Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question About the Universe
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 147 of 373 (740326)
11-04-2014 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by marc9000
11-03-2014 10:42 PM


Marc9000 writes:
But atheists dismiss spirituality...
Not true at all.
I'm an atheist and I don't dismiss spirituality. Maybe you should check with the people you are talking about first before making sweeping statements about what you believe other people dismiss or don't dismiss. In this case your beliefs about other people don't reflect reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 11-03-2014 10:42 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 300 of 373 (741527)
11-13-2014 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by zaius137
11-12-2014 10:17 PM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
zius137 writes:
Yes, regardless the credential a creationist is labeled a outsider.
Ah, the persecution complex. It's all a global conspiracy, I guess?
What you didn't mention was that he's been shown to be dishonest. For example, from his paper here:
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages | The Institute for Creation Research
Baumgardner writes:
Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.
Nope.
Uniformatarianism does not ' assume' anything like that at all.
Catastrophism was an assumption, before studying the rocks. Uniformatism was a conclusion, after studying rocks. From Message 470
... Adam Sedgwick, the last famous defender of the Flood, retracted his claim that glacial sediments were diluvial in a speech to the Geological Society of London, of which he was then President:
Our errors were, however, natural, and of the same kind which lead many excellent observers of a former century to refer all the secondary formations of geology to the Noachian deluge. Having been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy, and having more than once been quoted for opinions I do not now maintain, I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic flood.
The magic Flood was thus the assumption. They studied the evidence and came to the conclusion that there was no global magic flood.
Now, for what Uniformatism actually is:
From GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute:
quote:
Uniformitarianism:
(a) The fundamental principle or doctrine that geological processes and natural laws now operating to the earth’s crust have acted in the same regular manner and with the essentially the same intensity throughout geologic time. And that past geologic events can be explained by phenomena and forces observable today; the classic concept that the present is the key to the past. The doctrine does not imply that any change has a uniform rate, and does not exclude minor catastrophies.; The term was originated by Lyell (1830), who applied it to a concept by Hutton (1788). Cf. catastrophism. Syn: actualism: principle of uniformity.
(b) The logic and method by which geologists attempt to reconstruct the past using the principle of uniformitarianism.

  —Glossary of Geology
The term uniformatarianism thus refers to uniformity in the array of processes operating on the Earth across time. Some processes are very slow. Some are very fast. And everything inbetween. Geologists can recognize those processes in the rock record. Uniformatarianism certainly does NOT assume slow processes.
Baumgardner told an untruth about one of the basic principles of geology. He has an agenda.
He knows that if he publishes that research in peer-reviewed journals, his untruths and terrible 'science' will be pointed out. By people who actually know something about the subject. The experts. That's why he didn't publish that research in peer-reviewed journals.
Now, can you get back to the topic of the thread?
Edited by Pressie, : Added last sentences
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 10:17 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 305 of 373 (741540)
11-13-2014 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 301 by zaius137
11-13-2014 2:14 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
zaius137 writes:
The fact that nitrogen-14 is so abundant only helps my case.
Nope. Not at all. The fact that the stable N-14 isotope is incorporated in the crystal lattices of diamonds when they crystallise, means that there's always a ready source of fresh C-14 in diamonds. And C-14 is not stable; it reverts back to N-14. We would thus expect to find fresh C-14 in diamonds, regardless of age.
zaius137 writes:
You see if the sample was contaminated by radiation it would cause a greater abundance of C-14.
New, fresh C-14 formed regularly. C-14 has got a half-life. Thus, we would expect to find C-14 in diamonds. Regardless of age. It doesn't help your case at all.
That contamination would be picked up easier because it would stand out more in the standard deviation.
It's not contamination. It's fresh C-14. Doesn't matter what the deviation is; we expect to find fresh C-14 to detect in diamonds. Regardless of age. It doesn't help your case at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 2:14 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 8:21 AM Pressie has not replied
 Message 317 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 11:58 AM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(3)
Message 306 of 373 (741541)
11-13-2014 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by zaius137
11-12-2014 9:07 PM


Re: sn 1987A -- simple math distance calculation
zaius137 writes:
If 14C is in diamonds or coal...
Diamonds already done.
Ever been in a coal mine? Ever seen how wet the coal is? It's groundwater. And groundwater is replenished with fresh C-14 every time it rains. And that water gets adsorbed in the coal. Together with the C-14.
And all those bacteria living in the coal. Another source of fresh C-14.
Then also don't forget the N-14.
Three reasons why we expect to find C-14 in coal. Regardless of the age.
Also three reasons, amongst many others, why only creationists would try to carbon date coal and diamonds and expect a reliable date. They want to mislead people.
zaius137 writes:
... they can not be as old as claimed or the decay rate has varied over time in a significant way.
Or the people who tried to carbon date diamonds and coal and expect a reliable date for the formation of these are either idiots or want to mislead people. My bet is both of these.
Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by zaius137, posted 11-12-2014 9:07 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by JonF, posted 11-13-2014 9:11 AM Pressie has not replied
 Message 319 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 12:07 PM Pressie has replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 337 of 373 (741701)
11-13-2014 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by zaius137
11-13-2014 11:58 AM


Re: Baumgardner and his 14C Lies of Omission
zaius137 writes:
now all you have to do is show me where C-14 was predicted to be in diamonds before it was discovered in diamonds. Citation please
This doesn’t make any sense. You do know that the crystallography of diamonds has been studied for hundreds of years? You also do know that they figured out that diamonds mainly consist of carbon, but with varying degrees of nitrogen, as well, many, many years before carbon dating were invented? You also do know that C-14 was discovered way before the C-14 method was invented? You do know what physicists do for a living, don't you?
zaius137 writes:
To assume that C-14 just arrives at random in diamonds is alchemy. If there is no source of radiation (lots of it) C-14 cannot form spontaneously. Citation pleaseUnless you want to claim God put it there
You do know that C-14 forms from radioactive decay of N-14? You also do know that N-14 can also form from certain radiation on C-14? You do know that many rock forming minerals are radioactive, don't you?
It is very, very basic. High school level stuff. Or were you home-schooled?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 11:58 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 2:31 AM Pressie has not replied

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 338 of 373 (741703)
11-13-2014 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by zaius137
11-13-2014 12:07 PM


Re: C-14 in coal and oil
zaius137 writes:
You know, you coal miner folk are the heart of Americas working force.
I'm not American and I've never worked in America. Did a few courses there, though.
zaius137 writes:
My utter respect for the coal you produce.
I'm not a miner, so I don't produce any coal. I am doing research on coal, though. Coal mining companies pay me to do it.
zaius137 writes:
Unfortunately, there is not much science coming out of coal mines these days.
Or more likely, you've never, ever read any geological research in your life.
Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence
Edited by Pressie, : Added link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by zaius137, posted 11-13-2014 12:07 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by zaius137, posted 11-14-2014 2:18 AM Pressie 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