26 May 07
Originally posted by KellyJayNobody said it had to be the exact same item submitted to 20 differant tests. Again with the obfusication. We said 20 differant methods (at least) have been used to date rocks and the ages agree within a few percent. I assume that is not what you want to here to satisfy your own particular obsession. You want the variance to be on the order of a thousand percent or more, you want one dude to say the earth is 3 million years old and another to say 4.5 billion years old so you can point to the obvious flaws only your innate brilliance can see. Unfortunutely the variation is on the order of a couple percent. Too bad for your obsession with a young earth. That's what you believe isn't it?
It should be simple, I'd like to see 20 independent tests upon an
item all using different methods all coming up with the same answer
too. Is that available or not? If it isn't than I'd say we can lay that to
rest that we need to redefine what the claims really are.
Kelly
26 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouse"Nobody said it had to be the exact same item submitted to 20 different tests. Again with the obfusication."
Nobody said it had to be the exact same item submitted to 20 differant tests. Again with the obfusication. We said 20 differant methods (at least) have been used to date rocks and the ages agree within a few percent. I assume that is not what you want to here to satisfy your own particular obsession. You want the variance to be on the order of a thousand pe ...[text shortened]... uple percent. Too bad for your obsession with a young earth. That's what you believe isn't it?
I said you need to define your claims, please pray tell, what do you
think you have with your 20 different tests, can you list them and the
same answers from the 20 different tests, or must we hear about them
and not ever get down to what you think you have here and now?
It would be nice if you'd start listing "test and date provided."
Once we have the 20 different types listed and the times they provide
we can do a high level comparison seeing how close they really are,
and from there we can start looking at how they are arriving at this
same figure independently.
If you want to define the claims a little better please do so, so we
know what you really mean, instead of all of the obfuscation.
Kelly
26 May 07
Originally posted by KellyJayHere is a link: it shows at least 6 or 7 differant methods. Read it if you will. I think if you read it at all, you won't look at the rest of the links, only to condemn the work.
"Nobody said it had to be the exact same item submitted to 20 different tests. Again with the obfusication."
I said you need to define your claims, please pray tell, what do you
think you have with your 20 different tests, can you list them and the
same answers from the 20 different tests, or must we hear about them
and not ever get down to what you t ...[text shortened]... r please do so, so we
know what you really mean, instead of all of the obfuscation.
Kelly
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
BTW I see the net is now being flooded with bogus creationist crap.
26 May 07
Originally posted by sonhouseJust as I think it is being flooded with atheist crap.
Here is a link: it shows at least 6 or 7 differant methods. Read it if you will. I think if you read it at all, you won't look at the rest of the links, only to condemn the work.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/radiometric.html
BTW I see the net is now being flooded with bogus creationist crap.
I guess listing 20 different methods and their times in a single post
is to much to ask? The details can be sorted out later, just methods
and dates, can that be done here?
Kelly
26 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJaySo six is not enough for starters? I found that just as you could have found it, although buried in all the creationistic BS. You don't want to know so you rely on us to do your work for you. I gave you 7 differant methods in that one link. You answered so fast as to be obvious you did not put any time into actually studying it. If you don't want to even study the 7 methods that link outlined, why should we be bothered with any more, seems a waste of my time.
Just as I think it is being flooded with atheist crap.
I guess listing 20 different methods and their times in a single post
is to much to ask? The details can be sorted out later, just methods
and dates, can that be done here?
Kelly
Here is one more:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051031133533.htm
Wow, I've been at it at least 5 minutes now and found another. Wonder why you can't do the same:
http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/htmlVersion/foundation_dating4.html
26 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI"m sorry, I don't see a list of methods and the dates here, do you?
So six is not enough for starters? I found that just as you could have found it, although buried in all the creationistic BS. You don't want to know so you rely on us to do your work for you. I gave you 7 differant methods in that one link. You answered so fast as to be obvious you did not put any time into actually studying it. If you don't want to even st ...[text shortened]... methods that link outlined, why should we be bothered with any more, seems a waste of my time.
Six is a start, but 20 is the goal, once they are listed, here!
Kelly
26 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAand the dates here, do you?You don't really give a crap about how many ways have been invented to date the earth, it would not matter if I came up with 50 ways you would just shrug them off with a wave of your godlike hand. Why don't you look again at my previous post and take a look at the two more I found.
Six is a start, but 20 is the goal, once they are listed, here!
Kelly[/b]
Another archeomagnetic dating link: read it and weep,
http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/archsci/depart/resgrp/archmag/archaeomagnetic_dating.php
Here is a nice one dating the earth by its change in rotation period, coming out at about 2 milliseconds a year:
http://corior.blogspot.com/2006/02/part-5-dating-methods.html
26 May 07
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseYou know it would be much easier to just list your methods the dates
You don't really give a crap about how many ways have been invented to date the earth, it would not matter if I came up with 50 ways you would just shrug them off with a wave of your godlike hand. Why don't you look again at my previous post and take a look at the two more I found.
they are in agreement with instead of telling me what I care about.
Kelly
26 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat do you think I am? I am a photonics technician, I work on light circutry and the machinery involved in semiconductor cleanroom, reactive ion etchers, electron microscopes, optical microscopes, sputtering machines, spinners, coaters and the like. Why do you assume I actually know all the methods? Is that what you are really after, some barb you can stick me with so you can feel better in your own delusional world you are right and the entire cadre of real scientists are wrong?
You know it would be much easier to just list your methods the dates
they are in agreement with instead of telling me what I care about.
Kelly
I was right in my assesment, you will not read anything, you are so deep in your own delusions.
27 May 07
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy have you said nothing about the article I cited? It draws on about 10 previously written articles, using, I think, 7 or 8 different methods, some on the same rocks, some on different rocks, and always comes up with 4.53 Ga +/- 2%.
"Nobody said it had to be the exact same item submitted to 20 different tests. Again with the obfusication."
I said you need to define your claims, please pray tell, what do you
think you have with your 20 different tests, can you list them and the
same answers from the 20 different tests, or must we hear about them
and not ever get down to what you t ...[text shortened]... r please do so, so we
know what you really mean, instead of all of the obfuscation.
Kelly
27 May 07
Originally posted by KellyJayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
Just as I think it is being flooded with atheist crap.
I guess listing 20 different methods and their times in a single post
is to much to ask? The details can be sorted out later, just methods
and dates, can that be done here?
Kelly
gives lots of data.
Now, give us just one scientific reason, with evidence, that the planet is only 6,000 years old.