|
Author
|
Topic: Buz's refutation of all radiometric dating methods
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
Message 36 of 269 (43992)
06-24-2003 8:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by mark24
06-24-2003 8:19 PM
|
|
Post-mortem teleportation! Yeah, that's the ticket! 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by mark24, posted 06-24-2003 8:19 PM | | mark24 has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 60 of 269 (44172)
06-25-2003 1:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by Buzsaw
06-25-2003 1:20 PM
|
|
Buz, from that same page:
History: Until recently, people simply knew that dinosaurs went extinct - their fossils were found throughout the Mesozoic era, but were not located in the rock layers (strata) of the Cenozoic era. So, we knew that dinosaurs went extinct some 64-66 million years ago, but that was all.
Your quote is worrying about the exact sequence of events. They already are quite certain when it happened, to an accuracy at least comparable to "the summer after I was in the tenth grade." They are only trying to figure out whether you went to Six Flags before or after the time Jimmy found the case of beer - it was all the same summer. A long time ago.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 58 by Buzsaw, posted 06-25-2003 1:20 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 71 of 269 (44200)
06-25-2003 5:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by Buzsaw
06-25-2003 4:53 PM
|
|
Would you like to comment on the Berkeley link
I already did - post 60.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 06-25-2003 4:53 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 86 of 269 (44243)
06-25-2003 8:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 82 by Buzsaw
06-25-2003 8:43 PM
|
|
I said it shows it's not all as down pat as some of you seem to insist.
Fine, that's what you said. Now read the cites you have quoted, and notice that they agree with what Mark, et al., have been telling you: a date of 65,000,000 years might be off by as much as a million, plus or minus!That is not the same thing as being 6000 years ago instead of 65,000,000 years. It is not remotely the same. It's different. It's as different as "the summer after I was in tenth grade" and "yesterday afternoon." Now address Mark's post.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 82 by Buzsaw, posted 06-25-2003 8:43 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 128 of 269 (44977)
07-03-2003 11:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 127 by mark24
07-03-2003 11:45 AM
|
|
You basically are claiming, whether you realise it or not, that the earth consisted entirely of unlithified muds for 3.5 billion years,
"The Earth was void, and without form, and very, very muddy, and Mrs God said, 'Wipe those feet before you come in this house!'"
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 127 by mark24, posted 07-03-2003 11:45 AM | | mark24 has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 132 of 269 (45084)
07-04-2003 1:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 130 by Buzsaw
07-04-2003 12:07 PM
|
|
How many creationist geologists do you know of that believed this two centuries ago?? How about naming a few.
James Hutton Charles Lyell William Smith Adam Sedgwick Roderick Murchison George Bellas Greenough William Buckland those should get you started....
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 07-04-2003 12:07 PM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 134 by Percy, posted 07-04-2003 3:33 PM | | Coragyps has not replied | | | Message 136 by nator, posted 07-04-2003 9:21 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 153 of 269 (45234)
07-06-2003 5:47 PM
|
Reply to: Message 151 by Buzsaw
07-06-2003 5:35 PM
|
|
Hmmmmm.........Your statement here seems to be highly supportive of my contention earlier that the flood deposited sediments around fossils are tainted by various old materials deposited near the young to give an old reading.
Lava is not a sediment. It is not deposited by water. Please go get a high-school Earth Science book and read it before you continue, buz.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 151 by Buzsaw, posted 07-06-2003 5:35 PM | | Buzsaw has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 160 by Buzsaw, posted 07-08-2003 7:36 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
Message 167 of 269 (45440)
07-08-2003 9:11 PM
|
|
|
How do we know this stuff isn't just made-up?
With what I've seen of Carl Baugh's stuff, his imprimatur on something just about guarantees that it's made up.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 169 by crashfrog, posted 07-08-2003 9:13 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 192 of 269 (45607)
07-10-2003 9:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 187 by Buzsaw
07-10-2003 1:09 AM
|
|
Mankind is just not that stupid as to have gone milleniums without the use of iron. I'll go with the Bibllical record, thanks.
When you do, be sure to remember the verse about some king that YHWH, et al., wouldn't fight because they "had chariots of iron." A lot like "shock and awe," or so it sounds.....or at least like the Polish cavalry fighting Panzers...
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 187 by Buzsaw, posted 07-10-2003 1:09 AM | | Buzsaw has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
|
Message 224 of 269 (46012)
07-14-2003 6:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 223 by mark24
07-14-2003 6:08 PM
|
|
I think I could agree with that, and abandon the carbon 14 thread. Buz, Why do radiometric dates consistently give the same dates that correlate not only with other radiometric techniques (involving different half lives), but where possible, non-radiometric ones too?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 223 by mark24, posted 07-14-2003 6:08 PM | | mark24 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 225 by wj, posted 07-14-2003 8:25 PM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 755 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: Radiometric dating.
Hello, RD! Welcome to EvC! You say:
Uranium has a very short life span, so if the earth is, what was it? "65,000,000 years" old, much less 65,000 years... URANIUM WOULD NOT BE EXISTANT! Is 4,470,000,000 years what you Minnesotans call "very short?" That's the time it takes for half of a gram of uranium 238 to decay. Or are you thinking of uranium 234? Its half-life is much more "very short" - only 245,000 years. Now you do have sort of a point - isotopes with half-lives less than 80,000,000 years aren't found on Earth unless they result from decay of things like U-238 or from external processes. But 80 million is a bit more than your 65 million, and 65 million is only about 1.5% of the age of the Earth. I bet you'll enjoy it here - but you might want to bring some facts on your next visit. Edited by Coragyps, : kill an apostrophe Edited by Coragyps, : kill an apostrophe
"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 267 by subbie, posted 10-18-2008 12:19 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2