Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8734 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-30-2017 8:26 PM
404 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Post Volume:
Total: 802,262 Year: 6,868/21,208 Month: 2,629/2,634 Week: 292/525 Day: 51/74 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Author Topic:   Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 43
From:
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 152 of 194 (684304)
12-17-2012 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by NoNukes
12-17-2012 1:38 AM


Re: NoNukes
But I would like you to be done on all counts. After all, I have not finished the conversation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2012 1:38 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 153 of 194 (684305)
12-17-2012 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by morningstar2008
12-17-2012 1:14 AM


Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating and an old earth
Hi Morningstar2008

... The only reliable data can only account for the age-old rings, as is done in the calculation of a timber. Also, I maybe suppressed while other effective methods, but these methods will be effective only after the adoption of my first program of action. ...

From 14C Calibration and Correlations

quote:
Now the accumulated counting error between the two oak chronologies was 41 years over 8,000 years of cross-linked data comparisons - an error of 0.5% - and between the bristlecone pine chronology and the is off from the combined oak chronolgy by 37 years in 7,600 years of cross-linked data comparisons (younger than the oak average values) - also an error of 0.5%.

Not only was there a strong correlation between the three dendrochronologies, there was also a strong correlation in each one with the actual amount of 14C left in the tree rings. When calculated for radioactive decay and compared to the dendrochronology they showed this calibration curve:

Note that the curve has almost continuous small jagged variations around a smooth curve.

The production of 14C is related to cosmic ray emmisions from the sun:


Those jagged variations also serve as another correlation in the data -- all the dendrochronologies show the jags in the same patterns for the same years.

More ... Lake Suigetsu (Japan) and varves:

quote:
This is a single chronology formed by alternating biological deposition (diatoms in summer) and sediment deposition (clay in winter). The clay is being deposited all year, but settles slower than the diatoms, so in the summer (when a lot of diatoms grow and die) there are more diatom shells than clay, while in the winter (when diatom growth is halted) there is more clay deposited than diatoms.

... it is over 29,000 years long, and it overlaps and lines up perfectly with the dendrochronology above. The annual varves run for a period of 29,100 years (from 8,830 back to 37,930 cal yr BP when aligned with the tree chronology).

The varve layers continue down below the limits of C-14 dating to ~100,000 years, however the data below 37,930 cal yr BP level uses an estimated rate of sedimentation rather than actual layer counts. Using only the actual layer counts we end up with either of these two scenarios:

  1. This chronology does not overlap the one from the tree-ring data (in spite of several thousand years of matching Carbon-14 levels), and the minimum age of the earth is 12,460 + 29,100 (+/-) = ~39,560 (+/-) years old (and likely more depending on the length of the gap), OR
  2. These chronologies do overlap, as determined by matching the "C-14 age" curves, and the minimum age of the earth is 37,930 (+/-) years BP (1950) = ~35,980 (+/-) years old in 2010.

Here's the combined calibration curve:

Where the green line is the calibration curve from the tree rings shown previously, and the blue circles are the data from the lake varve samples (from organic matter deposited in the layers).

Now the problem for you is not just the correlations between the dendrochronologies and the lake varve chronology, but with the rate of sedimentation - the deposition rate of the layers - with the 14C concentrations:

http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/...bon/GetFileServlet

This graph shows the varve and 14C chronologies as a function of depth. As shown, 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). At the end of the glacial period the rate of deposition changed, as would be expected when less water is tied up in ice and the climate warms.

This is just part of the scientific data that correlates 14C/12C ratios with actual ages of samples, however these parts are countable annual layers\rings, and they cover the major times of use for 14C dating -- over 37,000 years.

To say that this system is inaccurate means you need to provide reasons for the correlations between the 14C data and the other data:

  • between each of the oak chronologies for age and climate changes and patterns,
  • between the bristlecone pine and the oak chronologies for age and climate changes and patterns,
  • between the irish oak and 14C age,
  • between the bristlecone pine and 14C age,
  • between the german oak and 14C age,
  • the 14C ages between each of these sets,
  • the correlation between each dendrochronolgy, 14C age, and the solar cosmic ray cycle.
  • between the varve age and 14C age,
  • between the varve age and deposition rate change with climate,
  • between the 14C age and the deposition rate change with climate

There is no rational reason for the 14C curve to make the same change in slope at the same time as the varve age curve, unless it measures the same thing that the varve counting does - age.

This is another example of internally consistent correlations of three sets of information from the same basic data source: age, depth and 14C/12C radiometric age.

Summary

This is just a small sampling of the objective data that shows a consistent and intercorrelated pattern of age. This data does not extend back to the extreme age of the earth, but it does extend back to well beyond any creationist YEC age known.

Curiously, the actual age of the earth does not need to be proven to be extremely old to falsify the typical YEC assertion, it just needs to be sufficiently old that the YEC position is untenable.

This data does that.

Once you accept that the YEC age is false, then we can move on to other information on how old the earth really is.


Not one creationist has been able to explain one of these correlations.

Radiocarbon dating is accurate enough to show that the earth is significantly older than any young earth creationist model.

The earth is very old: get used to it.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 1:14 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 3:28 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 154 of 194 (684307)
12-17-2012 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by morningstar2008
12-17-2012 1:38 AM


Re: for RAZD -- problems with creationists use of 14C
Hi Morningstar2008,

RAZD I think you got carried away a little over this theory. ... I just do not know what the arguments made in particular lead to your delusions.

Explain the correlations.

Making ad hominum comments and insisting on your point of view, your opinion, does not explain the correlations.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 1:38 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 3:35 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 43
From:
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 155 of 194 (684314)
12-17-2012 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by RAZD
12-17-2012 1:46 AM


Re: Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating and an old earth
This is a single chronology formed by alternating biological deposition (diatoms in summer) and sediment deposition (clay in winter). The clay is being deposited all year, but settles slower than the diatoms, so in the summer (when a lot of diatoms grow and die) there are more diatom shells than clay, while in the winter (when diatom growth is halted) there is more clay deposited than diatoms.
... it is over 29,000 years long, and it overlaps and lines up perfectly with the dendrochronology above. The annual varves run for a period of 29,100 years (from 8,830 back to 37,930 cal yr BP when aligned with the tree chronology).
The varve layers continue down below the limits of C-14 dating to ~100,000 years, however the data below 37,930 cal yr BP level uses an estimated rate of sedimentation rather than actual layer counts. Using only the actual layer counts we end up with either of these two scenarios:
A. This chronology does not overlap the one from the tree-ring data (in spite of several thousand years of matching Carbon-14 levels), and the minimum age of the earth is 12,460 + 29,100 (+/-) = ~39,560 (+/-) years old (and likely more depending on the length of the gap), OR
B. These chronologies do overlap, as determined by matching the "C-14 age" curves, and the minimum age of the earth is 37,930 (+/-) years BP (1950) = ~35,980 (+/-) years old in 2010.
______________________________________________
That's fine as I can see your theory, too, does not stand still. And the effect is much more fruitful than any of even the most tricked method of radiocarbon dating. But I am your method I would like to add a system that violates these catastrophes annual deposits, and sometimes even stop them altogether. So dating method will then create a complete chain when we recognize every one end of the world. Typically these endpoints provide assumption that the disaster has destroyed all leaving no chance of survival, even bacteria. And I am sure that you are on the verge of opening. http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.1/0_80089_6a41d77c_XXL.jpg
This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2012 1:46 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2012 3:49 AM morningstar2008 has responded

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 43
From:
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 156 of 194 (684315)
12-17-2012 3:35 AM
Reply to: Message 154 by RAZD
12-17-2012 1:52 AM


Re: for RAZD -- problems with creationists use of 14C
With this brother to long pre long run. And by the way, I did not promise similar successes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2012 1:52 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18242
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 157 of 194 (684317)
12-17-2012 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by morningstar2008
12-17-2012 3:28 AM


Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating, an old earth, and calibrations
Hi again morningstar2008,

... But I am your method I would like to add a system that violates these catastrophes annual deposits, and sometimes even stop them altogether. ...

a little clarification:

(1) the annual layers are not catastrophic, they are normal annual events occurring over many days,

(2) the correlations between the different data needs to be explained.

Anything that "violates" or "stops" one system would need to violate or stop the others in precisely the same pattern.

This is unlikely to occur by random chance in one correlation, and it becomes astronomically unlikely in the several that have been given, to occur at the same time measurement in all of them.

Nor have you proposed any cause for a single system to be violated or stopped.

Opinion does not suffice here: either you explain all the correlations together with a mechanism to cause a massive error in each different system simultaneously or you have failed.

For instance: what would cause a change in radioactive decay of 14C at precisely the same time as the rate of deposition of the annual layers changes?

The 14C data are on an exponential curve, while the annual layer deposition is a linear function.

How do you explain that?

Enjoy

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 3:28 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 7:49 AM RAZD has responded
 Message 161 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 8:15 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 158 of 194 (684325)
12-17-2012 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by foreveryoung
12-16-2012 1:07 PM


Re: Suggestion
FEY writes:

I think he is saying the formation of chalk and charcoal depend on the timing of some water process.


Yes, it would appear so.
That seems a reasonable interpretation.
But the lack of detail and the poor translation leaves us guessing what he is actually trying to say.

MS writes:

You are a bit wrong. Coal contains no wood. It consists entirely of the remains of marine animals. Charcoal not exist. In any case, should not exist for many reasons.


And the second level of translating leads to a confusing game of Chinese whispers.
Morningstar's response is appears to be unconnected to your reply.

Panda writes:

I doubt this will get better.


I stand by my prediction.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by foreveryoung, posted 12-16-2012 1:07 PM foreveryoung has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 8:02 AM Panda has responded

  
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 43
From:
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 159 of 194 (684327)
12-17-2012 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by RAZD
12-17-2012 3:49 AM


Re: Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating, an old earth, and calibrations
a little clarification:
(1) the annual layers are not catastrophic, they are normal annual events occurring over many days,
(2) the correlations between the different data needs to be explained.
____________________________________________
Very well that you have asked me this question. First vaunted translator gave the wrong information that I gave. And you did the right thing that we decided to clarify. I agree to a change of correlation transitions, but do not know how our interpreter works. Smooth layered limestone rocks of Cretaceous rocks can be calculated until the end when they end Cretaceous layers indicates that at this time the crash occurred. In coals that disaster is difficult to determine from the fact that the disaster which the coal seams rather peculiar. As I said coal is burned peat. But this is partially washed peat streams coming down the flood waters. But this is not a flood that draw kreotsionisty. This is different. On this subject, I at one time all the teeth crumble. I do not recognize this type of disaster. The truth was a little difficult, but I managed. All because of an asteroid, but it is not the Chicxulub. It is not known to science. But it is to him we owe the recession of the continents in different directions. Asteroid impact caused the crack in the lithosphere of the Earth's environment and when magma began digging out. Began large-scale fires. A peatland that were deep underground on fire without oxygen. As for the asteroid is the Mariana Trench is just a place to drop. But this, in my opinion, digression. After we will talk about it. I gave the picture. You probably remember her well. There limestone covered with layers of sandstone. As for them, too, I sandstones investigated and accurately know what time they were formed. And that became a bed of limestone sandstone, this factor is also a correlation moments. I do not why this limestone do not know, hard to master image goes to the contact. But I think this is where, in Tajikistan. But, none the less. I just look at the picture that would give a precise definition. But so far, however, these periods of life of the earth to me are little known. We still have to work hard.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.1/0_800a8_8ac4157c_XXL.jpg
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2012 3:49 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 8:21 AM morningstar2008 has responded
 Message 188 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2012 1:05 PM morningstar2008 has not yet responded

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 43
From:
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 160 of 194 (684329)
12-17-2012 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Panda
12-17-2012 7:19 AM


Re: Suggestion
Friends do not hesitate to ask again. I, too, feel at ease. And a translator speak not easy. That word swallow goals phrases. In general, I think it's time to move on to another level. I give you the original article so that you would have tried all sorts of ways to translate their own. Do not use just my interpretation.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Panda, posted 12-17-2012 7:19 AM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Panda, posted 12-17-2012 9:36 AM morningstar2008 has not yet responded

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 43
From:
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 161 of 194 (684332)
12-17-2012 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by RAZD
12-17-2012 3:49 AM


Re: Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating, an old earth, and calibrations
For instance: what would cause a change in radioactive decay of 14C at precisely the same time as the rate of deposition of the annual layers changes?

The 14C data are on an exponential curve, while the annual layer deposition is a linear function.

How do you explain that?
_________________________________
While I do not explain it as. Firstly the quality of translation for this dialogue is not up to par. And in the second. I need to know all the dysfunction of your program. Nevertheless, everything depends on the quality of the translation. I basically decided for myself a very important aspect I can see that you are not marking time. What is doing. That to me is a joyful event. I am sure that my tips also later play a big role. So the whole thing for you. And I? As we say, above the head can not jump. I already made ​​a big breakthrough for you unless of course I say that it means. Although I hope that in time you will understand all of what I told you. As for me, my country is not interested in the advancement of science. They are now more lay on the pocket. Now there is a massive looting of natural values. Them as if not before.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2012 3:49 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15500
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 162 of 194 (684334)
12-17-2012 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by morningstar2008
12-17-2012 7:49 AM


Re: Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating, an old earth, and calibrations
Hi MorningStar,

Radiocarbon dating only applies to organic material younger than around 50,000 years.

Cretaceous rocks, coal, the Chicxulub asteroid, the Mariana Trench and limestone layers all formed or occurred millions of years ago, far too long ago for radiocarbon dating to have any relevancy.

Do you have any specific problems with radiocarbon dating that you'd like to raise?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 7:49 AM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 1:33 PM Percy has responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1068 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 163 of 194 (684341)
12-17-2012 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by morningstar2008
12-17-2012 8:02 AM


Re: Suggestion
morningstar writes:

Friends do not hesitate to ask again. I, too, feel at ease. And a translator speak not easy. That word swallow goals phrases. In general, I think it's time to move on to another level. I give you the original article so that you would have tried all sorts of ways to translate their own. Do not use just my interpretation.


I yield.

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 8:02 AM morningstar2008 has not yet responded

  
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 43
From:
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 164 of 194 (684394)
12-17-2012 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Percy
12-17-2012 8:21 AM


Re: Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating, an old earth, and calibrations
Do you have any specific problems with radiocarbon dating that you'd like to raise?

--Percy
________________________________________
Well, I'm by and large one of the problems highlighted. And you talk to me after that coal and chalk are not problems of radiocarbon dating. That there seems to be all right. Although it is here and this is not all it should. I did not write dating for one reason. This topic is more serious than you can imagine. Once again I am forced to repeat you have traveled. Earth cracks in the roof of a constant sequence, and if that does not notice at all what purpose is that the priorities of the vital functions of whatever they have not been tested for certain methods will be considered meaningless. I also simultaneously planning astrophysical catastrophe that experienced Earth. And they in turn left on the surface is not less noticeable scars. Science about them too little of that does not speak. But their identification will lead to more accurate dating. Unfortunately, these problems are not considered paleontological institutes. And by him orientations no one put. What is the Solar System? What time it is released to the existence of life? When the process of life on Earth? When it should end? What will happen after the extinction of life on Earth? What will happen after the extinction of life on Earth? All these and many other questions that need to look for an answer now. Then you have the answer to your question, he will emerge. For granted. Do you think that these questions you have answered in detail. I'll tell you. You are mistaken. To any of these questions you do not have the answers. You want that, I'd give you all of these questions answered. But I want to warn you, it will be another science. I gave you a short section of the science. You get lost in it. What about you if I'll give you all the information? Although, neither of which you will not. But I've had enough apoplectic. And not because of what you each joint of the science will grind. And sometimes with a hammer. Apoplectic because I cover it arhiobemny material. Which contains more and incidental evidence. And I'm also not sure that our translator is ready for such an overload. So I propose a simple step by step, not by leaps and bounds, and small shazhochkami. Even though this is the smallest shazhochek you as I understood, failed miserably. Until you have not got it. The pace at which the world go by as it is moved from one platform to another. Of course, you may be offended by my tactless behavior. But you have to understand. I am not prepared to speak right now in front of such a large audience. And it is not yet what she offered. A theory must be finely balanced or edited at one time, and most importantly can not be read in such a terrible translation. Perhaps, after all, I hastened to declare itself. I'm also on every point of my discoveries are not being must explain. While in your community is a RAZD. Look to his theory, I think it has something to show.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.1/0_80105_2583741c_XXL.jpg


This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 8:21 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 2:03 PM morningstar2008 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15500
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.4


(1)
Message 165 of 194 (684400)
12-17-2012 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by morningstar2008
12-17-2012 1:33 PM


Re: Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating, an old earth, and calibrations
Hi MorningStar,

If we begin with this abstract from a randomly chosen technical article about coal (Natural Mercury Isotope Variation in Coal Deposits and Organic Soils):

Original English writes:

There is a need to distinguish among sources of Hg to the atmosphere in order to more fully understand global Hg pollution. In this study we investigate whether coal deposits within the United States, China, and Russia-Kazakhstan, which are three of the five greatest coal-producing regions, have diagnostic Hg isotopic fingerprints that can be used to discriminate among Hg sources. We also investigate the Hg isotopic composition of modern organic soil horizons developed in areas distant from point sources of Hg in North America. Mercury stored in coal deposits displays a wide range of both mass dependent fractionation (MDF, δ202Hg) and mass independent fractionation (MIF, Δ201Hg). δ202Hg varies in coals by 3 and Δ201Hg varies by 0.9. Combining these two Hg isotope signals results in what may be a unique isotopic fingerprint for many coal deposits. Mass independent fractionation of mercury has been demonstrated to occur during photochemical reactions of mercury. This suggests that Hg found in most coal deposits was subjected to photochemical reduction near the Earths surface prior to deposition. The similarity in MDF and MIF of modern organic soils and coals from North America suggests that Hg deposition from coal may have imprinted an isotopic signature on soils. This research offers a new tool for characterizing mercury inputs from natural and anthropogenic sources to the atmosphere and provides new insights into the geochemistry of mercury in coal and soils.

And then using Google Translate we translate it into Russian and back into English we get this:

English to Russian to English writes:

There is a need to distinguish the sources of mercury to the atmosphere in order to better understand the global pollution Hg. In this study we investigate whether coal fields in the United States, China, Russia, Kazakhstan, which are three of the five largest coal-producing regions, have diagnostic Hg isotopic fingerprints, which can be used to discriminate between Hg sources. We also investigate the Hg isotopic composition of modern organic soil horizons developed in areas remote from point sources of mercury in North America. Mercury is stored in the coal fields a wide range of the mass dependent fractionation (MDF, δ202Hg) and mass independent fractionation (MIF, Δ201Hg). δ202Hg coals varies by 3 , and Δ201Hg changed to 0,9 . The combination of these two isotopes of Hg indicates the results that may be unique isotopic "fingerprint" for many coal deposits. The mass independent fractionation of mercury has been shown to occur in photochemical reactions of mercury. This suggests that most of the mercury in coal deposits was subjected to photochemical reduction near the surface of the Earth to the deposition. The similarity in the MDF and MIF modern organic soil and coal from North America show that the deposition of mercury from coal can be printed on the isotopic signature of the soil. This study provides a new tool for the characterization of mercury inputs from natural and anthropogenic sources to the atmosphere and provides a fresh look at the geochemistry of mercury in coal and soil.

Look how easily understandable that double translation is. If you put intelligible English in then you get intelligible English out. That you're posting unintelligible English tells us that you're putting unintelligible Russian into Google Translate. I think this tells us that you're barely literate even in Russian. Just look at this:

morningstar2008 writes:

Although it is here and this is not all it should.

Let me translate that into Russian for you:

morningstar2008's gobbledygook translated into Russian writes:

Несмотря на то, что именно здесь и это не все, что должно.

Does that make any sense to you? Well, it didn't make any sense in English, either. No wonder we can't figure out what you're saying - even if this board were in Russian you wouldn't be making any sense.

Anyway, the topic of this thread is radiocarbon dating. No matter how dire the consequences of your other worries, they are not the topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss something else then please find another thread.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 1:33 PM morningstar2008 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 2:47 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 168 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-17-2012 6:28 PM Percy has responded

    
morningstar2008
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 43
From:
Joined: 12-11-2012


Message 166 of 194 (684420)
12-17-2012 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
12-17-2012 2:03 PM


Re: Calibration of Radiocarbon Dating, an old earth, and calibrations
Of all of these reasons, I realized one thing. You want to get rid of you uncomfortable conversation. And it is not important to know me you do not understand Russian, or I in all languages of the world. But there is one way to analyze my words. This is the original text that I put in the link below. The only disadvantage is that it must be translated by hand. But I guess so. Who will be interested in that transfer. But when I show at the door. I understand that even without a bad translation. By the way you the only one who seemed to me speaks Russian. But this fact I have little worries. The reality is that quite simply argued. Do not mess with a pig's snout Kalashny number. http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.1/0_80109_13062a71_XXL.jpg
This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 2:03 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2012 3:04 PM morningstar2008 has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
8910
11
1213Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017