Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 211 of 300 (273330)
12-27-2005 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Coragyps
12-27-2005 7:10 PM


Has Golfer even read the paper?
I don't think Golfer has read anything at all about Lake Suigetsu dating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Coragyps, posted 12-27-2005 7:10 PM Coragyps has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 212 of 300 (273337)
12-27-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by johnfolton
12-27-2005 7:28 PM


Re:
Cellulose isn't kerogen. Bug legs and wings aren't either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by johnfolton, posted 12-27-2005 7:28 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by johnfolton, posted 12-27-2005 8:02 PM Coragyps has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 213 of 300 (273344)
12-27-2005 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Coragyps
12-27-2005 7:41 PM


Coragyps,
The lower varve ages were determined by assuming, evolutionists always need to assume something. It is interesting how they always attack someone challenging their assumptions. Hmmmm........
The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial).
The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained ....." by assuming "..... a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1).
http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Coragyps, posted 12-27-2005 7:41 PM Coragyps has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 214 of 300 (273346)
12-27-2005 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by johnfolton
12-27-2005 7:28 PM


Re:
Golfer, you have not provided any evidence at all for any of your assertions (e.g., talc, dolomite, kerogen, liquifaction, humic acids, anaerobic digestion, etc.) and until you do, this discussion will never get anywhere.
Reading this thread is already like trying to follow a flitting moth into the dark.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by johnfolton, posted 12-27-2005 7:28 PM johnfolton has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 215 of 300 (273347)
12-27-2005 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by johnfolton
12-27-2005 7:02 PM


Re:
edge, I know you are looking out for contaminations, ...
No.
...however it appeared from my link that uranium decays into helium and then gives off gamma rays.
No.
It goes on to say it doesn't travel far(a few centimenter in the air), its stopped by a layer of skin. This is not a nucleur reactor where your multipling reactions. Your own link said any practical portable neutron source will not provide you with thermal neutrons. To get thermal neutrons they refered you to buy a commercial source like 252Cf that has a half life of 2.65 years.
Irrelevant.
First, any practical portable neutron source will not provide you with thermal neutrons.Commercially available sources of neutrons include 252Cf that normally undergoes an alpha decay, but has about 3% of its decays through spontaneous fission.
Not Found
Irrelevant.
Would not a fossils N14 have to be radiated by a neutron to be contaminated. If alpha rays are easily absorbed by materials how can it reach the N14 within the fossil.
Irrelevant.
Because of their charge and large mass, alpha rays are easily absorbed by materials and can travel only a few centimeters in air. They can be absorbed by tissue paper or the outer layers of human skin (about 40 micrometres, equivalent to a few cells deep) and so are not generally dangerous to life unless the source is ingested or inhaled.
Repetitious.
This message has been edited by edge, 12-27-2005 08:06 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by johnfolton, posted 12-27-2005 7:02 PM johnfolton has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3911 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 216 of 300 (273410)
12-28-2005 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by johnfolton
12-27-2005 7:03 PM


Carbon Dating Fossils?
Fossils that can not be dated directly via C14 ...
Golfer. Would be so kind as to show us any instance of anyone who is not a YEC carbon dating any fossil expecting to get a relevant age?

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by johnfolton, posted 12-27-2005 7:03 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by johnfolton, posted 12-28-2005 12:05 PM Jazzns has replied

AdminRandman
Inactive Member


Message 217 of 300 (273416)
12-28-2005 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by NosyNed
12-27-2005 7:06 PM


Re: Furthering the discussion
If you don't like what he says, don't respond to him. And no more debating my stance here....I haven't read the content of the whole thread so if you think the content doesn't work, it's a moot point.
I've given you leeway...no more personal comments on the poster, period...at least on this thread.
Heck, you can take this to the admin forum if you want. You know that, but it stops here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by NosyNed, posted 12-27-2005 7:06 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by NosyNed, posted 12-28-2005 10:59 AM AdminRandman has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 218 of 300 (273472)
12-28-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by AdminRandman
12-28-2005 1:11 AM


Re: Furthering the discussion
Edited out for being inappropiate.
Ned, complain about it somewhere else. If others want to debate golfer, that's their business. Your comments were off-topic personal attacks. Tried nice to ask you to stop.
This message has been edited by AdminRandman, 12-28-2005 03:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by AdminRandman, posted 12-28-2005 1:11 AM AdminRandman has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 219 of 300 (273499)
12-28-2005 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Jazzns
12-28-2005 12:28 AM


Re: Carbon Dating Fossils?
Why would an evolutionist C14 directly date fossils sandwiched between sediment layers dating millions of years. They need the fossil to date old, so they came up with this ingenious way to achieve this. Never date the fossil directly, but always ascribe its age to the sediments surrounding the fossil. Sediment ages really has no direct bearing on the true age of the fossil. This is key, the evolutionist tries to never directly date a fossil, therefore they can allude with a staight face its the age of a rock. The truth is they never dated the fossil.
If the elements that make up the earth were in a vaporized state in space before the earth was created. Then 4.6 billion years could be how long these elements were before the earth was. The earth could of been created 13,000 years ago, 6,000 years ago. Only God know the exact date but no reason for a Creationists to believe it was created 4.6 billion years ago.
In respect to Mitochondrial Eve the Evolutionists could not ascribe its age to a rock. The evolutionists had no choice (but to punt)create a bogus mutation rate which they did by "assuming" Australian Eve was 40,000 years old.
However mutation rates are known and this information directly ages African Eve to be 6,000 years old.
http://www.wartalk.info/ann_gibbons.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Jazzns, posted 12-28-2005 12:28 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by Coragyps, posted 12-28-2005 12:17 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 222 by roxrkool, posted 12-28-2005 12:55 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 239 by Jazzns, posted 12-28-2005 6:04 PM johnfolton has not replied

Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 220 of 300 (273505)
12-28-2005 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by johnfolton
12-28-2005 12:05 PM


Re: Carbon Dating Fossils?
If the elements that make up the earth were in a vaporized state in space before the earth was created. Then 4.6 billion years could be how long these elements were before the earth was.
1221 posts here, and you still haven't realized that all radiodating methods "start the clock" only when the mineral (or living thing, for 14C) solidifies? Wow, Golfer! Why don't you pick "Osmium" for your next screen name? Or maybe "neutron star matter"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by johnfolton, posted 12-28-2005 12:05 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by johnfolton, posted 12-28-2005 12:37 PM Coragyps has not replied
 Message 224 by robinrohan, posted 12-28-2005 1:00 PM Coragyps has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 221 of 300 (273511)
12-28-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Coragyps
12-28-2005 12:17 PM


Trying to date fossils thousands of years on your scale is like trying to date a fly on a truck scale.
If a creationists sends a sample to be dated, you will burn off what you consider contaminates.
I mean we all understand why you have to calibrate your truck scale, the fossil must appear old.
P.S. The Creationist flood and your scale is off millions of years not thousands of years.
This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-28-2005 01:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Coragyps, posted 12-28-2005 12:17 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by roxrkool, posted 12-28-2005 12:59 PM johnfolton has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 222 of 300 (273519)
12-28-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by johnfolton
12-28-2005 12:05 PM


Re: Carbon Dating Fossils?
Except that at Lake Suigetsu, terrestrial macrofossils (e.g., leaves, twigs, and bug parts) WERE directly dated.
They were not converted to kerogen as you imply because the fossils were easily identified and picked out by the scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by johnfolton, posted 12-28-2005 12:05 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by johnfolton, posted 12-28-2005 1:26 PM roxrkool has replied
 Message 240 by Jazzns, posted 12-28-2005 6:07 PM roxrkool has replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 989 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 223 of 300 (273521)
12-28-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by johnfolton
12-28-2005 12:37 PM


Re:
Why? Why MUST we get old fossils? Because we want to cause YECs problems? Because we're trying to destroy religion, Christianity?
For what purpose would scientists intentionally manipulate the data?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by johnfolton, posted 12-28-2005 12:37 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by johnfolton, posted 12-28-2005 1:24 PM roxrkool has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 300 (273522)
12-28-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Coragyps
12-28-2005 12:17 PM


Re: Carbon Dating Fossils?
1221 posts here, and you still haven't realized that all radiodating methods "start the clock" only when the mineral (or living thing, for 14C) solidifies? Wow, Golfer! Why don't you pick "Osmium" for your next screen name? Or maybe "neutron star matter"?
I just had a question. What is carbon dating used for? How far back can you date things using this method? I've never really understood it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Coragyps, posted 12-28-2005 12:17 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by JonF, posted 12-28-2005 1:36 PM robinrohan has replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 225 of 300 (273533)
12-28-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by roxrkool
12-28-2005 12:59 PM


Yep! You've answered your own question, TOE has an anti-religious agenda. ID is not religious yet TOE is religious. This thread is about the evidence, not your religion.
Gotta go, no one is taking Neds advice and I need a break. New Years and things and needs that be, etc...
P.S. Later, etc...
This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-28-2005 07:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by roxrkool, posted 12-28-2005 12:59 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by roxrkool, posted 12-28-2005 1:57 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 229 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 12-28-2005 2:35 PM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024