1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI don't take it on faith that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (you missed 500 million years there). I have seen the evidence from radiometric dating of rocks, I understand how that dating works and why and I have held a lump of the Allende meteorite that is 4.53 billion years old. Now that's a properly spiritual experience, holding a thing that formed just as the sun lit up.
Well, you guys take it on faith that the earth is 4 billion years old, so that is a wash IMO. 😏
See? To convince me and a lot of scientists you are going to have to bring something other than your evolution drivel and god bothering nonsense to the table. You can start by refuting quantum mechanics, I could do with a laugh.
Originally posted by KeplerYou apparently do not understand radiometric dating of rocks. The following is a video link explaining how it is supposed to work:
I don't take it on faith that the earth is 4.5 billion years old (you missed 500 million years there). I have seen the evidence from radiometric dating of rocks, I understand how that dating works and why and I have held a lump of the Allende meteorite that is 4.53 billion years old. Now that's a properly spiritual experience, holding a thing that formed just ...[text shortened]... g nonsense to the table. You can start by refuting quantum mechanics, I could do with a laugh.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe amount of uranium loss in rocks can be shown by the concordia-discordia relationship. I guess your great scientist didn't know that one. Your video was not meant to really establish truth. The sly reference to a flood as leeching out uranium was amusing as well, had to give a snicker on that one.
You apparently do not understand radiometric dating of rocks. The following is a video link explaining how it is supposed to work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo
Why don't you read the REAL deal about radiometric dating. Go ahead, I watched YOUR silly video.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html
They write about the many methods and how you arrive at a conclusion based on ALL the data not just one kind, the dates have to match before a confident past date is assigned, within some preset window, say 10 or 20% error. Probably even less but you don't care about any of that do you? You just listen to a carefully scripted video DESIGNED to show doubt on dating techniques, their creationist bias is quite evident in every word and gesture and the oh so careful way they talk like they think they are talking to 10 year old kids. I think the proper term for that is patronizing. So read MY link and see what you can poo poo about that. Being a geological expert and all.
Originally posted by RJHindsDid that come from "Geology for the intellectually impaired"? The only way you can refute radiometric dating is to falsify the underlying mechanisms of radioactive decay. I am still waiting for you to even attempt such a thing. I am sure you can find something out there. Try searching for "Particle physics for the gullible and hard of thinking".
You apparently do not understand radiometric dating of rocks. The following is a video link explaining how it is supposed to work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo
Originally posted by KeplerDid you watch that pathetic video? Did you get the feeling there were giant Q cards off camera so they could follow the script? They desperately need acting lessons.
Did that come from "Geology for the intellectually impaired"? The only way you can refute radiometric dating is to falsify the underlying mechanisms of radioactive decay. I am still waiting for you to even attempt such a thing. I am sure you can find something out there. Try searching for "Particle physics for the gullible and hard of thinking".
Originally posted by sonhouseI did watch it, it was pathetic and I got the feeling the actors had absolutely no idea what they were talking about, just reading the words. I don't think that sort of rubbish is produced to convince the non-believers, we're all going to hell anyway, but rather to stifle the curiosity of the zombies who believe.
Did you watch that pathetic video? Did you get the feeling there were giant Q cards off camera so they could follow the script? They desperately need acting lessons.
Originally posted by sonhouseTHE POINT you don't seem to get is that IT DOESN'T WORK in the real world like the theorist assume it will work. THEY ASSUME. That is THE POINT. 😏
The amount of uranium loss in rocks can be shown by the concordia-discordia relationship. I guess your great scientist didn't know that one. Your video was not meant to really establish truth. The sly reference to a flood as leeching out uranium was amusing as well, had to give a snicker on that one.
Why don't you read the REAL deal about radiometric da ...[text shortened]... . So read MY link and see what you can poo poo about that. Being a geological expert and all.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou guys claim to be able to perfectly understand how everything came into being by science. But in reality it turns out to be no more than a belief system.
I paused the video you posted at 'the probabilities of this occurring are beyond
comprehension'
'God' is beyond comprehension so why keep harping on about something you
admit to not understanding?
I would be more at ease if you made a clear differentiation between your own
belief in 'God' and the proposed entity that the bible describes.
Originally posted by humyThe scientists are supposed to know, but the evil-lution scientists only pretend to know. They are in fact guessing by assuming and setting up the guesses and assumptions as facts. Circular reasoning - a trade secret of the evil-lutionists. But I am on to their deception and am informing all who have eyes to see and ears to hear. 😏
That is clearly a lie; the scientists don't just 'assume', they know. While you choose not to.
Originally posted by RJHindsRadiometric dating is based on data gained from observation and experiment, as is all real science. There is no assuming happening, we leave that to the god botherers who have to assume that their fairy tale collection is correct because gathering evidence would likely be viewed as heretical.
THE POINT you don't seem to get is that IT DOESN'T WORK in the real world like the theorist assume it will work. THEY ASSUME. That is THE POINT. 😏
Any chance you will actually produce some evidence to back up your assumptions? No? Back under your bridge then Mr. Troll.
3 edits
Originally posted by KeplerI agree that the radiometic dating could work, if the scientists did not have to make all the assumptions that are necessary for performing radiocarbon dating. The fact is that radiometric dating has proven unreliable, because very few things fit within the parameters necessary for accurate dating.
Radiometric dating is based on data gained from observation and experiment, as is all real science. There is no assuming happening, we leave that to the god botherers who have to assume that their fairy tale collection is correct because gathering evidence would likely be viewed as heretical.
Any chance you will actually produce some evidence to back up your assumptions? No? Back under your bridge then Mr. Troll.
Although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.
Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed. And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.
http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39158
Originally posted by RJHindsRadiocarbon dating is problematic because carbon 14 production is related to solar activity. We don't have historical records of solar activity going back far enough so the radiocarbon record has to be calibrated with tree ring data. That problem does not affect other radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium. Those are the elements that give the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, not carbon 14.
I agree that the radiometic dating could work, if the scientists did not have to make all the assumptions that are necessary for performing radiocarbon dating. The fact is that radiometric dating has proven unreliable, because very few things fit within the parameters necessary for accurate dating.
Now, have you get any evidence that any assuming is going on here?
Originally posted by Keplerhttp://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39158
Radiocarbon dating is problematic because carbon 14 production is related to solar activity. We don't have historical records of solar activity going back far enough so the radiocarbon record has to be calibrated with tree ring data. That problem does not affect other radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium. Those are the elements that give the 4.5 b ...[text shortened]... the earth, not carbon 14.
Now, have you get any evidence that any assuming is going on here?