|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Dec 22, 2017 2:13:53 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. Yes Arlon, two entirely separate tests, and possibly three, on the same sample, providing the same age and YOU are the one with an actual point. There's nothing stupid about that...NOT AT ALL.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2017 2:15:05 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. You wouldn't know a scientific proof if it bit you on the arse, waved a rainbow flag and whistled 'Dixie'!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Dec 22, 2017 2:17:55 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. I know you have a hard time admitting when you’re wrong, but I can’t help but notice that your above post no longer mentions ‘radiocarbon’, ‘original ratios’, or inquired about the age of the earth. Funny that.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2017 2:25:42 GMT
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. I know you have a hard time admitting when you’re wrong, but I can’t help but notice that your above post no longer mentions ‘radiocarbon’, ‘original ratios’, or inquired about the age of the earth. Funny that. Hilarious. More funny however is that you have not shown any justification however frail for your assumptions. You keep trying to win by making even more assumptions and not justifying them either.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2017 2:28:45 GMT
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. You wouldn't know a scientific proof if it bit you on the arse, waved a rainbow flag and whistled 'Dixie'!!!!!!!!! I'm pleased that scientific proofs don't do any of those things. What's your claim to science?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2017 2:33:21 GMT
You wouldn't know a scientific proof if it bit you on the arse, waved a rainbow flag and whistled 'Dixie'!!!!!!!!! I'm pleased that scientific proofs don't do any of those things. What's your claim to science? My claim to science? That it exists?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2017 2:34:32 GMT
... ... ... YOU are the one with an actual point. There's nothing stupid about that...NOT AT ALL. Oh, you don't mean that! Did Johnny Cash ever make a Christmas album? Perhaps you'd be more at ease in your own area of expertise.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 22, 2017 2:35:22 GMT
I'm pleased that scientific proofs don't do any of those things. What's your claim to science? My claim to science? That it exists? Aw, gee whiz. I thought you were going to say you were 9th cousin to Sir Isaac Newton, and 38th cousin to Archimedes, or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2017 2:37:35 GMT
My claim to science? That it exists? Aw, gee whiz. I thought you were going to say you were 9th cousin to Sir Isaac Newton, and 38th cousin to Archimedes, or something like that. Why would I possibly say something as stupid as that? It would be both untrue and off topic.
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Dec 22, 2017 2:38:12 GMT
I know you have a hard time admitting when you’re wrong, but I can’t help but notice that your above post no longer mentions ‘radiocarbon’, ‘original ratios’, or inquired about the age of the earth. Funny that. Hilarious. More funny however is that you have not shown any justification however frail for your assumptions. You keep trying to win by making even more assumptions and not justifying them either. Still no mention of radiocarbon or original ratios? This is a lesson that might’ve stuck!
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 22, 2017 2:39:33 GMT
Aw, gee whiz. I thought you were going to say you were 9th cousin to Sir Isaac Newton, and 38th cousin to Archimedes, or something like that. Why would I possibly something as stupid as that? It would be both untrue and off topic. Both untrue and off topic? That never stopped you before.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Dec 22, 2017 2:42:10 GMT
... ... ... YOU are the one with an actual point. There's nothing stupid about that...NOT AT ALL. Oh, you don't mean that! Did Johnny Cash ever make a Christmas album? Perhaps you'd be more at ease in your own area of expertise. My "peer-reviewed gangster science" beats your "pulled from your ass pseudoscience" any day. Unlike you, i actually understand science.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 22, 2017 2:46:07 GMT
Oh, you don't mean that! Did Johnny Cash ever make a Christmas album? Perhaps you'd be more at ease in your own area of expertise. My "peer-reviewed gangster science" beats our "pulled from your ass pseudoscience" any day. Unlike you, i actually understand science. Your "peer-reviewed gangster science" wins because it's been shoved up the collective nose of the human race for good long time now by the media. It doesn't necessarily win on its merit.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Dec 22, 2017 2:48:51 GMT
My "peer-reviewed gangster science" beats our "pulled from your ass pseudoscience" any day. Unlike you, i actually understand science. Your "peer-reviewed gangster science" wins because it's been shoved up the collective nose of the human race for good long time now by the media. It doesn't necessarily win on its merit. Yeah, you've got impressive scientific credentials Mr. Chemtrails.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2017 2:51:30 GMT
My "peer-reviewed gangster science" beats our "pulled from your ass pseudoscience" any day. Unlike you, i actually understand science. Your "peer-reviewed gangster science" wins because it's been shoved up the collective nose of the human race for good long time now by the media. It doesn't necessarily win on its merit. ^ ^ ...says the poster who NOT five minutes ago made the claim that the levels of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere are too low! lolololololololol You and Arlon talking out your arses should help! lolololololololol
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Dec 22, 2017 2:53:11 GMT
Your "peer-reviewed gangster science" wins because it's been shoved up the collective nose of the human race for good long time now by the media. It doesn't necessarily win on its merit. Yeah, you've got impressive scientific credentials Mr. Chemtrails. If you jog for a mile on a cold day, can you turn around and see a mile-long trail of your condensed breath? Well, that's what we're expected to believe when we see "contrails" that hang in the sky for three hours after the airplane is gone.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Dec 22, 2017 3:00:25 GMT
Yeah, you've got impressive scientific credentials Mr. Chemtrails. If you jog for a mile on a cold day, can you turn around and see a mile-long trail of your condensed breath? Well, that's what we're expected to believe when we see "contrails" that hang in the sky for three hours after the airplane is gone. ya think? pudgy ginger jogging on the earth with alcohol ridden breath is equivalent to aerodynamic metal aeroplane flying at speed with jet engines in the atmosphere which has variable atmospheric conditions of pressure, humidity and density and wind current and direction?
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Dec 22, 2017 3:02:35 GMT
Yeah, you've got impressive scientific credentials Mr. Chemtrails. If you jog for a mile on a cold day, can you turn around and see a mile-long trail of your condensed breath? Well, that's what we're expected to believe when we see "contrails" that hang in the sky for three hours after the airplane is gone. I'm not sure about you but I don't exhale ice crystals. If you do then you might want to seek advice from a medical professional because there's a good chance you're dead.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Dec 22, 2017 3:04:15 GMT
Hilarious. More funny however is that you have not shown any justification however frail for your assumptions. You keep trying to win by making even more assumptions and not justifying them either. Still no mention of radiocarbon or original ratios? This is a lesson that might’ve stuck! You've grown silent on crystallization. "The age of the Earth is not in question." So, I've noticed. Don't feel bad about getting caught using statistical analysis as if it were more certain science. It's not bad. Journalists use it all the time, way more than scientists. We have to use it because humans can't be put in laboratory cages. I studied it more thoroughly than you obviously.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Dec 22, 2017 3:08:09 GMT
|
|