Diamonds grow like tree rings, but millions of years:

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-diamonds-trees-millions-years.html#nRlv

Originally posted by sonhouse
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-diamonds-trees-millions-years.html#nRlv

Radiometric dating of rocks, minerals, and fossils has already been shown not to work. It also has been proven that diamomds do not take millions of years to form. Even though most scientist BELIEVE that diamonds take millions of years to grow naturally, no one has ever seen or timed how long it takes for a diamond to form naturally. The fact that diamonds are routinely made by man all the time proves it does not take that long. It is heat and pressure, not time that is the important thing in making diamonds.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0201-man_made_diamonds.htm

How long does it take to grow diamonds in the laboratory? Four days.

YouTube

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Radiometric dating of rocks, minerals, and fossils has already been shown not to work. It also has been proven that diamomds do not take millions of years to form. Even though most scientist BELIEVE that diamonds take millions of years to grow naturally, no one has ever seen or timed how long it takes for a diamond to form naturally. The fact that diamonds ...[text shortened]... s in the laboratory? Four days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PILlP_yDZ2o

The Instructor

Radiometric dating of rocks, minerals, and fossils has already been shown not to work.

clearly false.

It also has been proven that diamomds do not take millions of years to form

clearly false conclusion even if the premise was true, which it isn't. Yet again, as always, you shamelessly demonstrate your total inability to understand or apply even simple basic logic by making OBVIOUSLY false inferences. HOW would one prove the other? Where is the logical contradiction of Radiometric dating of rocks not working and the diamond that are found in them forming over millions of years?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/misconclusion

Even though most scientist BELIEVE that diamonds take millions of years to grow naturally, no one has ever seen or timed how long it takes for a diamond to form naturally.

dirr -that's because it take millions of years stupid. And the mere fact that nobody has observes natural diamond forming as it forms is arguably circumstantial evidence that it takes a very long time for them to form naturally.

The fact that diamonds are routinely made by man all the time proves it does not take that long.

“proves it does not take that long” naturally or synthetically? You are equating the two as if they are equal but they are clearly NOT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

It is heat and pressure, not time that is the important thing in making diamonds.

“ important thing” for how long it takes? When diamond is made synthetically, natural conditions are NOT accurately simulated thus this clearly does NOT prove that diamond generally forms naturally that fast. Also, diamond is found in places close to the surface of the ground where the temperature is nowhere near over 1000C nor the pressure nowhere near ~4 GP to enable quick diamond formation. With the rare exception of micro-diamonds that form from meteor impacts, only slow geological processes that take millions of years got them close to the surface of the Earth where the pressures and temperatures are much cooler else where did all that heat and pressure to form them come from so close to the surface of the ground?

How long does it take to grow diamonds in the laboratory?

Irrelevant; the lab is not the environment where natural diamond originates and is different from the natural environment.

Originally posted by humy

Radiometric dating of rocks, minerals, and fossils has already been shown not to work.

clearly false.

It also has been proven that diamomds do not take millions of years to form

clearly false conclusion even if the premise was true, which it isn't. Yet again, as always, you shamelessly demonstrate your total inabil ...[text shortened]... he environment where natural diamond originates and is different from the natural environment.

Hinds cannot let anything that shows ages older than 6000 years to interfere with his delusions. If the gist of the article was it took 6000 years to make natural diamonds he would have breathed a sigh of relief.

Instead, another process taking millions of years comes up and he has to go on the attack, using weaponized pseudoscience. What else is new.

The religious implications are riff in every statement he makes. He fools no one.

Originally posted by humy

Radiometric dating of rocks, minerals, and fossils has already been shown not to work.

clearly false.

It also has been proven that diamomds do not take millions of years to form

clearly false conclusion even if the premise was true, which it isn't. Yet again, as always, you shamelessly demonstrate your total inabil he environment where natural diamond originates and is different from the natural environment.

Wrong. Diamonds are not made naturally close to the surface of the ground. That is why it is had to find them, numbnuts. Even evilution scientists don't believe that.

Geologists believe that the diamonds in all of Earth's commercial diamond deposits were formed in the mantle and delivered to the surface by deep-source volcanic eruptions. These eruptions produce the kimberlite and lamproite pipes that are sought after by diamond prospectors. Diamonds weathered and eroded from these eruptive deposits are now contained in the sedimentary (placer) deposits of streams and coastlines.

The formation of natural diamonds requires very high temperatures and pressures. These conditions occur in limited zones of Earth's mantle about 90 miles (150 kilometers) below the surface where temperatures are at least 2000 degrees Fahrenheit (1050 degrees Celsius).

http://geology.com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Wrong. Diamonds are not made naturally close to the surface of the ground. That is why it is had to find them, numbnuts. Even evilution scientists don't believe that.

[b]Geologists believe that the diamonds in all of Earth's commercial diamond deposits were formed in the mantle and delivered to the surface by deep-source volcanic eruptions. These erupt 0 degrees Celsius).

http://geology.com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/

The Instructor[/b]

Where did he say they form close to the surface? Are you going blind as well as brain dead? He said diamonds SHOW UP close to the surface. Your desperation is showing through quite clearly. You are just ITCHING to tell us all about the bible fairy tale of creation but have been inhibited from mentioning that in the science forum. So instead you come up with so-called arguments that have been refuted time and time again in your weaponizing of pseudoscientific nonsense in another act of desperation.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where did he say they form close to the surface? Are you going blind as well as brain dead? He said diamonds SHOW UP close to the surface. Your desperation is showing through quite clearly. You are just ITCHING to tell us all about the bible fairy tale of creation but have been inhibited from mentioning that in the science forum. So instead you come up with ...[text shortened]... e and time again in your weaponizing of pseudoscientific nonsense in another act of desperation.

Check out the Popigai crater in Russia. They claim the impact of a meteor or asteroid instantaneously transformed the graphite into diamonds. That doesn't mean that there aren't diamonds which are formed much more slowly.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Check out the Popigai crater in Russia. They claim the impact of a meteor or asteroid instantaneously transformed the graphite into diamonds. That doesn't mean that there aren't diamonds which are formed much more slowly.

I think the kinds of diamonds formed by meteorites are very small, maybe good for machining and knife sharpeners and so forth, I don't think you are going to find a 3 carat meteorite diamond. The ones made in the mantle can be hundreds of carats.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Check out the Popigai crater in Russia. They claim the impact of a meteor or asteroid instantaneously transformed the graphite into diamonds. That doesn't mean that there aren't diamonds which are formed much more slowly.

Wrong. Diamonds are not made naturally close to the surface of the ground.

As sonhouse correctly said, I didn't say this.

Check out the Popigai crater in Russia. They claim the impact of a meteor or asteroid instantaneously transformed the graphite into diamonds.

you just said “Wrong. Diamonds are not made naturally close to the surface of the ground” so you have just contradicted yourself.
And, as I already said in my previous post; “...With the rare exception of micro-diamonds that form from meteor impacts, only slow geological processes that take millions of years got them close to the surface of the Earth ...”
Meteor or asteroid impacts only create micro-diamonds and NEVER can ever create all those nice big ones that can only take millions of years to form in natural conditions! We obviously were talking about the big ones here. And you have yet to show us any evidence that the big diamonds can miraculously form quickly nor explain the physical process in nature that could cause such quick formation of natural large diamonds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond
“...Very small diamonds of micrometer and nanometer sizes, known as microdiamonds or nanodiamonds respectively, have been found in meteorite impact craters. ...”

So this does NOT explain how some of the big diamonds got to the surface or close to the surface of the ground where there is no high pressure or high temperature sufficient to create them -try again or admit you cannot explain this without old-Earth.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where did he say they form close to the surface? Are you going blind as well as brain dead? He said diamonds SHOW UP close to the surface. Your desperation is showing through quite clearly. You are just ITCHING to tell us all about the bible fairy tale of creation but have been inhibited from mentioning that in the science forum. So instead you come up with ...[text shortened]... e and time again in your weaponizing of pseudoscientific nonsense in another act of desperation.

Wrong. This is his statement that I was replying to:

"Also, diamond is found in places close to the surface of the ground where the temperature is nowhere near over 1000C nor the pressure nowhere near ~4 GP to enable quick diamond formation. With the rare exception of micro-diamonds that form from meteor impacts, only slow geological processes that take millions of years got them close to the surface of the Earth where the pressures and temperatures are much cooler else where did all that heat and pressure to form them come from so close to the surface of the ground?"

He is implying that the high temperature and pressure are needed close to the surface of the earth for why would he ask the question, "where did all that heat and pressure to form them come from so close to the surface of the ground?"

So I was informing him that his strawman argument was wrong for the high pressure and temperature is not needed "close to the surface of the ground" because those natural diamonds he was referring to are not made close to the surface of the ground.

Now do you get it, numbnuts?

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy

Wrong. Diamonds are not made naturally close to the surface of the ground.

As sonhouse correctly said, I didn't say this.

Check out the Popigai crater in Russia. They claim the impact of a meteor or asteroid instantaneously transformed the graphite into diamonds.

you just said “Wrong. Diamonds are not made na ...[text shortened]... ature sufficient to create them -try again or admit you cannot explain this without old-Earth.

You obviously can't read for I quoted the following:

Geologists believe that the diamonds in all of Earth's commercial diamond deposits were formed in the mantle and delivered to the surface by deep-source volcanic eruptions. These eruptions produce the kimberlite and lamproite pipes that are sought after by diamond prospectors. Diamonds weathered and eroded from these eruptive deposits are now contained in the sedimentary (placer) deposits of streams and coastlines.

The formation of natural diamonds requires very high temperatures and pressures. These conditions occur in limited zones of Earth's mantle about 90 miles (150 kilometers) below the surface where temperatures are at least 2000 degrees Fahrenheit (1050 degrees Celsius).

http://geology.com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/

Notice the statement from the same source that says, "The formation of natural diamonds requires very high temperatures and pressures." Long periods of time is NOT a requirement, but only an ASSUMPTION by the evilutionary scientist. The fact that these millions of years is only an assumption is proved by the fact that diamonds can be made artifically in 4 days, so no one really knows how long it takes for diamonds to form naturally.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
You obviously can't read for I quoted the following:

[b]Geologists believe that the diamonds in all of Earth's commercial diamond deposits were formed in the mantle and delivered to the surface by deep-source volcanic eruptions. These eruptions produce the kimberlite and lamproite pipes that are sought after by diamond prospectors. Diamonds weather ...[text shortened]... 1050 degrees Celsius).

http://geology.com/articles/diamonds-from-coal/

The Instructor

And again avoiding the idea it takes millions of years for a diamond, large diamonds, to form in that mantle. You just can have it take that long since it goes against your built in dogma about the ridiculous notion the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Cling to that fantasy all you want, it still won't get you into your nirvana.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And again avoiding the idea it takes millions of years for a diamond, large diamonds, to form in that mantle. You just can have it take that long since it goes against your built in dogma about the ridiculous notion the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Cling to that fantasy all you want, it still won't get you into your nirvana.

And your fairy-tale DOGMA of EVILUTION, which requires millions and billions of years to even come close to being credible, can not allow you to accept less than millions of years. However, even that is not long enough.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
And your fairy-tale DOGMA of EVILUTION, which requires millions and billions of years to even come close to being credible, can not allow you to accept less than millions of years. However, even that is not long enough.

The Instructor

Since you are the one with the fairy tale, I'll take science every time. You can piss and moan all you want, it doesn't change facts and the fact is you are living in a fantasy world, that world where you self lobotomized your brain and allowed the ponzi scheme of christianity to brainwash your life.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Since you are the one with the fairy tale, I'll take science every time. You can piss and moan all you want, it doesn't change facts and the fact is you are living in a fantasy world, that world where you self lobotomized your brain and allowed the ponzi scheme of christianity to brainwash your life.

How many times do I have to tell you that evilution is not science. It is a belief by some people, so that makes it either philosophy or religion. Intelligent Design is probably science, since even the evilutions have noticed design in nature. Science is observable, repeatable, and testable at least. Evilution is not observable. Evilution has never been shown to be repeatable and all tests to show evilution have failed.

The Instructor