Remarkably complete’ 3.8-million-year-old cranium of human ancestor discovered in Ethiopia

[ratiocinator]

Every single method used is based on the one belief.

You miss the point. If there already was the daughter material when our nature started that would mean it did not get here by decay. Decay may be a feature of only this present nature!!

I see the point is still sailing majestically about 30,000ft over your head. Everybody knows that you can point at any one dating method and say that the assumption of a constant past nature will affect it. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that there is no reason why a different nature in the past would affect lots of different dating methods, based on different aspects of said nature, should still match each other (unless there is some reason why the Earth and universe have been made to look old).

This isn't really all that complicated, you just need to stop and think about it a bit before posting another one of your mantras about everything being based on the same assumption.

 

[dad]

I see the point is still sailing majestically about 30,000ft over your head. Everybody knows that you can point at any one dating method and say that the assumption of a constant past nature will affect it. What you seem to be unable to grasp is that there is no reason why a different nature in the past would affect lots of different dating methods, based on different aspects of said nature, should still match each other (unless there is some reason why the Earth and universe have been made to look old)..

Yes there is a reason. In radioactive dating, if the ratios were largely already here (except for the decay that happened since) when our present nature started, then the ratios of isotopes are not due to radioactive decay. (except for the recent bit that did occur by decay since this nature started to exist) Therefore, in using the present decay rates to date ratios, one inevitably would come up with old dates. So, in using the present nature as the key to the past, old ages are the result. Samr thing with tree rigs...if growth was fast but is now slow, then the rings never used to represent a yearly cycle. Therefore, again, counting rings would yield older dates. If the rapid deposition of varves possibly due to tidal action from a fountain of the deep was responsible for huge deposits/layers then it would not have involved a long time period in the former nature. By using the present nature and it's slow deposition, again, older dates would be attained. Ice layers...corals...etc etc all the same story. Using the present state/nature results in old ages, and naturally the same belief used on different evidences would also result in old ages!

 

[ratiocinator]

Using the present state/nature results in old ages, and naturally the same belief used on different evidences would also result in old ages!

You've just repeated the same mantras and totally ignored the point.

You have given no reason at all why all the methods agree with each other (as opposed to why all of them may be wrong because of the basic assumption).

 

[dad]

You've just repeated the same mantras and totally ignored the point.

You have given no reason at all why all the methods agree with each other (as opposed to why all of them may be wrong because of the basic assumption).

Speaking of ignoring, you were told specifically why.

 

[ratiocinator]

Speaking of ignoring, you were told specifically why.

Nonsense - go back and read your post. There is a list of reasons why the dates could be older based on the assumption but no reason why they would agree with each other.

Think about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes there is a reason. In radioactive dating, if the ratios were largely already here (except for the decay that happened since) when our present nature started, then the ratios of isotopes are not due to radioactive decay. (except for the recent bit that did occur by decay since this nature started to exist) Therefore, in using the present decay rates to date ratios, one inevitably would come up with old dates. So, in using the present nature as the key to the past, old ages are the result. Samr thing with tree rigs...if growth was fast but is now slow, then the rings never used to represent a yearly cycle. Therefore, again, counting rings would yield older dates. If the rapid deposition of varves possibly due to tidal action from a fountain of the deep was responsible for huge deposits/layers then it would not have involved a long time period in the former nature. By using the present nature and it's slow deposition, again, older dates would be attained. Ice layers...corals...etc etc all the same story. Using the present state/nature results in old ages, and naturally the same belief used on different evidences would also result in old ages!

you are using terms that you do not understand improperly. There are ways that we can tell what the initial amount of daughter product was. For some crystals and methods of was zero.

For example with the K/Ar method the daughter product is a gas. And an inert gas to boot. Gases will rise up out of magma and inert gases will be excluded when the initial crystal forms. Starting amount: Zero.

The same applies to lead in some crystals. For example, the favorite crystal of radiometric dating has to be the zircon. Not every rock has them,but they are still fairly common. But when they do form they are very tough and they exclude lead when they form. There is no place for lead in the crystalline structure.

There are other methods for rocks where zircon does not exist. That involves some more complex.math that I am not willing to go over with you right now, but if you can indicate an honest interest I will do so later. Or you could Google the phrase "Lead/lead dating".

 

[Polymath257]

Yes there is a reason. In radioactive dating, if the ratios were largely already here (except for the decay that happened since) when our present nature started, then the ratios of isotopes are not due to radioactive decay. (except for the recent bit that did occur by decay since this nature started to exist) Therefore, in using the present decay rates to date ratios, one inevitably would come up with old dates.

But this requires different initial ratios of the isotopes because we get different ages in different samples.

Furthermore, we can also get dates from other methods *for the same samples*. These would not be affected by the amount of isotopes, so to get consistent dates, the 'coincidence' has to be much higher.

For example, why are the different ratios of isotopes correlated with stratigraphic position? Why are they correlated *at all* in any consistent way with tree rings?

Coincidence could be an answer for one sample. Or two dating methods. But when you get to many samples, spread out over 'apparent time' and several different dating methods based on different physical properties, the coincidence gets too extreme to be the default explanation.

And this is why we can safely use 'the present as the key to the past'.

So, in using the present nature as the key to the past, old ages are the result. Samr thing with tree rigs...if growth was fast but is now slow, then the rings never used to represent a yearly cycle. Therefore, again, counting rings would yield older dates. If the rapid deposition of varves possibly due to tidal action from a fountain of the deep was responsible for huge deposits/layers then it would not have involved a long time period in the former nature. By using the present nature and it's slow deposition, again, older dates would be attained. Ice layers...corals...etc etc all the same story. Using the present state/nature results in old ages, and naturally the same belief used on different evidences would also result in old ages!

That would explain why each one would give faulty dates. But it fails to explain why they give *the same* faulty dates. Or even why those faulty dates would be correlated at all.

 

[dad]

Nonsense - go back and read your post. There is a list of reasons why the dates could be older based on the assumption but no reason why they would agree with each other.

Think about it.

No way to check supposed fantasy agreement either. You misread patterns by interpreting them with a present nature viewpoint. Across the board. Quit being so narrow minded and fanatical about your beliefs and try to be honest and open minded.

 

[dad]

you are using terms that you do not understand improperly. There are ways that we can tell what the initial amount of daughter product was. For some crystals and methods of was zero.

Great show how.

For example with the K/Ar method the daughter product is a gas. And an inert gas to boot. Gases will rise up out of magma and inert gases will be excluded when the initial crystal forms. Starting amount: Zero.

Now...yes. If some is dated old though, we do not know. How molten rock and gas worked in the former nature is not known.

The same applies to lead in some crystals. For example, the favorite crystal of radiometric dating has to be the zircon. Not every rock has them,but they are still fairly common. But when they do form they are very tough and they exclude lead when they form. There is no place for lead in the crystalline structure.

There are other methods for rocks where zircon does not exist. That involves some more complex.math that I am not willing to go over with you right now, but if you can indicate an honest interest I will do so later. Or you could Google the phrase "Lead/lead dating".

They now exclude lead....ha

 

[dad]

But this requires different initial ratios of the isotopes because we get different ages in different samples.

There was still some process at work in the former nature one assumes. That process involved varying degrees of isotopes and etc. Only WHEN this nature started would the relationship between these various ratios become one of decay! (possibly) So we cannot look at how much material that in NOW a parent or daughter and assume it all got there BY decay! (if decay started in this nature)

Furthermore, we can also get dates from other methods *for the same samples*. These would not be affected by the amount of isotopes, so to get consistent dates, the 'coincidence' has to be much higher.

NOT DATES...RATIOS!

For example, why are the different ratios of isotopes correlated with stratigraphic position? Why are they correlated *at all* in any consistent way with tree rings?

Simple. There was a process going on that changed ratios since creation. What that process in the former nature was we do not know! All we know is what processes happen NOW!
If carbon levels or/and the processes that produce them were different, then there are no dates. Trying to assign dates for anything from the former nature is nothing more than trying to attribute a present state origin for it. Dates are only valid as long as this nature existed. (not even quite that long as things near the time of the change would confuse the results)

Coincidence could be an answer for one sample. Or two dating methods. But when you get to many samples, spread out over 'apparent time' and several different dating methods based on different physical properties, the coincidence gets too extreme to be the default explanation.

And this is why we can safely use 'the present as the key to the past'.

No coincedence at all. There was creation, that started things off with a certain amount of ratios, and then the processes in the former nature, and then the processes since this nature started! Lots of changes and changing ratios. (not representing dates)

 

[gnostic]

Yes there is a reason. In radioactive dating, if the ratios were largely already here (except for the decay that happened since) when our present nature started, then the ratios of isotopes are not due to radioactive decay. (except for the recent bit that did occur by decay since this nature started to exist) Therefore, in using the present decay rates to date ratios, one inevitably would come up with old dates. So, in using the present nature as the key to the past, old ages are the result. Samr thing with tree rigs...if growth was fast but is now slow, then the rings never used to represent a yearly cycle. Therefore, again, counting rings would yield older dates. If the rapid deposition of varves possibly due to tidal action from a fountain of the deep was responsible for huge deposits/layers then it would not have involved a long time period in the former nature. By using the present nature and it's slow deposition, again, older dates would be attained. Ice layers...corals...etc etc all the same story. Using the present state/nature results in old ages, and naturally the same belief used on different evidences would also result in old ages!

No way to check supposed fantasy agreement either. You misread patterns by interpreting them with a present nature viewpoint. Across the board. Quit being so narrow minded and fanatical about your beliefs and try to be honest and open minded.

Wow!

It simply quite staggering that you wouldn’t repeatedly make false claims on things that you don’t really, like the different dating techniques, that actually do evidently agree with each other, but you repeatedly show no evidence to explain otherwise, and say other people are living in fantasy.

Sorry, buster, but if anyone is ignorant and deluded, it is you.

Just because you don’t understand the science behind the radiometric dating methods, the luminescence dating, the tree ring method, the ice core method, the stratigraphy, and so on, it doesn’t mean that other people don’t understand.

When these dates closely match with other method of dating, then these provide independent evidence that verify each other. That how science work, dad, using different techniques or methods to find common denominators. It is what science called Falsifiability and Verification (ie verification is what they referred to as testing).

If things age different from past and present, there whould be evidences for these inconsistencies in dating, but that not the case.

And since you are the one making claims that were different and science were different, then are the one must present the evidence, and you haven’t. All you are doing is making claim, with no evidence to back your claims.

The Bible, particularly Genesis Creation (Genesis 1 & 2), Noah’s Ark and Flood (6 - 8), the Tower of Babel (11), and the Table of Nations (10) are all myths and fantasies. None of these stories in Genesis are remotely scientific, nor historic, because the Bible is neither a science treatise or history book.

Like your fantasy that the ages of the earlier patriarchs living some hundreds of years, like Adam 930 years, Methuselah 969 years, Noah 950 years, etc. You wrote recently:

the belief that this present nature represents the distant past nature on earth. The ancient world according to the bible had people live nearly 1000 years. Trees grew fast....etc. You have merely tried to mold and model the past according to the present laws and forces and nature.

You are making claim with no evidence to support your belief.

And using the Bible to justify the stories in the Bible, is what called circular reasoning. You have been accusing science tossing fable and circular reasonings, when in fact you are the one doing this.

You are not only science illiterate, you are dishonest one too, falsely accusing other people of doing what you are doing. You are projecting your own failings upon everyone else.

There are methods of dating the age of person when they died (referring to lifespan). And to date no ancient remains of people living beyond 130 years. It is the teeth that give the best results of any individual’s age...well as long as they didn’t lose all their teeth before their time of death.

The average lifespan of people in the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age were majority found to be shorter, not longer than the people of 20th and 21st centuries.

You are the one with no evidence that people live 200 years or older. And you are the one believing in the fantasy of the Bible.

 

[dad]

Wow!

It simply quite staggering that you wouldn’t repeatedly make false claims on things that you don’t really, like the different dating techniques, that actually do evidently agree with each other, but you repeatedly show no evidence to explain otherwise, and say other people are living in fantasy.

Apparently you have not yet grasped the issue. So lets say 3 materials exist, as an example, and are in the former nature. Let's say that there are processes going on in that nature that affect the various ratios of isotopes. But let's say that radioactive decay is not one of these processes. Now, we have three substances, and now we enter into the present nature where, of course there is decay. So the different ratios of the three items now assume a decay relationship. That is, in each case the isotopes are now engaged in a decay situation. In each material, we will have radioactive decay of some different elements, which have different amounts of parent and daughter isotopes in them. The rates of decay are known for each substance. If all we do is look at what is now daughter material, and then assume that it all got there by this current decay we see happening, we would be wrong assigning dates to it, totally. Why? Because until this nature started to exist those same ratios existed! Only after our nature appears and our forces and laws take effect will the ratios assume a decay relationship to each other!

So whatever supposed agreement in these different isotope ratios may be gotten by looking at the decay rates, and assuming the daughter material all came to exist as a result of this decay....would be meaningless. Any supposed agreement in dates millions of years ago would have no basis in fat or reality.

Just because you don’t understand the science behind the radiometric dating methods, the luminescence dating, the tree ring method, the ice core method, the stratigraphy, and so on, it doesn’t mean that other people don’t understand.

I understand fine, Your problem is that you try to call imagining a same nature in the past being responsible for all the rings and ratios etc etc..'science'! No. No. No.

If things age different from past and present, there whould be evidences for these inconsistencies in dating, but that not the case.

False, you have no clue what to look for.

And since you are the one making claims that were different and science were different, then are the one must present the evidence, and you haven’t. All you are doing is making claim, with no evidence to back your claims.

Science makes the claim the nature was the same and uses that in all it's models of the past so it must back it up! I simply believe history and the bible in regards to what life was like in the ancient world. The science claim is yours and you must must must must pony up.

The Bible, particularly Genesis Creation (Genesis 1 & 2), Noah’s Ark and Flood (6 - 8), the Tower of Babel (11), and the Table of Nations (10) are all myths and fantasies

. False.

None of these stories in Genesis are remotely scientific, nor historic, because the Bible is neither a science treatise or history book.

Baloney. Science is something only of the present nature, and Genesis is something only of the former nature. Genesis could not be scientific if it were true, because science is only of this nature!

Like your fantasy that the ages of the earlier patriarchs living some hundreds of years, like Adam 930 years, Methuselah 969 years, Noah 950 years, etc.

Yes, in the former nature that was the reality of life.

You are making claim with no evidence to support your belief.

You are doubting records with no reason or science...since science is of this nature only!!

The average lifespan of people in the Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age were majority found to be shorter, not longer than the people of 20th and 21st centuries.

So what, that is all post nature change and post flood.

 

[ratiocinator]

Apparently you have not yet grasped the issue. So lets say 3 materials exist, as an example, and are in the former nature. Let's say that there are processes going on in that nature that affect the various ratios of isotopes. But let's say that radioactive decay is not one of these processes. Now, we have three substances, and now we enter into the present nature where, of course there is decay. So the different ratios of the three items now assume a decay relationship. That is, in each case the isotopes are now engaged in a decay situation. In each material, we will have radioactive decay of some different elements, which have different amounts of parent and daughter isotopes in them. The rates of decay are known for each substance. If all we do is look at what is now daughter material, and then assume that it all got there by this current decay we see happening, we would be wrong assigning dates to it, totally. Why? Because until this nature started to exist those same ratios existed! Only after our nature appears and our forces and laws take effect will the ratios assume a decay relationship to each other!

Even though this is a gross simplification of how dating methods work (you've totally ignored many of the points raised about this), even in this toy example it's blindingly obvious why you are wrong.

You are still only explaining why the dating methods may be wrong - not why they agree when we assume the same nature.

Unless the ratios of the three substances at the start of the "present nature" have been carefully contrived so that when we extrapolate backwards, we get the same age, there would be no reason to think we would get agreement at all. The start of the "present nature" would have to look exactly like a "snapshot" of a sample that would have been x years old if the "present nature" had in fact been in effect up to that point - and this has to have happened for all the processes for all the dating methods, so that they are all consistent with each other.

 

[Polymath257]

There was still some process at work in the former nature one assumes. That process involved varying degrees of isotopes and etc. Only WHEN this nature started would the relationship between these various ratios become one of decay! (possibly) So we cannot look at how much material that in NOW a parent or daughter and assume it all got there BY decay! (if decay started in this nature)
NOT DATES...RATIOS!

So why would the initial ratios be different in different samples? Why would the different ratios in different samples be such that they are consistent with the differing rate of varve deposition? Or the *different* isotopes for other dating methods? Each sample for each method would have a different initial ratio *but* those different ratios have to give consistent answers when applied to the modern samples. That, even though each method uses different isotopes, different 'assumed' decay rates, and different physical processes.

Simple. There was a process going on that changed ratios since creation. What that process in the former nature was we do not know! All we know is what processes happen NOW!

But that means that the process going on for C14 and the process going on for U238, with their different initial ratios in all the different samples have to be such that *now* the results all *look* consistent *if* you assume a constant decay rate.

Precisely how does that happen across millions of samples with different ratios, different isotopes, and different processes?

If carbon levels or/and the processes that produce them were different, then there are no dates. Trying to assign dates for anything from the former nature is nothing more than trying to attribute a present state origin for it. Dates are only valid as long as this nature existed. (not even quite that long as things near the time of the change would confuse the results)
No coincedence at all. There was creation, that started things off with a certain amount of ratios, and then the processes in the former nature, and then the processes since this nature started! Lots of changes and changing ratios. (not representing dates)

Except that *doesn't* explain what we actually see. The initial ratios would have to be different in different samples (which is why we think they are of different ages) and different in such a way that the different methods, based on different physical effects and different initial ratios in all the different samples, all give consistent results when we 'mistakenly' assume the decay rates and processes are constant.

 

[Polymath257]

Apparently you have not yet grasped the issue. So lets say 3 materials exist, as an example, and are in the former nature. Let's say that there are processes going on in that nature that affect the various ratios of isotopes. But let's say that radioactive decay is not one of these processes. Now, we have three substances, and now we enter into the present nature where, of course there is decay. So the different ratios of the three items now assume a decay relationship. That is, in each case the isotopes are now engaged in a decay situation. In each material, we will have radioactive decay of some different elements, which have different amounts of parent and daughter isotopes in them. The rates of decay are known for each substance. If all we do is look at what is now daughter material, and then assume that it all got there by this current decay we see happening, we would be wrong assigning dates to it, totally. Why? Because until this nature started to exist those same ratios existed! Only after our nature appears and our forces and laws take effect will the ratios assume a decay relationship to each other!

OK, let's get an example going to explain this a bit better. We have three artifacts, A, B, and C. Each shows C14 and lake varves.

In sample A, if we look at the C14 ratios and assume the decay rates are constant, we get a certain age (which you think is meaningless). If we look at the lake varves for A, we can count layers and we get an age (which, again, you think is meaningless). But, and this is the kicker, those two meaningless ages are consistent.

Next, we go to sample B. This sample has a different ratio of C14. It has a different number of layers. Both give (according to you) false ages. But, again, those false ages agree, and are different from the (false) age for A.

This happens for C also. Different ratios, different number of layers. But the same (false?) age.

At this point, it already seems implausible that those ages really are false. We have different ratios, different physical processes, etc, but giving consistent (false) ages for each different sample.

But, in the real world, there aren't just 3 artifacts nor just two dating methods. There are millions of artifacts and scores of dating methods. And the results are consistent even though you would have to assume a different initial ratio for each sample, different initial rates, etc if your story is true.

 

[dad]

Even though this is a gross simplification of how dating methods work (you've totally ignored many of the points raised about this), even in this toy example it's blindingly obvious why you are wrong.

You are still only explaining why the dating methods may be wrong - not why they agree when we assume the same nature.

Unless the ratios of the three substances at the start of the "present nature" have been carefully contrived so that when we extrapolate backwards, we get the same age, there would be no reason to think we would get agreement at all. The start of the "present nature" would have to look exactly like a "snapshot" of a sample that would have been x years old if the "present nature" had in fact been in effect up to that point - and this has to have happened for all the processes for all the dating methods, so that they are all consistent with each other.

Consistent with each other is circular. If you claim 5 million years ago is a date derived from radioactive decay, and that genetics also agrees approx with this date..it has zero meaning. That tells us maybe that you assume that modern genetics always existed as us, and that it should have woulda coulda taken 5 million years based on the slow realities of modern genetics to get where we are today or etc. Then you compare that with for example the ratios of parent to daughter material in some isotopes and assume the daughter material all got there BY present nature decay! Then maybe you use a similar decay date from a later where a fossil was found to date it! Totally circular.
There are no dates at all, only ratios and assumptions about ancient DNA being the same etc.

No supposed date can be checked at all independent from same nature in the past belief based modeling!

Any agreement is wild religious speculation only. Then..whenever you need to toss millions of years around to make it fit you do so and still claim agreement internally.

For example in this link we see how they date a fossil


New instrument dates old skeleton; 'Little Foot' 3.67 million years old - Purdue University

 

[ratiocinator]

Consistent with each other is circular. If you claim 5 million years ago is a date derived from radioactive decay, and that genetics also agrees approx with this date..it has zero meaning. That tells us maybe that you assume that modern genetics always existed as us, and that it should have woulda coulda taken 5 million years based on the slow realities of modern genetics to get where we are today or etc. Then you compare that with for example the ratios of parent to daughter material in some isotopes and assume the daughter material all got there BY present nature decay! Then maybe you use a similar decay date from a later where a fossil was found to date it! Totally circular.

Are you really incapable of seeing the difference between explaining why the dates may be wrong and explaining why they confirm each other? You keep on claiming it's circular but then all that follows is yet another explanation of why the dates might (independently) be wrong. Is this just too complicated for you?

 

[dad]

So why would the initial ratios be different in different samples?

Presumably because they were different when our nature started! You come along and then try to assign deep ages to ratios of different kinds.

Why would the different ratios in different samples be such that they are consistent with the differing rate of varve deposition?

Because every week, every day, or month or whatever it was in that former nature, we had changing ratios! That means that as we do down to different layers we expect different ratios. The only question that matters is what nature/state the particular layer was laid down in. If we know that, we can get somewhere.

Or the *different* isotopes for other dating methods? Each sample for each method would have a different initial ratio *but* those different ratios have to give consistent answers when applied to the modern samples. That, even though each method uses different isotopes, different 'assumed' decay rates, and different physical processes.

As time went by, the processes of the former nature (whatever they were) carried on and ratios constantly changed. The thing is those changes probably had nothing to do with a decay process that we now have in place!

Except that *doesn't* explain what we actually see. The initial ratios would have to be different in different samples (which is why we think they are of different ages)

They were of course. And as soon as our nature commenced those ratios all suddenly fell into line obeying the new laws, and formed a decay relationship.

and different in such a way that the different methods, based on different physical effects and different initial ratios in all the different samples, all give consistent results when we 'mistakenly' assume the decay rates and processes are constant.

Right, if you now look at all those different ratios AS IF they all came about in this nature THEN you invoke long ages for the rates of decay to have done it all.

Easy peasy.

 

[dad]

OK, let's get an example going to explain this a bit better. We have three artifacts, A, B, and C. Each shows C14 and lake varves.

In sample A, if we look at the C14 ratios and assume the decay rates are constant, we get a certain age (which you think is meaningless). If we look at the lake varves for A, we can count layers and we get an age (which, again, you think is meaningless). But, and this is the kicker, those two meaningless ages are consistent.

No more of a kicker than saying that they all live in disney world! It is no kicker to assign old ages falsely to things. Since carbon dating does not go too far back, you are probably talking about what, 50,000 years ago or some such where your imagined agreement happens? That really says nothing except that when we look at carbon ratios and also at varves and assume a same natured past, we get similar wrong so called ages.

Next, we go to sample B. This sample has a different ratio of C14. It has a different number of layers. Both give (according to you) false ages. But, again, those false ages agree, and are different from the (false) age for A.

This happens for C also. Different ratios, different number of layers. But the same (false?) age.

There are differences in the ratios as we go up or down of course. If you impose same nature past beliefs on both, then you naturally get a progressively less or more carbon 14 or etc. About all you could say is something like 'the ratios show more C14 as we go down each layer'. You could not assign ages. All that agrees is that this pattern will exist as we go down. Any so called ages you stick on to the ratios cannot be verified.

At this point, it already seems implausible that those ages really are false. We have different ratios, different physical processes, etc, but giving consistent (false) ages for each different sample.

Not really since all that is happening is that you are assigning ages to the pattern of different ratios.

But, in the real world, there aren't just 3 artifacts nor just two dating methods. There are millions of artifacts and scores of dating methods. And the results are consistent even though you would have to assume a different initial ratio for each sample, different initial rates, etc if your story is true.

Nonsense. In an example I cited where they date some fossil for example millions of years old there really is only decay dating of one sort or another available and that is how they 'date' it.

 

[dad]

Are you really incapable of seeing the difference between explaining why the dates may be wrong and explaining why they confirm each other? You keep on claiming it's circular but then all that follows is yet another explanation of why the dates might (independently) be wrong. Is this just too complicated for you?

See my last post...ha

There was changing ratios in the for,er nature also, that just did not probably represent decay then.