Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 21, 2017 15:46:49 GMT
As usual your "science" depends on assumptions that it fails to recognize in its reports. The report does not show how they arrived at their figures. One assumption in all carbon dating methods is that cosmic bombardment of the Earth's atmosphere has been constant throughout time. A single sample, especially such a small one, might have material from an extraordinary bombardment event or other anomalous condition. Assuming nothing like that happened then you might have something. Even if highly accurate what would the information be worth? Does this mean cancer is cured? Of course not. I suspect you've fallen into yet another trap for people who believe science is "better" than religion or scientists are "smarter" then people who find value in the Bible. No, the Bible is not a source of information of a scientific nature. It does not describe how to make a composite bow for example, although that probably did figure in the history of the region. Religion especially and the Bible by extension have value where science has none. Science is not solving any political problem because it can only solve problems where everyone agrees what the problem is. Issues in politics occur because of a disagreement what the problem is. Jules Verne wrote some interesting science fiction about a Captain Nemo who opposed war. In one book Nemo discovers how to make fantastic amounts of food. His hope being to eliminate wars by eliminating the need to fight over limited supplies of food. It's just science fiction, and very old science fiction. What color was the sunrise over PLANET AAAARRRRLLLOOONNN! today?
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Dec 21, 2017 16:05:04 GMT
Because he’s an idiot, and all young earth creationists assume that radiocarbon dating must be the method used to date any fossils, no matter how old, because it’s the only form of radiometric dating whose limitations they half ass understand. I merely pointed out the fact that whatever method was used it was not established in the report how accurate it is. By the way, neither have you established anything. There are assumptions involved in any dating method, including whichever you believe was used here. Most of the assumptions are the same whatever the dating method. You are welcome to believe things you cannot prove. You are not welcome to claim as fact things you cannot prove. I already made total fools of you on the age of the Earth showing you don't know either the original ratio of radioactive elements to their byproducts nor the provenance of any sample you have. So give up already. That one had nothing to do with carbon 14 either. Don't try to blame me for your lack of complete argument. If I have to guess what led to your beliefs, I might guess wrong. That's not my fault. Carbon 14 has too short of a half-life to be useful for age dating such old rocks. The ratio of Carbon 13 (a non-radioactive stable isotope) to regular old Carbon 12 was used to establish the organic nature of the fossils. According to this 1993 paper on the Apex chert, the U-Pb radiometric age dating method was used on zircon phenocrysts to arrive at the ~3.5 Ga age: Microfossils of the early Archean Apex chert
|
|
|
Post by Daisy on Dec 21, 2017 17:02:44 GMT
After. Satan doctored the evidence to make the fossils appear old and cause mankind to doubt God's creation. A. Doctored? Not fabricated? So it already existed? What was it before? B. How did Satan doctor it, specifically? Hammer and chisel? Paint brushes? Incantation? Wave his hands? Fairy dust? Did he doctor it on site or from hell? C. Where is he described to have the skill or ability to pull of such a deception? D. Couldn't 'God' just undo whatever it is Satan did before humans found it? If 'God' has the ability to undo it, but decided not to, then isn't he complicit in the deception?
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Dec 21, 2017 17:13:37 GMT
Because Arlon needs to feel like he has something to weigh in with even when he's not entirely certain what's being discussed...
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Dec 21, 2017 17:46:55 GMT
After. Satan doctored the evidence to make the fossils appear old and cause mankind to doubt God's creation. A. Doctored? Not fabricated? So it already existed? What was it before? B. How did Satan doctor it, specifically? Hammer and chisel? Paint brushes? Incantation? Wave his hands? Fairy dust? Did he doctor it on site or from hell? C. Where is he described to have the skill or ability to pull of such a deception? D. Couldn't 'God' just undo whatever it is Satan did before humans found it? If 'God' has the ability to undo it, but decided not to, then isn't he complicit in the deception? A. He doctored the strata with fake fossils. B. Z-brush and photoshop C. Lucifer was the angel of light and sound D. God thought about it, then thought that leaving it as is would make for a more sporting challenge for his creation. But seriously, I guess my irony/satire didn't come across as expected.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2017 0:00:08 GMT
I merely pointed out the fact that whatever method was used it was not established in the report how accurate it is. By the way, neither have you established anything. There are assumptions involved in any dating method, including whichever you believe was used here. Most of the assumptions are the same whatever the dating method. You are welcome to believe things you cannot prove. You are not welcome to claim as fact things you cannot prove. I already made total fools of you on the age of the Earth showing you don't know either the original ratio of radioactive elements to their byproducts nor the provenance of any sample you have. So give up already. That one had nothing to do with carbon 14 either. Don't try to blame me for your lack of complete argument. If I have to guess what led to your beliefs, I might guess wrong. That's not my fault. Carbon 14 has too short of a half-life to be useful for age dating such old rocks. The ratio of Carbon 13 (a non-radioactive stable isotope) to regular old Carbon 12 was used to establish the organic nature of the fossils. According to this 1993 paper on the Apex chert, the U-Pb radiometric age dating method was used on zircon phenocrysts to arrive at the ~3.5 Ga age: Microfossils of the early Archean Apex chert You're admitting you can't say how old the Earth is? You're admitting you don't know and cannot explain the original ratio of elements when Earth began nor can you provide any provenance for any samples? Thanks. Your link does not answer any questions either, by the way. That would be NOW I suppose, and generally and "on average" speaking. I do not see how you get assurance that would be the case in the variety of combined processes possible or various conditions especially unknown primordial conditions.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Dec 22, 2017 0:24:37 GMT
You're admitting you can't say how old the Earth is? You're admitting you don't know and cannot explain the original ratio of elements when Earth began nor can you provide any provenance for any samples? Thanks. Your link does not answer any questions either, by the way. The age of the Earth is not in question. The age of the chert is. The paper I provided explained that U-Pb radiometric dating was used on Zircon crystals in order to arrive at the 3.5 billion age for the chert (page 3, first paragraph under Geologic Setting). Please learn to read, or at the least try and remember the questions that you yourself raised.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2017 0:45:27 GMT
You're admitting you can't say how old the Earth is? You're admitting you don't know and cannot explain the original ratio of elements when Earth began nor can you provide any provenance for any samples? Thanks. Your link does not answer any questions either, by the way. The age of the Earth is not in question. The age of the chert is. The paper I provided explained that U-Pb radiometric dating was used on Zircon crystals in order to arrive at the 3.5 billion age for the chert (page 3, first paragraph under Geologic Setting). Please learn to read, or at the least try and remember the questions that you yourself raised. I did read it. It does claim various findings. It does not however answer the questions I raised, namely 1 what was the original ratio of U/Pb?, 2 how do you know that?, and 3 what assurance have we the sample on hand is pristine? Also you seem to be confusing statistical analysis with far more certain science. Many on this board do. The ratio of C13/C12 from what I could gather in my quick study of the internet is a statistical matter, not more certain science. There is no guarantee that plants will get the same ratio when their environment is higher in C13 than average. The assumption you're working with is that there is some "normal" ratio in all environments, which makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Dec 22, 2017 0:52:26 GMT
I did read it. It does claim various findings. It does not however answer the questions I raised, namely 1 what was the original ratio of U/Pb?, 2 how do you know that?, and 3 what assurance have we the sample on hand is pristine? Well, the original question you raised concerned Carbon-14. Once you finally realized that you had the wrong radiometric dating method in mind, you tried to use the same 'original ratio' argument to the U-Pb method. But, why would you presume that there is an 'original ratio' of U/Pb in Zircons hmmmmmm?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2017 1:01:03 GMT
I did read it. It does claim various findings. It does not however answer the questions I raised, namely 1 what was the original ratio of U/Pb?, 2 how do you know that?, and 3 what assurance have we the sample on hand is pristine? Well, the original question you raised concerned Carbon-14. Once you finally realized that you had the wrong radiometric dating method in mind, you tried to use the same 'original ratio' argument to the U-Pb method. But, why would you presume that there is an 'original ratio' of U/Pb in Zircons hmmmmmm? You're the ones dodging. I showed you the age of the Earth is largely guesswork. Now you've gone off on something else to distract attention from your previously failure. I don't have any specific dating method "in mind." What I have in mind is you showing your work and providing at least some justification, however frail, for your assumptions. Of course there is an original ratio, there must be. The trick is knowing what that ratio was. So give up already.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 22, 2017 1:13:20 GMT
Well, the original question you raised concerned Carbon-14. Once you finally realized that you had the wrong radiometric dating method in mind, you tried to use the same 'original ratio' argument to the U-Pb method. But, why would you presume that there is an 'original ratio' of U/Pb in Zircons hmmmmmm? You're the ones dodging. I showed you the age of the Earth is largely guesswork. Now you've gone off on something else to distract attention from your previously failure. I don't have any specific dating method "in mind." What I have in mind is you showing your work and providing at least some justification, however frail, for your assumptions. Of course there is an original ratio, there must be. The trick is knowing what that ratio was. So give up already. Do you practice being wrong? I just don't know how you manage to be so consistently wrong without some kind of effort. Your skill at being misinformed is truly breathtaking.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2017 1:19:19 GMT
You're the ones dodging. I showed you the age of the Earth is largely guesswork. Now you've gone off on something else to distract attention from your previously failure. I don't have any specific dating method "in mind." What I have in mind is you showing your work and providing at least some justification, however frail, for your assumptions. Of course there is an original ratio, there must be. The trick is knowing what that ratio was. So give up already. Do you practice being wrong? I just don't know how you manage to be so consistently wrong without some kind of effort. Your skill at being misinformed is truly breathtaking. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you have never been able to prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Dec 22, 2017 1:20:08 GMT
Do you practice being wrong? I just don't know how you manage to be so consistently wrong without some kind of effort. Your skill at being misinformed is truly breathtaking. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that you have never been able to prove me wrong. Perhaps your amazing ability to be wrong has something to do with me having not proven you to be wrong??? Ladies and gentlemen I rest my case.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Dec 22, 2017 1:24:09 GMT
You're the ones dodging. I showed you the age of the Earth is largely guesswork. Now you've gone off on something else to distract attention from your previously failure. I don't have any specific dating method "in mind." What I have in mind is you showing your work and providing at least some justification, however frail, for your assumptions. Of course there is an original ratio, there must be. The trick is knowing what that ratio was. So give up already. Oh Arlon, never change. Lets review: You originally believed that the C-13/C-12 isotope data in the OP was some sort of dating method and started railing on about the age of the earth and 'original ratios' of radioactive carbon. Of course, the C-13/C-12 data is not an age dating method, but an isotopic study used to identify organic compounds. When that finally occurred to you, you whinged about how there is no radiocarbon age data, and again went on about how no one knows the age of the earth. When you were told that U-Pb and not radiocarbon dating would not be used on ancient rocks such as these, you doubled-down on your 'original ratio' and age of the earth nonsense. There is no 'original ratio' of U/Pb in zircon (ZrSiO4) crystals because Pb does not bond with Zr or SiO4 due to its ionic radius and charge. U and Th do fit into the crystalline structure of zircon, and radioactive isotopes of both elements decay into Pb. The only way for Pb to be present within zircon crystals is through the decay of U and Th over time following crystallization of the zircon crystal. The age of the earth has nothing to do with it. If you bothered to actually research this, you would know that. But you have always enjoyed talking out of your ass on subjects you know little about. Your website is a testament to that. By all means, keep it up. It is always amusing to watch you simultaneously try and walk back the stupid shit you say while puffing out your chest. Never change.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2017 1:42:46 GMT
You're the ones dodging. I showed you the age of the Earth is largely guesswork. Now you've gone off on something else to distract attention from your previously failure. I don't have any specific dating method "in mind." What I have in mind is you showing your work and providing at least some justification, however frail, for your assumptions. Of course there is an original ratio, there must be. The trick is knowing what that ratio was. So give up already. Oh Arlon, never change. Lets review: You originally believed that the C-13/C-12 isotope data in the OP was some sort of dating method and started railing on about the age of the earth and 'original ratios' of radioactive carbon. Of course, the C-13/C-12 data is not an age dating method, but an isotopic study used to identify organic compounds. When that finally occurred to you, you whinged about how there is no radiocarbon age data, and again went on about how no one knows the age of the earth. When you were told that U-Pb and not radiocarbon dating would not be used on ancient rocks such as these, you doubled-down on your 'original ratio' and age of the earth nonsense. There is no 'original ratio' of U/Pb in zircon (ZrSiO4) crystals because Pb does not bond with Zr or SiO4 due to its ionic radius and charge. U and Th do fit into the crystalline structure of zircon, and radioactive isotopes of both elements decay into Pb. The only way for Pb to be present within zircon crystals is through the decay of U and Th over time following crystallization of the zircon crystal. The age of the earth has nothing to do with it. If you bothered to actually research this, you would know that. But you have always enjoyed talking out of your ass on subjects you know little about. Your website is a testament to that. By all means, keep it up. It is always amusing to watch you simultaneously try and walk back the stupid shit you say while puffing out your chest. Never change. You haven't said anything right yet for me to get "wrong." Once again you appear totally oblivious of the fact that you have made an assumption. You have assumed that crystallization occurs all at once forgetting that crystals can form from other crystals of different ages. I also wonder how the "half life" of a single uranium atom is any help dating anything. If you bothered to use your brain just once instead of accepting everything labelled as science on faith, you might avoid making a fool of yourself on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2017 1:47:47 GMT
Oh Arlon, never change. Lets review: You originally believed that the C-13/C-12 isotope data in the OP was some sort of dating method and started railing on about the age of the earth and 'original ratios' of radioactive carbon. Of course, the C-13/C-12 data is not an age dating method, but an isotopic study used to identify organic compounds. When that finally occurred to you, you whinged about how there is no radiocarbon age data, and again went on about how no one knows the age of the earth. When you were told that U-Pb and not radiocarbon dating would not be used on ancient rocks such as these, you doubled-down on your 'original ratio' and age of the earth nonsense. There is no 'original ratio' of U/Pb in zircon (ZrSiO4) crystals because Pb does not bond with Zr or SiO4 due to its ionic radius and charge. U and Th do fit into the crystalline structure of zircon, and radioactive isotopes of both elements decay into Pb. The only way for Pb to be present within zircon crystals is through the decay of U and Th over time following crystallization of the zircon crystal. The age of the earth has nothing to do with it. If you bothered to actually research this, you would know that. But you have always enjoyed talking out of your ass on subjects you know little about. Your website is a testament to that. By all means, keep it up. It is always amusing to watch you simultaneously try and walk back the stupid shit you say while puffing out your chest. Never change. You haven't said anything right yet for me to get "wrong." Once again you appear totally oblivious of the fact that you have made an assumption. You have assumed that crystallization occurs all at once forgetting that crystals can form from other crystals of different ages. I also wonder how the "half life" of a single uranium atom is any help dating anything. If you bothered to use your brain just once instead of accepting everything labelled as science on faith, you might avoid making a fool of yourself on the internet. ...and THAT ironically, Arlon, is sig worthy for you. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Dec 22, 2017 1:58:22 GMT
I'm not reading through this whole thing but has anybody pointed out to Arlon that when uranium deposits within zircon crystals are tested they aren't just conducting one test but are actually testing two different uranium isotopes that each break down into different lead isotopes and both tests always give the same age for the same sample? If so then great and carry on. If not then it's an important point because two different tests is simply too much to be overcome by anyone who is not intentionally obtuse and/or a hopeless imbecile. Oh wait, we're talking about Arlon.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2017 2:06:01 GMT
I'm not reading through this whole thing but has anybody pointed out to Arlon that when uranium deposits within zircon crystals are tested they aren't just conducting one test but are actually testing two different uranium isotopes that each break down into different lead isotopes and both tests always give the same age for the same sample? If so then great and carry on. If not then it's an important point because two different tests is simply too much to be overcome by anyone who is not intentionally obtuse and/or a hopeless imbecile. Oh wait, we're talking about Arlon. I liked your first post better. You explained it beautifully. EVEN I could understand it.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2017 2:09:36 GMT
I'm not reading through this whole thing but has anybody pointed out to Arlon that when uranium deposits within zircon crystals are tested they aren't just conducting one test but are actually testing two different uranium isotopes that each break down into different lead isotopes and both tests always give the same age for the same sample? If so then great and carry on. If not then it's an important point because two different tests is simply too much to be overcome by anyone who is not intentionally obtuse and/or a hopeless imbecile. Oh wait, we're talking about Arlon. I am reading much more of this than I wish. It's okay, I read fast. I have the advantage of not having to memorize anything, just seeing or showing proofs, or with many "scientists" on this board, not seeing them prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Dec 22, 2017 2:11:56 GMT
I'm not reading through this whole thing but has anybody pointed out to Arlon that when uranium deposits within zircon crystals are tested they aren't just conducting one test but are actually testing two different uranium isotopes that each break down into different lead isotopes and both tests always give the same age for the same sample? If so then great and carry on. If not then it's an important point because two different tests is simply too much to be overcome by anyone who is not intentionally obtuse and/or a hopeless imbecile. Oh wait, we're talking about Arlon. I liked your first post better. You explained it beautifully. EVEN I could understand it. Ha! I didn't think it was there long enough for anyone to read it. I started it about two hours ago before i noticed anyone discussing zircon and wasn't able to finish it until a short time ago because I'm babysitting three small humans tonight. So I deleted it when i saw that the topic had already been raised and Arlon was, predictably, failing to comprehend.
|
|