Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 61 of 221 (396160)
04-18-2007 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:45 PM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link
It's also wrong.
Look, the only reason they reject carbon dating is because it leads to conclusions that undermine their interpretation of the Bible. That's not a scientific reason. Furthermore they base their assumptions on a Biblical flood, which it is known did not happen.
I don't see your link as being all that helpful, because it's scientifically inaccurate. It's bad information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:45 PM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 62 of 221 (396161)
04-18-2007 11:52 PM


We are past the quote -unquote "Bullshit" part of the conversation. We were past it a long time ago. So will you quit bringing it up?

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 63 of 221 (396162)
04-18-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:50 PM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link
Can you scientifically prove that the flood did not happen? And it is not only a Biblical flood. It is all over the place. The flood is mentioned in the Koran, in Ancient Chinese Literature, and other places which I cannot name off the top of my head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:50 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:59 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 221 (396163)
04-18-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:48 PM


Why would I tell you what I thought about physicists if you were not the one to ask me?
You didn't, that I can see. The word "physicists" doesn't appear in that post to me, and none of the statements have anything to do with physics.
The posts are numbered, here, if you hadn't noticed. You really need to keep better track of what you're saying to whom. Go back and read what you've written, if necessary. You're really starting to not make any sense at all.
Exuse me crashfrog
Excuse yourself. Look, the posts say who they're in reply to. This post will show you which post of yours I'm replying to. Didn't you notice all that stuff that the board software puts in, automatically?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:48 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 65 of 221 (396165)
04-18-2007 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:56 PM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link
Can you scientifically prove that the flood did not happen?
It already has been proven. Scientists haven't believed in the Biblical Flood for 200 years. Hell, it was creationists who originally rejected the flood story.
in Ancient Chinese Literature
It's a different flood. It does flood in China, you know. Makes sense that they might have written about it.
The flood isn't on-topic here, though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:56 PM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-19-2007 12:04 AM crashfrog has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 66 of 221 (396166)
04-19-2007 12:01 AM


Hey crashfrog, I found something interesting. You know what it is? It's a part of the statement I wrote. Here it is:
"when you asked if he/she thought that physicists were stupid.
And ofcourse I don't think that physicists are stupid. There are very smart ones out there, or the scientific world would not have been where it is today."
You know what I notice about this? I mentioned physicists twice. We can all clearly see who the real liar is...

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by fallacycop, posted 04-19-2007 12:05 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2007 12:05 AM ArchArchitect has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 67 of 221 (396167)
04-19-2007 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:59 PM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link
Explain to me how it's been proven wrong.. You know, you're starting to sound like you're making this up as you go along..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by fallacycop, posted 04-19-2007 12:07 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 74 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2007 12:08 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 88 by JonF, posted 04-20-2007 11:15 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 68 of 221 (396168)
04-19-2007 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ArchArchitect
04-19-2007 12:01 AM


Hey crashfrog, I found something interesting. You know what it is? It's a part of the statement I wrote. Here it is:
"when you asked if he/she thought that physicists were stupid.
And ofcourse I don't think that physicists are stupid. There are very smart ones out there, or the scientific world would not have been where it is today."
You know what I notice about this? I mentioned physicists twice. We can all clearly see who the real liar is...
But crash frog wasn`t replying to that post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-19-2007 12:01 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 69 of 221 (396169)
04-19-2007 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ArchArchitect
04-19-2007 12:01 AM


You know what it is? It's a part of the statement I wrote.
In a completely different message than we were talking about.
This is getting surreal.
We can all clearly see who the real liar is...
Yeah, you. The text you quoted doesn't appear in the message we were talking about. Here it is, in it's entirety:
quote:
Only a lowlife would make something up on this forum. I am going by what my teacher told me. Now what is the link to that authorative source?
See? It doesn't say anything about physicists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-19-2007 12:01 AM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-19-2007 12:07 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 70 of 221 (396171)
04-19-2007 12:06 AM


Short term topic closure coming (a semi-Moosing)
In my honest opinion, I'm not sure who is the greater babbler, Juraikken or ArchArchitect. And they seem to sort of bring the same sort of things out of others.
ArchArchitect, posting bare or essentially bare links (such as in message 57) is highly frowned upon in these parts (Forum rule 5) . Quote the relevant part and comment on same, and post the link.
To the others - Please try to keep the replies to Juraikken and ArchArchitect down to a fewer but higher quality. If you don't find their message worthy of a reply, THEN DON'T REPLY. Otherwise I or another admin might have to resort to a mass suspension.
I think we're trying to keep Juraikken and/or ArchArchitect out of the Showcase forum (aka "The Rubber Room"), whose discription is:
This forum hosts those with the most controversial or unusual viewpoints, giving them an opportunity to showcase their ideas in discussion with selected EvC Forum members. Featured luminaries are by invitation only. Participation by other EvC Forum members is by request only, and permission to participate can be revoked at any time
People, let's strive for niceness and quality.
Closing topic in 10 minutes, for a yet to be determined period.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-19-2007 12:18 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 6188 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 71 of 221 (396172)
04-19-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cthulhu
04-18-2007 11:41 PM


cthulhu writes:
Wouldn't matter.
radiometric dating doesnt CARE if theres radioactivity around it? so why the heck is it called radiometric dating?
"Radioactive decay is the process in which unstable atoms lose energy by emitting radiation in the form of particles or electromagnetic waves."
so tell me, if there is radioactivity in the air and this carcass is releasing radioactivity, its not going to be MORE radioactively affected? lol
they emitt radiation, and if theres more radiation in the air when it died, wouldnt that mean its MORE/LESS radioactively affected than it should be?
how can you say it doesnt matter at all?
cthulhu writes:
Wouldn't matter.
the volcanic activity serves NO purpose at all to the body?
if you were to fall in a volcano and millions of years later your bones be exposed to people, you think they woudlnt know at all that you were burned? sounds like science is fickle in that area
cthulhu writes:
The Earth has had atmosphere for more or less its entire existence.
not what big-bangists are saying, nor are what plenty of evolutionists are saying, some say at the beginning stages of Earths creation, there were NO atmosphere for a while
cthulhu writes:
C-14 dating deals with proportion, not amount, so no matter.
really? i thought that the c-14 dating actually has that carbon CLOCK running after the thing dies, so basically it IS amount really.
mathematically the c-14 in it keeps going down until there are no more c-14 in the thing near 50,000 years. so....it falls apart there
cthulhu writes:
How the hell could a disease affect radioactive decay?
are not visualizing it? depending on the atmosphere and where he died, he coulda had a c-14 disease in his body that could have depleted the c-14 in his body before he died THUS giving it a LARGER age than its suppose to have...
or it had eaten a ton of whatever he wants to eat right before he died making it seem YOUNGER than its suppose to be becuase he brought in him MORE c-14 to last longer.
cthulhu writes:
How the hell would a magnetism affect radioactive decay?
are you saying that during a magnetic shift NOTHING is going to die? lol. not true, during a magnetic shift plenty of animals die from the radioactive burst from the poles.
now lets say this thing died because of that, are you to say WE as scientists wouldnt know this?
cthulhu writes:
Ah, you don't know what radiometric dating is. It's not based on the amount of radioactivity.
i admit i know little, but it is based on the amount of radioactivity so says my source Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
decay of isotopes means the amount that is given off?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cthulhu, posted 04-18-2007 11:41 PM Cthulhu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2007 12:16 AM Juraikken has not replied
 Message 83 by fallacycop, posted 04-19-2007 11:27 AM Juraikken has not replied
 Message 85 by Nuggin, posted 04-19-2007 11:53 AM Juraikken has not replied
 Message 86 by Nuggin, posted 04-19-2007 11:57 AM Juraikken has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 72 of 221 (396173)
04-19-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by crashfrog
04-19-2007 12:05 AM


THAT IS NOT THE MESSAGE I WAS TALKING ABOUT...
and if I was going to lie, I would at least make it a good one instead of lying to your face..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2007 12:05 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 73 of 221 (396174)
04-19-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by ArchArchitect
04-19-2007 12:04 AM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link
You know, you're starting to sound like you're making this up as you go along..
And you are sounding like you don`t know the least thing about science. Go read some more and come back when you actually are ready

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-19-2007 12:04 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 74 of 221 (396175)
04-19-2007 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by ArchArchitect
04-19-2007 12:04 AM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link
Explain to me how it's been proven wrong..
Like I said, the Flood isn't the topic of this thread.
Is this your admission, then, that your assertions about carbon dating were completely wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-19-2007 12:04 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 75 of 221 (396176)
04-19-2007 12:11 AM


Are you telling me that this was a matter of miscommunication?! I was talking about that other message. And if I really am wrong, about Carbon Dating, then how is it my fault? wouldn't it be my science teacher's fault?

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by fallacycop, posted 04-19-2007 12:17 AM ArchArchitect 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