Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 290 of 308 (476815)
07-26-2008 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by ReformedRob
07-26-2008 9:20 PM


Re: Mistating RATE evidences and your own contradiction
I have better things this evening to do than argue with a young earth fundamentalist.
I can see that there is no way to convince you with the findings of science, so I will no longer even bother to try.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:20 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:32 PM Coyote has replied
 Message 295 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:59 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 294 of 308 (476819)
07-26-2008 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by ReformedRob
07-26-2008 9:32 PM


Re: Mistating RATE evidences and your own contradiction
OK, just one:
Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds
R.E. Taylor and John Southon
    to 80.0 1.1 ka BP [0.00005 0.00001 fm]). Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical 14C values - 69.3 0.5 ka-70.6 0.5 ka BP. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields.
They were not dating diamonds. They were using diamonds as a source free of C14 in order to establish the limits of their equipment! They were checking on the amounts of contamination in their AMS equipment from inefficiencies in the process. And creationists, misunderstanding this, jumped on it as their magic bullet to prove a young earth. Sorry, wrong again.
ps. I know one of the authors of this study. And you still haven't answered my question concerning your qualifications.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 9:32 PM ReformedRob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 10:31 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2136 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 306 of 308 (476854)
07-27-2008 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by ReformedRob
07-27-2008 9:38 AM


Re: Summation
As I stated in Message 304, the text of replies to summations will be hidden. If you'd like to post a summation please go ahead. --Admin
Edited by Admin, : Moderator action.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by ReformedRob, posted 07-27-2008 9:38 AM ReformedRob 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