Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads

Conversion is not the quesion, it's all about thinking.

Ah, so! That did occur to me after I posted. Ignore my intrusion, please continue.

Hey tsjust for your information, Iano wasn't being serious when he wrote that.He was just ragging me for fun.He and I have a kind of friendly banter going on when we aren't actively arguing with each other.

I was asked to do more moderating, but often I get on threads way after they started and then I am participating on a thread which means I should not moderate. So I have not read this thread, just this page and now the page before.But nevertheless, your's and Ned's comments are inappropiate. Stick to the discussion.Edit to add reading the page before, you throw out unnecessary insults, which if COrygaps was doing the same would be understandable, but thus far, I see no such insults, questioning motives, etc,...from him.Please adjust.This message has been edited by AdminRandman, 12-26-2005 05:20 PM

My comment was a friendly reminder to edge and others that to think one can discuss anything at all with someone who is incapable of rational thought is a waste of time. It is a simple statment of fact. Golfer (aka whatever) has had ample time to demonstrate an ability to read and reason. He has utterly failed to do so. I think it is unfair to allow someone to go on too long without offering them a warning that they are wasting thier valuable time.

Ned, I've seen no proof to support neutrons form C14 within the earth, meaning your point of view is without reason. Katheline Hunt said C14 presence needs to be addressed, yet no scientific evidence supporting your beliefs. The radiometric dating methods are not the age of the earth, but an appearance of age.

So you deny that thermal neutrons in the presence of nitrogen will produce C14. And this is better evidence than the correlation of radiocarbon dates with varves. Okay, that's fine with me. Believe what you want. It's all coincidence. It's probably not a burning question to anyone doing research. The point is: what is the best explanation of the data? You have no supportable explanation at all. We at least have something that makes sense. Now this is pure silliness. Radiocarbon dating does not come close to demonstrating the age of the earth... Where do you get this stuff?

Scientists have recently shown that a very minute but unchanging amount of carbon-14 is present in the atmosphere of the earth and that all living organisms assimilate traces of this isotope during their lifetime. After death this assimilation ceases and the radioactive carbon, constantly decaying, is no longer maintained at a steady concentration. Estimation of the ages of a number of objects, such as bones and mummies, of historical and archaeological interest have been made possible by carbon-14 measurements.Thorium-234 emits beta particles, which are electrons. According to current theory, beta emission is accomplished by the transformation of a neutron into a proton, thus resulting in an increase in nuclear charge (or atomic number) of one unit. The mass of the electron is negligible, thus the isotope that results from thorium-234 decay has mass number 234 but atomic number 91 and is, therefore, a protactinium isotope.B. Gamma RadiationGamma emission is usually found in association with alpha and beta emission. Gamma rays possess no charge or mass; thus emission of gamma rays by a nucleus does not result in a change in chemical properties of the nucleus but merely in the loss of a certain amount of radiant energy. The emission of gamma rays is a compensation by the atomic nucleus for the unstable state that follows alpha and beta processes in the nucleus. The primary alpha or beta particle and its consequent gamma ray are emitted almost simultaneously. A few cases are known of pure alpha and beta emission, however, that is, alpha and beta processes unaccompanied by gamma rays; a number of pure gamma-emitting isotopes are also known. Pure gamma emission occurs when an isotope exists in two different forms, called nuclear isomers, having identical atomic numbers and mass numbers, but different in nuclear-energy content. The emission of gamma rays accompanies the transition of the higher-energy isomer to the lower-energy form. An example of isomerism is the isotope protactinium-234, which exists in two distinct energy states with the emission of gamma rays signaling the transition from one to the other.http://encarta.msn.com/text_761569327__1/Radioactivity.html Radiocarbons presense shows the falicy of sandwich dating (indirect dating methods being used to date the fossil). Sandwich dating:This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-27-2005 12:25 AM

Individual dating techniques do not exist in a vacuum... I am by no means a geologist, but as I understand it radiometric dating involves comparing collected samples to other pieces of data as well as various mathematical correlation techniques.http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/wgmt/common/geochronology.htmlIt looks like they are using statistical correlation to determine relationships between many pieces of data. This is certainly a valid analysis technique... In addition, it would seem to me that you could also give some calculation of the accuracy of the dating based on correlation strength.

What scientists? How recently? How minute? Hunh? This is dead wrong. Nonsense. Not 'all living things'. You are talking about the atmosphere. what about marine organisms? This is actually a good question for the professional YECs.Golfer, this is getting to be so tedious that I see little use in continuing this conversation. You cannot document your assertions, nor support them in any way. Many of your assertions are so completely off the wall, that it really is a waste of time responding. Irrelevant and off topic. Irrelevant. Please stay on topic. What does this have to do with neutrons and C14 formation? You have not shown this. Ummm, sure. A few more sandwiches and you'll have a picnic with your date.

The neutron appears to big to leave its nucleus, all thats leaving is gamma rays, electrons, etc... You did say it takes a neutron and nitrogen to form C14?

Mini_Ditka, The problem is they are using these methods to date the fossil indirectly because its not possible for them to date the fossil directly.When the fossil has C14 its presence is a problem (doesn't correlate), the fossil can not be millions of years if the fossil can be directly dated by C14 thousands of years.If the evolutionists can not prove neutrons are leaving the nucleus of the isotope decaying, then its a problem. They then have to prove C14 is formed by gamma radiation, electrons instead of neutrons.They want me to accept their good faith that it is so without providing me scientific evidence that supports their beliefs.This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-27-2005 01:18 AM

It sounds like there are two possibilities... Either there was some contamination of the sample or that these fossils contradict moutains of other evidence. If we found more evidence to support the young age of the fossils I would probably say that is a good area for investigation... However, it seems that exactly the opposite is true....In any case science never proves anything, it's about finding the most likely/useful explanation for available evidence......Do you have a better theory that supports this evidence or is it more likely that the current accepted scientific explanation is true?

Come on Ned. "Incapable of rational thought"?That comment does not further the discussion, whatever it is.

Ask the folks in Nagasaki about neutrons not being able to get loose, Golfer. One way is through spontaneous fission.And are neutrons "bigger" than alpha particles?