Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

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

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

How do you know its inner parts were not being mineralized, via humics. Really this is getting old, without a complete mineral analysis testing for humics, cellose, clays, leachates complete mineral profiles its all circular.A substantial fraction of the mass of the humic acids is in carboxylic
acid functional groups, which endow these molecules with the ability to
chelate positively charged multivalent ions (Mg++, Ca++, Fe++, most other
"trace elements" of value to plants, as well as other ions that have no
positive biological role, such as Cd++ and Pb++.)Humic AcidsP.S. Later, etc...!This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-28-2005 01:27 PM

Edge,
A substantial fraction of the mass of the humic acids is in carboxylic
acid functional groups, which endow these molecules with the ability to
chelate positively charged multivalent ions (Mg++, Ca++, Fe++, most other
"trace elements" of value to plants, as well as other ions that have no
positive biological role, such as Cd++ and Pb++.)
Humic Acids Humic acids present in a liquefaction anaerobic leachate "is relevant". It should raise flags in respect to leachate contamination of the humic mineral clays forming sediment glues by the processes of lithifaction. So the contaminated leachates removed and lithifaction sets, and the Evolutionists found something new to date. Creationists scientists have said to be wary of the evolutionists dating methods one reason given was leachate contamination.Note: Pb++ that have no positive biological role are able to be chelated by humic acids. (meaning sediments glues are contaminated).I'll agree that evolutionists are dating something, just not sure what. What Jon F. said: P.S. Got to go things to do,Enjoy! Added the last (re: JonF) quote box and the message quoted information. Added the source information to the previous quote box also. - Adminnemooseusedited to add: Note: Pb++ meaning lead that have no positive biological role are able to be chelated by humic acids. (meaning sediments glues are contaminated).This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-29-2005 10:14 PMThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-30-2005 10:06 AM

PurpleYouko,
I have no problem by commercial grade isotopes like 252Cf that has a half life of 2.65 years you would beable to convert N14 to C14. I'm sure you know how a reactor works and have no problems your using your reactor to produce isotopes.All I seen however documented in the natural however is that uranium decaying producing helium and then giving off gamma rays. Another problem mentioned is that neutrons can only move a couple of centimeters in the air and the absorption problem (Jon F. too mentioned (the self shielding problem of the sediment particle).Were not talking a half life of 2.65 years but extremely large volumes of time in the natural. Another problem is that uranium when it does decay its decaying into helium then gives off gamma rays.Edge provided a link saying portable sources can not provide thermal neutrons. This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-30-2005 12:48 AM

edge, The environmental protection agency says in respect to radon that an alpha particle is two neutrons and two protons are emitted throught the process of decay. I don't see the neutron being emitted only alpha particles in cold fussion. Its cold fussion not nucleur fission, etc...Alpha particle: Two neutrons and two protons bound as a single particle that is emitted from the nucleus of certain radioactive isotopes in the process of decay.http://www.epa.gov/radon/pubs/devprot5.html

PurpleYouko, I agree an spontaneous fission likely happens with enriched isotopes that have half lives of 2.65 years. In the natural sediments though your talking much longer half lives. If neutrons and protons are decaying into helium it appears to me to still be more of a cold fussion reaction. These decay rates are by 4 atomic weights, etc... Its not like tritium that you can hit with a hammer an get a release of neutrons. I agree neutrons are being released from radon but bonded to protons and consistently decaying by 4 atomic weights.To produce C14 you still need N14 to absorb a neutron and you need pore spaces of a foot or more so neutrons are not absorbed instead by the sediment particles.The link I had on Radon talked of two neutrons and two protons bonded and is expressed as the alpha decay particle being expelled out of the nucleous and gamma radiation. If you look at the decay rates the atomic weights reduce 4 for each decay, in agreement with neutrons combining with protons. This supports in the earth were seeing cold fussion not spontaneous fission. If it was spontaneous fission it should be decaying neutrons without protons like tritium. It always appears to be a proton in the works, with a reduced atomic weight of 4. This consistency supports cold fussion and not spontaneous fission, etc...How Radon Works | HowStuffWorksIts been noted that the soil bacteria are enriching the soil with C-15.Why are the soil bacteria enriching the soil with N15 instead of N14. Is it not because the isotope N14 is lighter? located in the upper atmosphere. You have all these Nitrogen fixing bacteria enriching the soil with N15. You have any evidence N14 is being fixed within the earth? Relative Abundance of Uranium IsotopesIsotope-------------- U-238----------U-235--------U-234
Natural Abundance (%)--99.27----------0.72---------0.0055
Half-life (years)------4.47 billion---700 million--246,000Uranium isotopes can be separated to increase the concentration of one isotope relative to another. This process is called "enrichment." The enriched fraction has increased U-235. Uranium-235 is better for nuclear power reactors, and for making nuclear weapons.http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/uranium.htmNitrogen-15
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Nitrogen-15 is a stable, non-radioactive isotope of nitrogen. It is often used in agricultural and medical research, and is a product of Oxygen-15 beta decay in stars.Isotopes of nitrogen - WikipediaIsotopes
There are two stable isotopes: N-14 and N-15. By far the most common is N-14 (99.634%), which is produced in the CNO cycle in stars. The rest is N-15. Of the ten isotopes produced synthetically, one has a half life of nine minutes and the remaining isotopes have half lives on the order of seconds or less. Biologically-mediated reactions (e.g., assimilation, nitrification, and denitrification) strongly control nitrogen dynamics in the soil. These reactions almost always result in N-15 enrichment of the substrate and depletion of the product.Nitrogen - WikipediaThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-30-2005 08:40 PM

Coragyps, I agree that is likely all the N14 you have to target, for C14 to be produced within the earth.P.S. All thats been proven is N14 in the atmosphere is being converted to C14.

edge, Where have I ever said I was in complete disagreement with the upper varves agreements with tree rings. Its the floating lower varves that were in disagreement, you know liquefaction, anaerobic digestion, humic acid colloids, etc...The problem of the self shielding particle is another problem in respect to the N14 atom. If the alpha particle has been expressed as neutron and proton particle, then the alpha particle has all the appearances of a controlled fussion reaction.Its not like your blasting the neutrons out of the atom, its more of a fussion (a steady decay happenings) from the inside out. Does not Cold Fussion more aptly explain whats happening, more like a controlled nucleur fussion reaction.Is not decay more correctly expressed by neutrons fused to protons being expelled with a burst of energy (gamma, beta). If Radon which decays quite quickly was not producing alpha particles, you would have serious neutron radiation. Is not tritium a serious neutron radiation problem, formed by spontaneous fission (dirty nucleur bomb).If cold fussion reactions are known, perhaps we should close all nucleur plants and build radon gas Cold nucleur fussion reactors.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-30-2005 11:28 PM

edge, In respect to Lake Suietsu Varves it really was a poorly documented study. You really should not take it serious till the mineral profiles are completed. We also need the topgraphy of the lake and its watershed topography soil profiles. You would expect nothing else from a Creationists study.P.S. Even without a mineral profile the humic problems were never addressed. Like you said why would scientists ever date sediments that had potential of leachate contamination. Maybe they were not scientists, but evolutionists.

roxrkool, If you look at the tight correlations that agree with tree rings this does suggests annual varve were forming since say the creationists biblical flood. Given the tight correlations line gets bothchy after around 8,000 years appears due to anaerobic digestion gases profiling upward, humic acid organic mineral contamination suggesting that lower varves are not annual depositions.Topography & soil related profiles might shed light related to how & when Suietsu's kettle formed. Questions has the lake bed water level receeded. Does related topography elevations indicate that the Oceans tidal waters played a factor in lower varve deposition(is there a path to the Ocean).How big is Suietsu's watershed. The topography depth profiles of the lake itself. How does its soil & topography profiles compare to other lakes formed in immediate area, do they have the same lake bed profiling.If Suietsu is difference is that its a kettle lake and given the straight line assumed annual correlations get bothcy after around 8,000 years. There were glaciers melting around this time frame and Lake Suietsu is quite close to the ocean. (was it formed by a big iceberg floating in from a melting glacier 5,000 years ago). http://www.msu.edu/user/lebaron1/i.htm

PurpleYouko, It sound like a form of cold fusion happening inside the nucleous of the element decaying. Perhaps transmutating for lack of a better word, since spontaneous fission is not whats happening in respect to the alpha particle.Interesting article about a new battery on the horizon (the atomic battery) about converting radioactive decay energy to power your labtops (the atomic battery).Meanwhile, a team from Cornell University last month unveiled a device that converts the energy stored in radioactive material directly into mechanical motion, which in turn moves the parts of a miniscule machine to generate electricity. This type of battery could supply power for decades, said Amit Lal, a professor at Cornell's electrical and computer engineering department and the lead researcher.Lal said that medical device makers and cell phone makers have shown interest in commercial applications of the atomic battery, adding that consumers may see the new batteries in cell phones in about three to four years.http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,39020351,2125895,00.htmcold fusionn : nuclear fusion at or near room temperatures; claims to have discovered it are generally considered to have been mistakenCold fusion Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-31-2005 07:55 PM

Coragyps, Liquefaction sorting explains the lower floating varves are not annual varves. The absense of oxygen (anaerobic digestion)decays organics forming humic acids. Humic acids bond to organics and almost all the minerals on the periodic table including lead.The clays forming in the floating varves liquefaction state would sort by particle size and pressure (enhanced by the CO2 and Methane gases reducing bouyancy(particle density), explaining diatom layers, clay layers, (multiple sorting upwards).The greater age with increasing depth is explained by the C14 diffusing upward by CO2 & Methane anaerobic gasing.--------------------------------------------14C is present in gaseous form (CO2) and gradually diffuses in the earth systemhttp://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htmTo All: Happy New YearsThis message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-31-2005 09:46 PM

Nuggin, Why not? "if" the Creationists flood occurred 5,450 years ago (if one creation day = 1000 years) then African Eve would be around 6,000 years old. More importantly all the sediments of the earth would of been liquefied with anaerobic digestion (lack of oxygen) bacteria forming humic acids thus explaining the intense mineralization of some of the sediments that lithified (compressed).In fact evolutionists apparently now dating the lead isotopes present in these mineralized glues within these sediments to age the lithification event in time.Humic acids affinity to mineralize lead might yet explain how come all the other isotope dates appear proportional with depth. With the greater isotope date scale a little contamination affects a date millions of years. There you have it, etc... Not that you'll believe it. You will have a hard time convincing a Creationists because they have leachate contamination on a global scale.P.S. I'd suspect dates would agree but don't agree it means the earth is an old one. If the earth's elements undergone fussion in the vacuums of space then all this isotope decay could of been happening before the earth was created. We might have an appearance of age but this does not necessarily mean the earth is an old one.