Relative Dates

O Timothy! Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge—

(1 Timothy 6:20) NKJV

Measuring of the ages of rocks using radioisotope ratios gives us a relative scale on which to arrange specimens but, due to the fact that the premise of the decay constant is bogus, these aren’t absolute dates.

Since there’s no positive proof that nuclear decay rates have always been constant popular science (SciPop) depends on a negative result to a flawed hypothesis. When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got nothing to loose.

The argument is that if exponentially dropping nuclear decay had taken place over the last 6,000 years then the heat that it would have generated would have melted the surface of the Earth. That’s an example of 19th Century Uniformitarianism.

Part of the beauty of the Biblical theory of gravitation is that we have deduced a process where most of the high atomic weight elements were concentrated in the core of the Earth, and so when nuclear decay began at the fall of man the core melted, not the surface, which is why hell is at the center of the Earth.

Do all the math you want, when you get gravity right then exponential nuclear decay puts hell back in the center of the Earth where it belongs (for now). Sir Isaac Newton and the masterminds of SciPop begin to look like a bunch of hayseed hicks in comparison to the sublime simplicity of real science, you know, the knowledge and understanding which we may deduce from the Bible when we acknowledge the superiority of God’s wisdom.

We can reject the validity of radioisotope dating for the purpose of obtaining absolute dates of rocks in a grossly inflated and fictional timescale, but it still gives us an approximate measure of the time passed since the moment that the rock formed. The dates are relative, not absolute, and the timescale is vastly shorter.

---