation are remnants of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe.

    The telescopes can also see the very early universe. Astrophysicists have looked hard for variations in the fundamental constants of matter and energy. They haven’t found any. They found the opposite, that the fundamental constants of our universe have always been what they are today.

  13. regexp says

    How did someone who makes such stupid arguments get a PhD?

    Being able to argue intelligently is not a requirement to getting a PhD. Especially if it isn’t part of the field you are studying. I know many PhDs who hold very strange unsubstantiated opinions on topics or can’t manage basic life tasks like tying their shoes.

  14. coragyps says

    ” as the universe ages, and the atoms get older, they don’t have the energy they once had.”

    Holy crap! That happened to me, too!

  15. dcsohl says

    Her specialty is “the roles of natural selection and mutation in microbial populations”??

    Why should we take anything she has to say on radiometric dating seriously? What expertise does she have in nuclear physics?

  16. says

    So despite her claims that she believes the Bible is the infallible word of God, she appears to espouse a sort of postmodern relativism with respect to facts.

  17. lclane2 says

    Purdom, and probably all AIG employees with science degrees, is an apologist, not a scientist.

  18. skinnercitycyclist says

    Eh, Raven:

    By peering at alcohol molecules in a distant galaxy…

    I am not a scientician by training, but isn’t alcohol an organic compound? How can we see molecules so far away? And other ignorance-revealing questions…

  19. Reginald Selkirk says

    … contends research by creation scientists has shown that the decay rate is variable, making radiometric dating an unreliable method.

    Probably a reference to the RATE studies, which I will summarise as “performing a technique badly proves that the technique doesn’t work.” More formal refutation of RATE will be left to anyone who knows how to use Teh Interwebz.

  20. Reginald Selkirk says

    skinnercitycyclist #21: I am not a scientician by training, but isn’t alcohol an organic compound? How can we see molecules so far away?

    1) Yes, alcohols are organic molecules. The common alcohol found in beverages is ethanol, but there are many other alcohols as well.
    2) They can be identified by their effect on light. Stars on the other side of a cloud of stuff emit light. The cloud of stuff (alcohol or whatever) will absorb certain frequencies of that light. This is called spectroscopy. The absorbed frequencies may be red-shifted or blue-shifted due to motion relative to us, just to make it more complicated.
    Interstellar cloud

  21. Artor says

    To be fair, radioactive decay is completely variable…at the quantum level. Once you get to the geological scale, it’s as reliable as clockwork. Even reliable as an atomic clock, for that matter.

  22. raven says

    I am not a scientician by training, but isn’t alcohol an organic compound? How can we see molecules so far away? And other ignorance-revealing questions…

    1. Sure. Alcohol is an organic compound CH3CH2OH.

    2. Galaxies are full of clouds of dust and gas. And some of that is small molecules, methanol, ethanol, CO, water, simple sugars and so on.

    3. They see and determine this by spectroscopic techniques. Absorption and emission lines. The same way we determine the metal content and type in stars.

    Astronomers find alcohol cloud spanning 288 billion miles
    phys. org/news 63346824.html‎

    Apr 4, 2006 – The team studied an area called W3(OH), a region in our galaxy where … its chemical cousin ethanol, is not suitable for human consumption!”.

    For experimental details, try this paper.

  23. Drew says

    No, actually. The data of the Calvert formation is determined by absolute dating, not just relative dating. Relative dating merely notes that if the strata are undisturbed, lower layers (and the fossils found within them) are older than higher ones. But the Calvert formation is very well studied and undoubtedly has been dated radiometrically as well, which is an absolute number rather than a relative one.

    Strictly speaking the formation has been dated absolutely but the bone in the stratum is relatively dated based upon its presence in the stratum. Absolute dating of fossils is tricky because the fossil is usually no longer composed of its original parts, but is instead composed of minerals which have seeped in to replace the original molecules.

    We do actually assume that someone didn’t dig into the stratum and place the bone there (this would be evident by disruption of the strata above and concurrent with the find), and we assume that something that was alive when that stratum was laid down didn’t dig up the bone from from an older stratum, and somehow it became trapped in the new stratum. These are reasonable assumptions.

  24. Reginald Selkirk says

    I am in the middle of reading The Creationists by Ronald Numbers. Attempts by creationists to organize into sciencey-sounding groups in the mid-20th century were complicated by the immense differences in their beliefs. The only thing the Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists (who were split into the Gap theory and Ruin&Restoration) was their Bible-based rejection of evolution. YEC and OEC are scientifically wildly incompatible. This is a serious challenge for the “big tent” strategy of the Discovery Institute and its Intelligent Design creationism.

  25. DaveL says

    @13

    By my calculations, if the radioactive decay of 4.5 billion years were compressed into 6000 years, that alone would be enough to yield the whole “death by boiling and radiation” scenario. To which creationists usually posit the water of the flood as a radiation shield – which of course amps up the intensity of the radiation by another factor of 6000, yielding what I can only suppose would be akin to an atomic bomb.

    4.5 billion years’ worth of radiation compressed into 6000 years:

    87 mW/m^2 average heat loss through the crust, about 2/3 of which is from radiation, or 58 mW/m^2 under ordinary conditions. Compressed into 6000 years gives us 43.5 kW/m^2 heat transfer from radiation, remarkably close to the output at the surface of a typical hot plate.

    The natural background radiation dose is about 2.4 mSv/a, but compressed into 6000 years it would be 1800 Sv/a, or neary 5 Sv/day – quite lethal in a short time span.

    Now multiply that another 6000 times to get the effect of compressing all that radioactive decay into the flood year. That’s 261 MW/m^2, about 13 times more intense than the output of the sun.

  26. Draken says

    A quick search at Google Scholar yields a whopping 3 publications of Georgia Purdom. These are from 2000, 2002 and 2002 respectively, 2000 being the year of her PhD.

    In other words, she published her thesis and probably an article shortly before or after that, and 2 related articles in an impact factor 4.6 journal 2 years after that. That’s it.

    On Science Direct, she seems to be absent.

  27. says

    DaveL “@13 By my calculations…”
    Well, there’s your problem right there. You can’t use actual numbers. Besides, you forgot to carry the Jesus.

  28. colnago80 says

    Re Artor @ #24

    To put this in perspective, consider C(14) which decays to C(12) with a half life of ~5000 years. All we can say about any individual C(14) atom is that there is s 50% chance that it will still be here in 5000 years. On the other hand, for a large number of C(14) atoms, on average,1 /2 of them will decay in 5000 years. The thing that makes it work is that samples have millions if not billions of C(14) atoms so that the probability that exactly 1/2 of them will decay in 5000 years approaches 100%. It’s just like roulette or coin tossing.

    The only way that the mean decay rate could be variable is if either the neutron/proton mass difference is variable or Planck’s constant is variable.

  29. TGAP Dad says

    How did someone who makes such stupid arguments get a PhD?

    From Ohio State? I think they have them on rolls in the restroom stalls down there.

  30. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    I disagree with you, Ed, that the Calvert Formation is dated using absolute dating techniques – you almost never can date sedimentary rocks directly using radiometric dating. It almost certainly was dated using relative dating techniques, which are a bit more sophisticated than the example you give.

    A brief google search by me couldn’t find out exactly how the fossils were dated, but based on my experience, there are a number of ways, that are all technically relative dating, that may have been used to date a marine sequence like this. The most common are:
    1. biostratigraphy, using other fossils in the sequence.
    2. magnetostratigraphy, using reversal patterns of the earth’s magnetic field recorded in the sedimentary AND igneous rocks,
    3. stable isotope stratigraphy, using either 87Sr/86, 18O/16O, or 13C/12C (or a combination of these)
    4. a combination of these techniques. (Most likely, IMO.)

    The fly in the ointment for the creationists, is that these have, in fact, been well tied into radiometric dates, so that (for instance) a particular 87Sr/86Sr ratio, or a particular fossil disappearance will be known to be tightly correlated to a particular age.

    And, OT, for me, this is one of the most convincing pieces of evidence for an old age of the earth. Although creationists can claim (with very little justification) that hydraulic sorting can separate out particular fossils, there is no way that movement of water can result in the particular sequence of carbon, oxygen, and strontium isotopic ratios, along with the back-and-forth polarity of magnetism, seen in sediments seen around the world. The marine sedimentary record is a multichannel record, with many different kinds of evidence that all correlates to one another and that cannot possibly be due to any kind of rapid change.

  31. colnago80 says

    Re TGAP Dad @ #35

    Oh come on, even UC Berkeley and Harvard have their clunkers (Duane Gish, Jonathan Wells, Kurt Wise). Now maybe ole Don Williams Alma Mater, UVA, he he.

  32. exdrone says

    Anyone who has visited a singles’ bar can attest that dating is an inexact science and the outcomes of dating trials are, in fact, highly variable.

  33. grasshopper says

    I was recently talking to my 15 year-old daughter about atomic theory. I also mentioned the famous double-slit experiment illustrating the wave/particle duality thing. And Heisenberg as well — I think.

    So Iater I went online to make sure, as best I could, that I hadn’t told her too much that was wrong and found this at How Stuff Works.

    “One of the biggest problems with quantum experiments is the seemingly unavoidable tendency of humans to influence the situati­on and velocity of small particles. This happens just by our observing the particles, and it has quantum physicists frustrated. To combat this, physicists have created enormous, elaborate machines like particle accelerators that remove any physical human influence from the process of accelerating a particle’s energy of motion.

    This is called Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. Werner Heisenberg, a German physicist, determined that our observations have an effect on the behavior of quanta. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle sounds difficult to understand — even the name is kind of intimidating. But it’s actually easy to comprehend, and once you do, you’ll understand the fundamental principle of quantum mechanics.”

    This seems to be bordering upon the not-even-wrong.

    http://xkcd.com/386/

  34. TGAP Dad says

    colnago80 @37
    Please. OSU is only a school in the broadest sense – that they have buildings and books (students have to supply their own crayons).

  35. donnamelton says

    my friend’s aunt makes $83 hourly on the laptop. She has been unemployed for eight months but last month her payment was $13781 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more… C­A­ℕ­9­9.C­O­M

  36. Peter B says

    I found http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17678017 where measured K-capture decay slowed by ~1 part in 300 at 5°K vs. 293°K (20°C). I seem to remember that oxidation state can make about the same kind of difference. Oxidation state, affects electrons, and K-capture means K shell electrons captured into the nucleus. It also seems reasonable to assume that nuclei totally stripped of electrons would not undergo K capture at all.

    These small changes are hardly enough to make dramatic changes in radiometric dating. But it must have happened anyway … therefore Jesus. (Or is it Jesus … therefore atoms decayed differently in the past?

  37. haitied says

    I take exception to your suppositions that basing one’s analysis of evidence on Alice in Wonderland is a bad thing. I’ll have you know that evidence is only evidence of what you want it to be evidence of.

  38. jnorris says

    “When you’re starting with nothing, and your own ideas about the past, you can come up with whatever you want,” She said. Brother did she say a mouthful.

  39. RickR says

    The creation and evolution issue is so important because it is foundational to biblical authority, a Christian worldview and to the whole of Christianity.

    The suicidal death rattle of American fundie xianity.

  40. dingojack says

    The creation and evolution issue is so important because it is foundational to biblical authority, a Christian worldview and to the whole of Christianity.’*

    Nope it’s foundational only to your delusional beliefs, not to the delusional beliefs of christians as a whole.
    Catholics, Anglicans and other Protestant sects (collectively making up the bulk of all christians in the west) certainly don’t feel that Genesis has to be taken as literally true in order to prop-up their belief system, it’s just your tiny minority (shrinking) sect that needs this.
    Dingo
    ——-
    * note: this quote should be read as if written in yellow Comic Sans

  41. says

    Modusoperandi:

    Besides, you forgot to carry the Jesus.

    I’m not even gonna consult with the ref on that one. You win.

    Do you want the internets delivered in a traveler’s cheque, or small unmarked bills?

  42. dingojack says

    Whoa hold those small, non-sequential, unmarked bills Avo!
    Everyone knows only John the Baptist (and a donkey) can carry the Jesus*.
    Dingo
    ——–
    * otherwise he’s all ‘noli me tangere’.

  43. bobcarroll says

    Sorry if I’m being repetitious, but look up her entry on the Encyclopedia of American Loons @329

  44. DaveL says

    The last time I carried the Jesus, he pointed back at our tracks and claimed he’d been carrying me the whole time, the ungrateful sod.

  45. says

    Do the people who claim radioisotope dating is unreliable (because they can’t believe radioactive decay rates are constant, otherwise that would disprove their preferred myth) set their watches by an atomic clock?

  46. dingojack says

    Stacy – sorry to be pedantic* but what Matthew 21:7 says, specifically, is something like:
    ‘They brought forth the ass and foal and lay on them riding cloths and apon these he [Jesus] sat.’**
    ‘These’ being the riding cloths, not both the ass and the foal.
    Sorry*.
    Dingo
    ——-
    * I no I’m not. (Pedant is my middle name – so to speak) :)
    ** “ηγαγον την ονον και τον πωλον και επεθηκαν επανω αυτων τα ιματια αυτων και επεκαθισεν επανω αυτων.”

  47. says

    “Really? Please show the data. How was the experiment done? Under what conditions do the decay rates vary? How were those conditions applied? How much did the rates vary? Inquiring minds want to know.”

    You’re not serious, Ed. Inquirig minds at the YEC or in the brainpans of anyone who takes them seriously? Wanna buy a bridge to nowhere?

    “Astronomers find alcohol cloud spanning 288 billion miles phys. org/news 63346824.html‎”

    How late is that cloud open? And, do they serve nachos as a bar snack?

    “These are reasonable assumptions.”

    You are making an unwarranted assumption (two of them, actually) about the scientific intelligence/knowledge and the intellectual curiousity of a group who demonstrate little of either.

  48. says

    “Well, there’s your problem right there. You can’t use actual numbers. Besides, you forgot to carry the Jesus.”

    JESUS is the one does the carryin’, HERETIC!

    “The suicidal death rattle of American fundie xianity.”

    Unfortunately they can hold that note longer than Pavarotti.

  49. savagemutt says

    This is easily explained: as the universe ages, and the atoms get older, they don’t have the energy they once had.

    Also, they feel achy in the morning and sometimes have trouble peeing.

  50. says

    savagemutt “Also, they feel achy in the morning and sometimes have trouble peeing.”
    And some dribble then they don’t want to. Especially if you tell a joke. True story.

  51. Reginald Selkirk says

    Do the people who claim radioisotope dating is unreliable (because they can’t believe radioactive decay rates are constant, otherwise that would disprove their preferred myth) set their watches by an atomic clock?

    I see a couple comments like this. Atomic clocks are not based on radioactive decay, but on resonance properties of atoms.
    Wikipedia

    The principle of operation of an atomic clock is not based on nuclear physics, but rather on atomic physics and using the microwave signal that electrons in atoms emit when they change energy levels. …

  52. freehand says

    Reginald Selkirk: YEC and OEC are scientifically wildly incompatible. This is a serious challenge for the “big tent” strategy of the Discovery Institute and its Intelligent Design creationism.
    .
    Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. But not, I might add, believers. Also, too, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

  53. slavdude says

    DingoJack @49:

    No, you and all other heretics are heretical heretics: Only a Christopher can carry the Jesus!

    (But seriously, that’s what the name Christophoros means in Greek: The bearer of Christ.)

  54. boadinum says

    @ Raven #14:

    “…alcohol molecules in a distant galaxy…”

    Mr. Crusher, plot a course. Mr. Worf, start replicating pretzels. Warp 10, engage!

    I forget what the original post was about.

Leave a Reply