Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 194 of 308 (343131)
08-24-2006 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Coragyps
08-24-2006 7:35 PM


Re: Cores Wet Bulk Density Analaysis ?
Does that sound like "muck" to you?
Suspect varves are still over 85 percent water, colloidals tend to hold things together. Thats still muck to me, unless you have evidence that substantially less than 85 percent is not water?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Coragyps, posted 08-24-2006 7:35 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 197 of 308 (343166)
08-24-2006 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by RAZD
08-24-2006 10:20 PM


Queen sacrificed (however C14 spiked)checkmate?
The organic samples tested from the lake have not been "bacterially digested" -- they are still identifiable as leaves and twigs and the like. This also does not explain the existence of the diatom layers.
Since when do cellose bacterially digest readily in an anaerobic condition. I've already explained that diatoms, clays would of been sorting as the flood waters washed off the earth. A world flood of diatoms, clays to be sorted by anaerobic colloidal processes upwards in agreement with your C14 spike around 31,000 years ago.
This C14 spike to me can only be explained by all the organics that were digestable from the world flood causing C14 spikes that can not be explained by rearrangements of the world carbon reservoirs. To a creationists your 31,000 years C14 spikes correlates quite well to the world flood happening 5,500 years, because your climatic correlations can not explain these C14 spikes. You have proof of excess C14 which by normal biological processes would of affect all the ratio's upward(this is your fuzzy line). The methane lake study confirms that the reaction rates are not equal for different isotopes thus the excess C14 would affect the C12/C14 ratio not equally.
http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm
14C is present in gaseous form (CO2) and gradually diffuses in the earth system
Figure PE-6.
The sharp 14C peak we observed at ca. 31,000 BP is roughly 300 per mil in D14C after removing the long-term trend. The 10Be increases by a factor of 2 in ice cores during a period of ca. 2,000 years. This factor of 2 increase corresponds to a 14C increase by a factor 1.3 or 300 per mil, which is exactly what we observe in our data. These sharp enhancements in 10Be and 14C at the same time are too large to be explained by rearrangements of the carbon reservoirs on the earth.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2006 10:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-25-2006 12:01 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 2:45 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 204 by RAZD, posted 08-25-2006 9:49 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 202 of 308 (343245)
08-25-2006 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Percy
08-25-2006 2:45 AM


Re: Queen sacrificed (however C14 spiked)checkmate?
10Be presence is explained due to "precipitation". The phenomenom appears a world phenomenom due to chonologies of D14C agreeing with the Mona Lake excursion. The creationists water canopy satisfies the precipitation of 10Be is evidence in the natural of the world flood being a world catastrophy. The D14C spikes are just to great to be explained by beryllium. H. Kitagawa, J. van der Plicht explanations by their own admission is hypothetical.
http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm
10Be is a solid attached to aerosol particles and is deposited with precipitation. However, all of these explanations remain hypothetical.
The sharp D14C increase from Lake Suigetsu corresponds chronologically to the Mona Lake excursion.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 2:45 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Percy, posted 08-25-2006 9:32 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 216 of 308 (476470)
07-24-2008 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by PaulK
07-22-2008 2:18 PM


Re: Cold Fusion ?
What you need to produce is one person who claims that Cold Fusion IS responsible for C14.
Glad to see no one claims C14 being generated within the earth.
It was kinda interesting how in a perfect situation how out of a million hits into a purified beryllium crystal without sediment particles in the way the alpha particle still stole an electron in all but 30 hits.
Think the katheleen Hunt people have more questions like the yamal penninsula study that dated organics in the yamal peninsula and showed no woody plant fossil dated in agreement with their old earth. In fact russians they said they could find nothing that dated older than 9,600 years. It is quite interesting given Baumgardener has brought to light that labs fudging out 50,000 years before a sample is dated because that would support a young earth and science says it has to agree with rocks that dated millions of years.
The russians simply dated without fudging wood fossils frozen preserved showing an unbiased climatic study including tropical plants shows nothing dated older than 9,600 years. It showed climatologists that tropical plants no older than 9,600 years thrived on the artic circle. (meaning Greenlands mountain of ice) could not of existed 9,600 years ago. In a tropical climate its not like the ice varves are supported by granite mountains nor could any of them glaciers of existed 9,600 years ago which is interesting if the earth was older some tropical plants would of dated older but interestingly all dated young!
In America these Russians would of lost tenure because in America its not politically correct to publish stuff that supports a young earth (check out the movie Expelled by Ben Stein) people that have been expelled for far less, etc... Guess the Russians were not told to fudge their study? In america its politically correct to fudge the lab results so if you send a sample to get dated it will not date young, they call it contamination but truthfully according to baumgardener its fudging (buffering out) 50,000 years of C14.
P.S. There was another thread that went into yamal peninsula (enjoy) tropical plants and Greenland mountain of ice could not both of existed 9,600 years ago. The fact that tropical plants thrived this far north raises serious questions how its possible for a mountain of water (ice) to of existed in a tropical climate 9,600 years ago?
You only have to look at Seattle Washington where peaks of snow exists in a near tropical climate but only on peaks of granite at an elevation far higher than sealevel. What caused the yamal fossils to date so young transmutations? Too consistent to be due to cold fusion, transmutations glad were all in agreement. The next step is actually quite easy. ITS A YOUNG EARTH !!!!!!!
Today I received an email from someone who is almost certainly "John Folten" et al.
Sorry,
Not I:
Whatever
P.S. Join the winning team if the truth is the fossils are young nothing wrong with standing on the truth, etc...
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2008 2:18 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-24-2008 5:03 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 218 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2008 7:21 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 219 by cavediver, posted 07-24-2008 7:56 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 221 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-24-2008 12:51 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 222 of 308 (476519)
07-24-2008 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Minnemooseus
07-24-2008 5:03 AM


Re: Reference(s) please
OK - I want to see one or more references on this. Especially for the tropical part.
I got a new computer thus lost my link to the russian study did word searches but could not find it on the several thread where the tropical plants including greenland was discussed. Could not find the study doing google searches but the word was nothing "NOTHING" dated older than 9,600 years.
P.S. Your side simply believed a mountain of ice existed above sealevel I agree'd as long as its base is held up by granite and not ice. Without the study we discussed in the past its not worth going farther than the previous discussion unless someone can find the link to the russian study. You can not have tropical plants and ice varves in the artic circle the russians data showed tropical plants thriving in them peat core samples only 9,600 years ago. This also means no contributions or deletions of C-14 due to fusion of any color, nor transmutation through reductions, fungus, leaching, in that the samples were still frozen due its now cold up above the artic circle.
P.S. the kind kathleen hunt minions was attributing to coal c-14 dating, etc....
The evidence provided by the russian study is that less than 9,600 years ago it was tropical. Perhaps the excess carbon the earth simply means nothing to fear about excess carbon dioxide, etc...
History shows the artic was tropical in climate other indicator fossils draw up from bottom of the artic seas Purdue University study was also discussed in the past on this site about what artic creatures existed in their studying global warming by sampling creatures on the bottom of the artic seas near the north pole showed tropical creatures in cores sampled. The bottom line the russian study you will find nothing dated older than 9,600 years. I could not find the study certainly not something you'd see in political correct publications wondering if its been swept under the rug by the political correctness folk fear of the validity of the evidence of a young earth, etc...
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-24-2008 5:03 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2008 1:26 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 225 by PaulK, posted 07-24-2008 1:38 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 224 of 308 (476522)
07-24-2008 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by PurpleYouko
07-24-2008 12:51 PM


Re: Cold Fusion ?
the 30 parts per million number has nothing to do with hitting a purified beryllium crystal with 1,000,000 alpha particles
It is an experimentally derived figure based on 1,000,000 successful collisions between an alpha particle and a single Beryllium nucleus.
My feeling was in a dense forest (beryllium crystal)lining nucleur rods what difference does it mean if 1,000,000 alpha particles hit 1,000,000 different Beryllium atoms. Seems your saying they are not scarfing an electron to become helium in the other 999960 hits but transmuting? if that would be the case then how can we believe any dating methodology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-24-2008 12:51 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-24-2008 2:00 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 226 of 308 (476524)
07-24-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Coyote
07-24-2008 1:26 PM


Re: Reference(s) please
The only "Russian" study I have seen creationists cite is the coal study:
Think Dr. Adequate link is the right study but not the actual link to all the data?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2008 1:26 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2008 1:58 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 229 of 308 (476530)
07-24-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Dr Adequate
07-24-2008 1:58 PM


Re: Reference(s) please
First, the Siberian larch, as its name suggests, is not a tropical tree
It appears not the same study that included other vegetation if you find the study you will find nothing dated older than 9,600 years interesting that the siberian larch not older than 9,400 years.
and, there is no reason to suppose that the Earth is no older than the oldest subfossil wood on the Yamal Peninsula. On the contrary, the Earth can't be younger than that; but there's no reason at all why it shouldn't be older, is there?
You have no idea when the earth itself was created given the elements that make up the earth that are dated were created before the earth itself was created.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2008 1:58 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2008 2:37 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 231 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2008 2:45 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 232 of 308 (476538)
07-24-2008 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by PurpleYouko
07-24-2008 2:00 PM


Re: Cold Fusion ?
Purple Youko,
I don't doubt using a nucleur reactor your able to release fast neutrons using berylium (other molecules in alpha particles way) why in the earth rutherford scattering is caused by the sediment particle donating electrons. The coloumb scattering is the electron shield why the more direct collision the more the deflection (scattering?) What this means elements deflect but suppose in a beryllium crystal (dense forest) nothing in the alpha particles way allows you to beable to generate a fast moving neutron but are you using the same elements in the earth in your fuel rods bombarding beryllium surround said rods? I heard you could tap tritium with a hammer and it would release neutrons because its unstable but tritium in the earth is due to man not the uranium within the earth. In the earth the uranium, thorium etc.. that is decaying alpha particles that are turning into helium due to deflections of a very short distance aquiring an electron to become helium.
Suspect your fuel rods have been manufactured to be a bit more unstable in respect to releasing an neutron not the stuff you find within the earth to be a bit like tritium to releasing neutrons when hit because if you used the stuff in the earth (if a gram of soil is so radioactive then why are you not using soil as a fuel rod) your numbers would not come up to 30 ppm due to coloumb scattering and are not applicable to whats happening in the earth. I doubt radon gas donates enough neutrons to be a factor though would not breathe it in ones lungs, etc... _____________________________________________________________________
In physics, Rutherford scattering is a phenomenon that was explained by Ernest Rutherford in 1909[1], and led to the development of the orbital theory of the atom. It is now exploited by the materials analytical technique Rutherford backscattering. Rutherford scattering is also sometimes referred to as Coulomb scattering because it relies on static electric (Coulomb) forces. A similar process probed the insides of nuclei in the 1960s, called deep inelastic scattering.
Rutherford scattering - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-24-2008 2:00 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Coragyps, posted 07-24-2008 8:02 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 252 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-25-2008 11:01 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 234 of 308 (476579)
07-24-2008 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Coragyps
07-24-2008 8:02 PM


Re: Cold Fusion ?
I heard you could tap tritium with a hammer and it would release neutrons because its unstable
You heard wrong. Very, very wrong.
_________________________________________________________________
THERMOFUSION
Attempts at "clean" fusion have been tried by scientists using particles at the same temperature so that clean fusion can not occur regardless of how high the temperature gets to be. Attempts to fuse hydrogen atoms to create inert helium have failed and not one single helium atom has ever been produced. This has been proven by the so called "clean" fusion device known as the hydrogen bomb (H-bomb), when, in fact, military scientists detected little or no helium after detonation.
Let me tell you something that not too many scientists know, and if they do they are not saying anything. Tritium will fragment mechanically. If you put a small amount of tritium salt on a hard surface and hit it with a hammer, it will fragment and will expel neutrons. Fortunately only a very few molecules will do this, because if a larger number of them did there would be a terrible explosion.
The H-Bomb did not work on a "clean" thermofusion principle. It released its energy primarily to fragmentation, resulting in a "dirty," toxic, thermonuclear reaction, this observation is clear. The scientists involved with the testing detected enormous amounts of neutrons. It is a fact that when neutrons are absorbed they create radioactive elements. These results were never publicly published, along with the fact that there was extreme levels of neutrons generated.
The Latest in Green Living and Sustainable Energy | NuEnergy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Coragyps, posted 07-24-2008 8:02 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Coragyps, posted 07-24-2008 11:20 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 235 of 308 (476580)
07-24-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Coyote
07-24-2008 2:37 PM


Re: Nonsense
This is nonsense. Radiocarbon dating (the theme of this thread) does not rely on "elements" that are 4.5 billion years old.
I agree its nonsense to date fossils by the sediment layer they are found instead of dating them by Radiocarbon dating. If the half life is @ 5,000 years and the labs buffer 50,000 years before testing the fossil no wonder when you send a sample it comes back older than 50,000 years.
C14, an isotope of the element carbon, is continually created in the atmosphere.
Thats where its created but Katheleen Hunt and her minions would have you believe C14 is being generated within the earth. If this were true then all your other dating methodologies would they too not be compromised?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2008 2:37 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2008 11:13 PM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 238 of 308 (476584)
07-24-2008 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Dr Adequate
07-24-2008 2:45 PM


Re: Reference(s) please
According to Wikipedia (I can't find a better reference, sorry) geologists say the Yamal peninsula itself is only about 10,000 years old, so the wood on it is hardly going to be older.
From a young earth perspective that makes the earth at least 13,000 years old. Trees created on day 3 meaning 10,000 years is spot on for those creationists not ignorant of akjv Peter 3:8. If the oldest tree would of dated 12000 years that would of not been spot on evidence supporting a young earth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-24-2008 2:45 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2008 11:46 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 240 of 308 (476588)
07-24-2008 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Coyote
07-24-2008 11:13 PM


Re: Nonsense
They can then be used to identify the age of that layer wherever it occurs.
No actually they can not but they do and too me its quackery to ascribe an age to a fossil that has not actually been dated. Kent Hovind one of the greatest scientific minds of our time said this is circular dating meaning they actually did not date the fossil.
Was not that the problem the Rate team boys had that Baumgardener brought to light how contamination is being buffered out for 50,000 years because in a mineralized fossil some C-14 is present that simply should not be present in a sediment layer thats supposed to be millions of years old.
Andrew Snelling found a mineralized wood sample that had C-14 present found in a mine in Australia that should not of been present because the sediment layer it was sandwiched between was millions of years of age. If the mineralized fossil, coal, oil, etc... has C-14 present then its not millions of years old which is why Katheleen Hunt can only allude to but not offer proof likely because if C-14 could be created within the earth then all the other dating methods too are suspect meaning your indicator fossils sediment dates bogus too, etc...
P.S. Trees can produce more than one annual ring per year so its never spot on, but interesting its thousands of years not millions of years.
What you are reading is a background which has nothing to do with the age of the material. But, abusing science as they are forced to do, creationists make a big deal of these tiny residual background readings in an effort to promote a young earth.
Creationists talk about leaching affecting not only C-14 but all the dating methodologies. Seems its the evolutionists that are not dealing with backround noise being due to leaching because that would raise questions on all of the dating methodologies. It has to be steady state and if C-14 backround noise is due to leaching or insitu C-14 then all the dating methodologies ages generated are suspect. It just seems its the evolutionists that are abusing science but Big Time !!!!!!!
P.S. What is interesting about the russians yamal is that these samples were frozen and you don't seem affected by insitu C-14 generation.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Coyote, posted 07-24-2008 11:13 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2008 12:24 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 246 by cavediver, posted 07-25-2008 3:23 AM johnfolton has replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 241 of 308 (476589)
07-25-2008 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 237 by Coragyps
07-24-2008 11:20 PM


Re: Cold Fusion ?
"This has been proven by the so called "clean" fusion device known as the hydrogen bomb (H-bomb), when, in fact, military scientists detected little or no helium after detonation." is about as ludicrous as anything I've read all month -
I enjoyed that too, but thought the tritium pollution in the water system is in agreement with Hydrogen not helium?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Coragyps, posted 07-24-2008 11:20 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 243 of 308 (476593)
07-25-2008 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 242 by Coyote
07-25-2008 12:24 AM


Re: Nonsense
Kent Hovind has no training in science.
He still is spot on that indicator fossils have not been dated to suggest otherwise is not being truthful. First of all evolution is not science its a religion they always attack the young earthers beliefs but interestingly the fossil record is supporting that the fossils are young beliefs, that the fossil record when dated dates young!
As usual, when it comes to radiocarbon dating creationists have reached their conclusions first, and are scrambling to twist and manipulate the data to fit their needs. Those who know anything about C14 dating can see these fraudulent attempts a mile off.
What fraudulent is to say you dated a sample when in fact you never dated the sample. Right? Its almost like the real scientists are the creationists because they don't sweep the evidence under the rug, which is what the evolutionists are doing by fudging out C-14 from the fossil before its dated. No one expects C-14 to be spot on except where the sample was frozen like in the Yamal penisula. The geologists saying the yamal peninsula only 10,000 years old is in agreement with the young earth senerio, etc... etc... etc...
P.S. Your only evidence the fossil is old is someone told you an indicator fossil is old. Creationists want evidence you tell them someone told you so, don't you see how its the evolutionist twisting the data to fit their needs. Kent Hovind correctly called it circular dating or as you would say your twisting the data to fit your needs, etc...
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2008 12:24 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Coyote, posted 07-25-2008 1:29 AM johnfolton has replied
 Message 251 by bluescat48, posted 07-25-2008 9:45 AM johnfolton has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024