Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[Wuwei]

Are you quoting Angelo or the sci-fi writer in Quora ?

I have absolutely no idea what or who you are talking about. You are shamefully wrong.
I don't think you pay attention nor understand my posts. I already told you my reference was Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
It is a rather long article that I read thoroughly and understood. Did you read it?

I asked you questions about the phoswich detector and how was it relevant, but did not answer.

You didn't understand my answer twice. This is the third time.

Yes, I did read it. Again, why are you arguing apples and oranges? If Shirey put a minimum age, then it doesn't mean that he was right. He started off stating the Earth was 4.5 B yrs old and that was young. Shirey did not mention anything about RATE. If one wants to compare how his included diamonds to the results Dr. Baumgardner got, then Shirey or you should have RATE look into it. This is why you are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase for you claims.

I told you many times that Shirey was not interested in RATE. He had a much better way of dating diamonds. He found diamonds over 3 billion years old. That totally disagrees with Baumgardner, That is not apples to oranges. They both had the same quest: to date diamonds. Shirey proved you get wrong results if you use C14 dating. The only conclusion is that Baumgardner's work was not RATE it was discovering experimental errors in AMS.

Based Upon Assumptions
The radioactive decay process above can..............

The article says,

"Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results."​

The problem of contamination of daughter products must always be considered, but the "similar assumptions" aren't always similar. For example,
For Schweitzer's fossil, "three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%" -- 65 to 68 million years. That gave superb confidence in that date.

That is the way confidence is gained. Use three totally different techniques and see how they compare. Important science experiments are always tentative until they can be verified by totally different experimental methods.

Also the Shirely inclusions in diamonds had a decay product, Osmium which is an extremely rare element. It is very hard to see how a rare element would by chance be in the same inclusion as Rhenium.

As I said before, if you think RATE proves the earth is 6000 years old I gave you two counter examples. There are no doubt many more.
.

 

[luchitociencia]

You seem to be saying scientists would cheat. If so, that is a weird thing to say.

Of course they do.

Just look the fake picture of the imaginary black hole.

By no means black holes can exist. The bodies in the universe are not subjected to dumb formulas in a piece of paper.

It happens that such imaginary body can't release radiation because its assumed cold temperature, but by chance, just for a thousandth of a grade, the assumed body won't reach the total freezing required to impede expelling radiation. Whoa! Who knows how scientists were so lucky to foresee such exact measure in a body they never saw before by any means. They just made calculations and Zas! the black hole became a reality!

As the guys in my job used to say: What a crap!

"contamination with modern carbon is unavoidable, and the effects of that contamination become dominant for more ancient samples. We are essentially guaranteed to come up with an apparent “date” of 15,000-60,000 years, no matter how much older the sample actually is. That is the simple physical reality of carbon dating"
.

Go straight to what really happened.

The whole radiocarbon in the entire planet was messed up because the atomic bombs tested on the atmosphere since the end of the 40's up to the end of the 60's.

US, UK, France, China, Russia, were the main countries doing nuclear tests on the atmosphere, even the US tested one reaching high altitude and radio communication went off. They discovered that a nuclear explosion on the top of the atmosphere should destroy the total global communication because the whole satellites will become out of order. This could "turn blind" the entire armies of the world. This is why the rest of the world don't want a country like North Korea testing the sending of missiles going up to the atmosphere.

When they discovered the mess they did with radiocarbon plus other effects which changed the environment on the entire planet, these countries made the agreement to make nuclear tests underground only.

It is known already that all the tests made with Carbon 14 are not accurate since the nuclear tests affected radiocarbon in the planet. However, Carbon 14 is the only radiometric method of measure that has been VERIFIED.

The whole rest of methods do not have any verification.

With Carbon 14 you have a close idea of the age of the samples, with the other radiometric methods you don't know anything about accuracy, you just ASSUME those are fine.

Science is not based on assumptions but facts.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just look the fake picture of the imaginary black hole.

You sound like an idiot.

 

[james bond]

I have absolutely no idea what or who you are talking about. You are shamefully wrong.
I don't think you pay attention nor understand my posts. I already told you my reference was Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
It is a rather long article that I read thoroughly and understood. Did you read it?

Yes, I posted the link. Your link in the other post leads to Angelo post. Instead of criticizing me for not understanding your posts, why not provide another evidence. If the Earth is old, then there should be evidence for it besides radiometric dating of rocks and fossils.

You didn't understand my answer twice. This is the third time.

No, I'm asking you where does RATE and the AWS lab bring it up?

I told you many times that Shirey was not interested in RATE. He had a much better way of dating diamonds. He found diamonds over 3 billion years old. That totally disagrees with Baumgardner, That is not apples to oranges. They both had the same quest: to date diamonds. Shirey proved you get wrong results if you use C14 dating. The only conclusion is that Baumgardner's work was not RATE it was discovering experimental errors in AMS.

Haha. That's not it. He had nothing to do with RATE which is what I said. Again, you do not understand what I have been patiently trying to get across to you. You are hung up on coal and diamonds and their dates and this in relationship with the age of the Earth. What did I say several times already? From the creation scientists view, we are not going to get the correct date of the Earth from science. God said he will keep some things to himself. Now, why is this? One has to look at the nature of God which you and I will never get to. I tried to get you to explain what other evidence for age that you had besides radiometric dating. The truth is there is no other science. At least, I don't think so.

So, I have to explain it to you and that is it is God's nature to create adult or mature things with his creation. He created a mature Adam and Eve. Not senior mature age, but young adults of child bearing age. He also created a mature or adult universe. It's probably a young adult age unierse. This means that the light from the distant heavens also reflected a mature universe. He didn't start like what atheists scientists believe with the big bang and that was from time 0. We do not know what time it was, but the universe came into existence not from scratch. Do you get it now? That's why we can do the different dating, but won't get far with it. If we look at the history of the Earth and universe, then we will get different ages from where we start. Some people refer to it as the "appearance of age," but that's not exactly correct. It is actually like if it was created from day one as and adult Earth and universe. The light we see from distant stars and stuff reflect it having traveled however old we are, but elapsed time since the creation is thousands of years from 6000 - 10,000 years old. A young Earth and universe.

Let's go back to the diamonds now. It wasn't contaminated. It just reflected what was inside and not from the outside and that was how long it had been there even though they were adult diamonds. Now, even creationists argue whether the Earth and universe and things in it are old or young. If we listen to God's word and take them literally, then it is young.

Here is a theistic creationist site and how it deals with it -- Appearance of Age - A Young Earth Problem. They think YEC is not correct, but interpret the Bible differently or not what God intended.

As for Shirey, what did he get using radiocarbon dating if it was wrong? I didn't think he did that. Thus, you are not comparing what RATE would do with the included diamonds.

The article says,
"Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results."The problem of contamination of daughter products must always be considered, but the "similar assumptions" aren't always similar. For example,
For Schweitzer's fossil, "three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%" -- 65 to 68 million years. That gave superb confidence in that date.

That is the way confidence is gained. Use three totally different techniques and see how they compare. Important science experiments are always tentative until they can be verified by totally different experimental methods.

Also the Shirely inclusions in diamonds had a decay product, Osmium which is an extremely rare element. It is very hard to see how a rare element would by chance be in the same inclusion as Rhenium.

As I said before, if you think RATE proves the earth is 6000 years old I gave you two counter examples. There are no doubt many more.
.

We never got to other evidence, so it really doesn't matter. You're going to believe in old Earth no matter what. How does that show an open mind? Remember, I bought into evolution and long time, but around 2007 - 2011 time frame, articles started coming out questioning evolution and its thinking. I compared both starting around 2012 and thought YEC theories explained it best. It was observable, testable, and falsifiable, but not great for age of the Earth and universe. We can only get evidence to support either old or young earth or what one believes as worldview because assumptions are different.

 

[james bond]

You sound like an idiot.

You need to stop bragging about yourself.

He said science is based on facts. I would go a step further and say it is based on who has the best evidence to support the theories to explain the facts. If one can apply the scientific method, then that's it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have absolutely no idea what or who you are talking about. You are shamefully wrong.
I don't think you pay attention nor understand my posts. I already told you my reference was Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
It is a rather long article that I read thoroughly and understood. Did you read it?

Yes, I posted the link. Your link in the other post leads to Angelo post. Instead of criticizing me for not understanding your posts, why not provide another evidence. If the Earth is old, then there should be evidence for it besides radiometric dating of rocks and fossils.

You didn't understand my answer twice. This is the third time.

No, I'm asking you where does RATE and the AWS lab bring it up?

I told you many times that Shirey was not interested in RATE. He had a much better way of dating diamonds. He found diamonds over 3 billion years old. That totally disagrees with Baumgardner, That is not apples to oranges. They both had the same quest: to date diamonds. Shirey proved you get wrong results if you use C14 dating. The only conclusion is that Baumgardner's work was not RATE it was discovering experimental errors in AMS.

Haha. That's not it. He had nothing to do with RATE which is what I said. Again, you do not understand what I have been patiently trying to get across to you. You are hung up on coal and diamonds and their dates and this in relationship with the age of the Earth. What did I say several times already? From the creation scientists view, we are not going to get the correct date of the Earth from science. God said he will keep some things to himself. Now, why is this? One has to look at the nature of God which you and I will never get to. I tried to get you to explain what other evidence for age that you had besides radiometric dating. The truth is there is no other science. At least, I don't think so.

So, I have to explain it to you and that is it is God's nature to create adult or mature things with his creation. He created a mature Adam and Eve. Not senior mature age, but young adults of child bearing age. He also created a mature or adult universe. It's probably a young adult age unierse. This means that the light from the distant heavens also reflected a mature universe. He didn't start like what atheists scientists believe with the big bang and that was from time 0. We do not know what time it was, but the universe came into existence not from scratch. Do you get it now? That's why we can do the different dating, but won't get far with it. If we look at the history of the Earth and universe, then we will get different ages from where we start. Some people refer to it as the "appearance of age," but that's not exactly correct. It is actually like if it was created from day one as and adult Earth and universe. The light we see from distant stars and stuff reflect it having traveled however old we are, but elapsed time since the creation is thousands of years from 6000 - 10,000 years old. A young Earth and universe.

Let's go back to the diamonds now. It wasn't contaminated. It just reflected what was inside and not from the outside and that was how long it had been there even though they were adult diamonds. Now, even creationists argue whether the Earth and universe and things in it are old or young. If we listen to God's word and take them literally, then it is young.

Here is a theistic creationist site and how it deals with it -- Appearance of Age - A Young Earth Problem. They think YEC is not correct, but interpret the Bible differently or not what God intended.

As for Shirey, what did he get using radiocarbon dating if it was wrong? I didn't think he did that. Thus, you are not comparing what RATE would do with the included diamonds.

The article says,
"Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results."The problem of contamination of daughter products must always be considered, but the "similar assumptions" aren't always similar. For example,
For Schweitzer's fossil, "three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%" -- 65 to 68 million years. That gave superb confidence in that date.

That is the way confidence is gained. Use three totally different techniques and see how they compare. Important science experiments are always tentative until they can be verified by totally different experimental methods.

Also the Shirely inclusions in diamonds had a decay product, Osmium which is an extremely rare element. It is very hard to see how a rare element would by chance be in the same inclusion as Rhenium.

As I said before, if you think RATE proves the earth is 6000 years old I gave you two counter examples. There are no doubt many more.
.

We never got to other evidence, so it really doesn't matter. You're going to believe in old Earth no matter what. How does that show an open mind? Remember, I bought into evolution and long time, but around 2007 - 2011 time frame, articles started coming out questioning evolution and its thinking. I compared both starting around 2012 and thought YEC theories explained it best. It was observable, testable, and falsifiable, but not great for age of the Earth and universe. We can only get evidence to support either old or young earth or what one believes as worldview because assumptions are different.

Bond, you are an uneducated slob with no experience or education in any of these fields. Does it embarrass you AT ALLthat an uneducated slob like you is claiming to better know a sibject than people who have dedicated their lives to it? Does baby jesus not want you to have shame?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

He said science is based on facts.

No, you stupid shit. He said the image of the black hole was fake. Pay attention before you open your cryhole.

 

[Wuwei]

What happens today is your atheist scientists are the ones who create your metaphysics in regards to multiverses when there is no evidence for them. Things do not just pop into existence.
.....
Who came up with the Standard Model? One of the scientists is religious. Abraham Pais' religion is Judaism..
......
Peter Higgs of Higgs boson fame is an atheist, but believes religion and science can co-exist.
....
The concept of dark energy sounds like metaphysics when it violates the law of thermodynamics as part of laws of nature.

Multiverses and dark matter is not metaphysics. It's hypothetical physics. Not all scientists believe in that. They are simply an interesting thoughts that people want to write papers about as far as I'm concerned. Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.

I don't think you get it from detailed investigation with an open mind when you cannot discuss other evidence to back up your old age of the Earth. You have no other evidence besides radiometric dating which is based on wrong assumptions such as the present is the key to the past. You won't believe gravity wasn't as strong in the past even though presented with the evidence. This is because I already mentioned that it destroys your old Earth worldview. Your side also believes in superposition of the sedimentary layers. I already stated there was a global flood and that greatly changed the layers. One evidence is the surface of the Earth is coered by 3/4 water. How did that happen? Instead, while I know you can understand reading a science paper, I think you're still very narrow in your approach. We each have different postulates, so I do not think we will end up agreeing when we disagree. Otherwise, your worldview will be destroyed. What I have going for me is that my basic science theories cannot change while yours can. How many different ages of the Earth have you had? Why were they wrong? What makes you think that you are right now when your opponent claims you are making invalid assumptions?

So you think evangelicals are correct and anyone that disbelieves them are not. The global flood is from people who believe the Bible is not metaphor. I know your science is the Bible and is static.

Gravity is constant there is no evidence to the contrary. Real science evolves when new discoveries are made. If real science were static we would still believe in Aristotle's celestial spheres, the sun goes around the earth, and fire is the release of phlogiston. My assumptions are based on observed evidence, yours are based on the Bible. That isn't science.

.

 

[Wuwei]

Haha. That's not it. He had nothing to do with RATE which is what I said. Again, you do not understand what I have been patiently trying to get across to you. You are hung up on coal and diamonds and their dates and this in relationship with the age of the Earth. What did I say several times already? From the creation scientists view, we are not going to get the correct date of the Earth from science.

I told you that that the scientists I referenced found areas of earth that are millions to billions of years old. I also told you I wasn't talking about RATE, I was showing you scientific evidence that the earth is much older than evangelicals insist.

So, I have to explain it to you and that is it is God's nature to create adult or mature things with his creation. He created a mature Adam and Eve. Not senior mature age, but young adults of child bearing age. He also created a mature or adult universe...............

I'm interested in science not Biblical stories.

Let's go back to the diamonds now. It wasn't contaminated. It just reflected what was inside and not from the outside and that was how long it had been there even though they were adult diamonds. Now, even creationists argue whether the Earth and universe and things in it are old or young. If we listen to God's word and take them literally, then it is young.

Here is a theistic creationist site and how it deals with it -- Appearance of Age - A Young Earth Problem. They think YEC is not correct, but interpret the Bible differently or not what God intended.

Again, this falls outside the realm of science.

As for Shirey, what did he get using radiocarbon dating if it was wrong? I didn't think he did that. Thus, you are not comparing what RATE would do with the included diamonds.

Both scientists I cited showed that you have no valid reason to think the earth is young.

We never got to other evidence, so it really doesn't matter. You're going to believe in old Earth no matter what. How does that show an open mind? Remember, I bought into evolution and long time, but around 2007 - 2011 time frame, articles started coming out questioning evolution and its thinking. I compared both starting around 2012 and thought YEC theories explained it best. It was observable, testable, and falsifiable, but not great for age of the Earth and universe. We can only get evidence to support either old or young earth or what one believes as worldview because assumptions are different.

I am not going to start digging into all the other "evidence". I simply don't have time. Radiometric dating using many different isotopes with redundancy and repeatability breaks your case. One failure breaks your whole hypothesis. I have experience with isotopes and detection methods so this topic was easy. Your slant now is turning more to religion and away from physics. I know you have a hatred for atheist scientists, but they have evidenced belief and it goes against faith in a strict interpretation of the Bible. That's the way things are.

.

..
.

 

[the other mike]

 

[james bond]

Multiverses and dark matter is not metaphysics. It's hypothetical physics. Not all scientists believe in that. They are simply an interesting thoughts that people want to write papers about as far as I'm concerned. Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.

Now you're resorting to word salad and you accused me of it. That is really boring and hypocritical. Actually, you are saying that magic in science happens, i.e. universes pop into existence out of nothing. Some call it the metauniverse . I can't help, but laugh at you. You are revealing yourself to be a so-called science person who believes in magic. By the same token, we can say that the supernatural is theoretical physics, not hypothetical, and I provided life and complexity and beauty in nature as the supernatural. That is observable and right in front of your nose. We've had Professor Michio Kaku find "proof" of God -- Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'. That's also metaphysics and theoretical physics, but used in a positive manner. It goes to show, you do not understand metaphysics nor theoretical physics. It seemed to me you didn't understand RATE and AWS.

>>Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.<<

Because religion is the other side of the coin to science. Why do you think we have S&T and R&E forums together? Why is today's one of the main science topics is creation vs. evolution? We also have many religious scientists who founded many of the greatest things in science such as the scientific method and laws of motion. You are a simpleton not knowing about basic matters. All you do is STUBBORNLY and NARROWLY focus on contamination of radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds. What else? The phoswich . Inclusion of diamonds that you won't let the other side check using radiocarbon dating .

So you think evangelicals are correct and anyone that disbelieves them are not. The global flood is from people who believe the Bible is not metaphor. I know your science is the Bible and is static.

Now, you are mixing religion with science. Such a hypocrite. I've been discussing creation science vs. evolution. Evolution is "faith-based" science. Thus, in that way evolution is the same as religion. Get it? We have creation science because real science backs up the Bible theory. Why is it that you have no other evidence besides radiometric dating for an old Earth? Again, you are being hypocritical.

Gravity is constant there is no evidence to the contrary. Real science evolves when new discoveries are made. If real science were static we would still believe in Aristotle's celestial spheres, the sun goes around the earth, and fire is the release of phlogiston. My assumptions are based on observed evidence, yours are based on the Bible. That isn't science.

What gravity is we have found is that it is not one of the four fundamental forces. It just has properties like that of a force. One theory is from Einstein's GTOR as matter curving spacetime. Instead of a flat universe, we have a curves universe in shape. What you are focusing on is what Newton, a creation scientist, discovered. Real science backs up the Bible. At one time, we thought that the universe was flat and fixed. Today, we think it is flat and curved. Boy, again you show your idiotic notions of creation science. I think all of us here do not believe in geocentrism. It's a stereotype of stupid people who do not understand Bible theory in science.

And fire is the release of phlogiston? You don't say ? This and gravity is your evidence for an old Earth? Please explain.

So you think evangelicals are correct and anyone that disbelieves them are not. The global flood is from people who believe the Bible is not metaphor. I know your science is the Bible and is static.

Gravity is constant there is no evidence to the contrary. Real science evolves when new discoveries are made. If real science were static we would still believe in Aristotle's celestial spheres, the sun goes around the earth, and fire is the release of phlogiston. My assumptions are based on observed evidence, yours are based on the Bible. That isn't science.

Yes, I did the comparison, but please do not put words in my mouth. The term "evangelicals" is in religion. What I said was science backs up the Bible theory and that we have creation science which is real science. Evolution is fake science. You believe in fake science for age of the Earth because of its assumptions. This is "faith based" science based on atheism. I don't state it is based on atheist religion ministers like Richard Dawkins. That is another reason I brought up what Peter Higgs believed and fought against. I'm doing a similar thing here. I'm acting like your hero.

From talking with you, I get you are science person and have some knowledge about it, but you miss some of the real science and end up believing in fake ones and attribute it to the Christian religion. You cannot admit to yourself that it's the atheist religion and their beliefs in evolution. Truth is only one. I brought up the fine tuning facts which your evolutionist side discovered when investigating the big bang and then promptly ignored. Why? It goes against the big bang theory. Now, the creation side and I use it and stupid people like Fort Fun Indiana think its bullshit. How can the big bang theory work in 6000 year old universe hmm? I may use science from the Bible theory, but that is the truth. My science cannot change while yours changes like the age of the Earth. luchitociencia brought criticism of you in post #95 and others and you were so narrow in your thinking you could not address it.

 

[james bond]

I told you that that the scientists I referenced found areas of earth that are millions to billions of years old. I also told you I wasn't talking about RATE, I was showing you scientific evidence that the earth is much older than evangelicals insist.

What scientists? All you had was Shirey. OTOH, I knew who these people were. I asked what I already knew about Clair Patterson, but you could not expound on it nor answer my questions. Do you want to go over it now? An stop saying evangelicals. That's religion . Do I have to tell you you are going to hell every other sentence? Put your face on the stove. You feel how painful that is? That's you in the afterlife. Instead, we are creation scientists here, but I can fight fire with fire if that is how you want to play. I can do the phlogiston theory and brimstone in the science section quite well. We can talk about gays, abortion, and how Moses saved his people . Go ahead. Make my day.

I'm interested in science not Biblical stories.

Shit. Don't tell me you are gay? God made being gay its own punishment because ti goes against his command. Gays cannot be happy. Their lives are shortened in half because they go deeper and deeper into their sin. C'mon you can come out of your closet. Satan will know what to do with you.

Again, this falls outside the realm of science.

No, this is creation science. It is part of Bible theory. Are you so thick that you do not understand creation vs evolution?

Both scientists I cited showed that you have no valid reason to think the earth is young.

Who else besides Shirey?

I am not going to start digging into all the other "evidence". I simply don't have time. Radiometric dating using many different isotopes with redundancy and repeatability breaks your case. One failure breaks your whole hypothesis. I have experience with isotopes and detection methods so this topic was easy. Your slant now is turning more to religion and away from physics. I know you have a hatred for atheist scientists, but they have evidenced belief and it goes against faith in a strict interpretation of the Bible. That's the way things are.

No, I can safely assume you have no other evidence besides radiometric dating to explain an old Earth. You cannot even accept that it was 2 billion years and then changed to 3 billion years. You can accept that it was at least 65 million years old, but won't share the included diamonds for RATE scientists to use. Why should we believe you that it is and old Earth, let alone 4.5 B years? I just explained, it only looks old from the light and your atheist scientists made wrong assumptions. GIGO. I also said let's agree to disagree. I can't help it if you do not understand nor accept what the other side is saying. How can you sit there and say you are open minded?

 

[james bond]

Hey Angelo why is the Earth only 6000 years old?

 

[james bond]

He said science is based on facts.

No, you stupid shit. He said the image of the black hole was fake. Pay attention before you open your cryhole.

Aren't you the stupid shit? You could not refute his statement when that is your so-called area of expertise.

Furthermore, you said it was a shadow of the black hole when I tried to point out to you that it was silhouette. I mean it was only a few months ago that we experience it live. You were doing most of the talking and I was asking questions. You thought it was the black hole of the Milky Way. It was another galaxy, M87. That must've been very embarrassing for you.

 

[james bond]

I have absolutely no idea what or who you are talking about. You are shamefully wrong.
I don't think you pay attention nor understand my posts. I already told you my reference was Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
It is a rather long article that I read thoroughly and understood. Did you read it?

Yes, I posted the link. Your link in the other post leads to Angelo post. Instead of criticizing me for not understanding your posts, why not provide another evidence. If the Earth is old, then there should be evidence for it besides radiometric dating of rocks and fossils.

You didn't understand my answer twice. This is the third time.

No, I'm asking you where does RATE and the AWS lab bring it up?

I told you many times that Shirey was not interested in RATE. He had a much better way of dating diamonds. He found diamonds over 3 billion years old. That totally disagrees with Baumgardner, That is not apples to oranges. They both had the same quest: to date diamonds. Shirey proved you get wrong results if you use C14 dating. The only conclusion is that Baumgardner's work was not RATE it was discovering experimental errors in AMS.

Haha. That's not it. He had nothing to do with RATE which is what I said. Again, you do not understand what I have been patiently trying to get across to you. You are hung up on coal and diamonds and their dates and this in relationship with the age of the Earth. What did I say several times already? From the creation scientists view, we are not going to get the correct date of the Earth from science. God said he will keep some things to himself. Now, why is this? One has to look at the nature of God which you and I will never get to. I tried to get you to explain what other evidence for age that you had besides radiometric dating. The truth is there is no other science. At least, I don't think so.

So, I have to explain it to you and that is it is God's nature to create adult or mature things with his creation. He created a mature Adam and Eve. Not senior mature age, but young adults of child bearing age. He also created a mature or adult universe. It's probably a young adult age unierse. This means that the light from the distant heavens also reflected a mature universe. He didn't start like what atheists scientists believe with the big bang and that was from time 0. We do not know what time it was, but the universe came into existence not from scratch. Do you get it now? That's why we can do the different dating, but won't get far with it. If we look at the history of the Earth and universe, then we will get different ages from where we start. Some people refer to it as the "appearance of age," but that's not exactly correct. It is actually like if it was created from day one as and adult Earth and universe. The light we see from distant stars and stuff reflect it having traveled however old we are, but elapsed time since the creation is thousands of years from 6000 - 10,000 years old. A young Earth and universe.

Let's go back to the diamonds now. It wasn't contaminated. It just reflected what was inside and not from the outside and that was how long it had been there even though they were adult diamonds. Now, even creationists argue whether the Earth and universe and things in it are old or young. If we listen to God's word and take them literally, then it is young.

Here is a theistic creationist site and how it deals with it -- Appearance of Age - A Young Earth Problem. They think YEC is not correct, but interpret the Bible differently or not what God intended.

As for Shirey, what did he get using radiocarbon dating if it was wrong? I didn't think he did that. Thus, you are not comparing what RATE would do with the included diamonds.

The article says,
"Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results."The problem of contamination of daughter products must always be considered, but the "similar assumptions" aren't always similar. For example,
For Schweitzer's fossil, "three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%" -- 65 to 68 million years. That gave superb confidence in that date.

That is the way confidence is gained. Use three totally different techniques and see how they compare. Important science experiments are always tentative until they can be verified by totally different experimental methods.

Also the Shirely inclusions in diamonds had a decay product, Osmium which is an extremely rare element. It is very hard to see how a rare element would by chance be in the same inclusion as Rhenium.

As I said before, if you think RATE proves the earth is 6000 years old I gave you two counter examples. There are no doubt many more.
.

We never got to other evidence, so it really doesn't matter. You're going to believe in old Earth no matter what. How does that show an open mind? Remember, I bought into evolution and long time, but around 2007 - 2011 time frame, articles started coming out questioning evolution and its thinking. I compared both starting around 2012 and thought YEC theories explained it best. It was observable, testable, and falsifiable, but not great for age of the Earth and universe. We can only get evidence to support either old or young earth or what one believes as worldview because assumptions are different.

Bond, you are an uneducated slob with no experience or education in any of these fields. Does it embarrass you AT ALLthat an uneducated slob like you is claiming to better know a sibject than people who have dedicated their lives to it? Does baby jesus not want you to have shame?

I'm not a mind reader. Why don't you pick a couple of things Wuwei and I are discussing that you take exception to and we can talk?

Do you know how you look to others and me when you interrupt in such a rude manner? All you do is call people who disagree with youidiots and stupid and we do not know what you are talking about. IOW, you cannot explain what you are objecting to. You are so dumb that we just shrug our shoulders and there goes one of the stupidest posters ever in S&T and R&E. It's true. Just ask Frannie as an example.

 

[james bond]

Again, this falls outside the realm of science.

You cannot discuss theoretical physics and metaphysics like an educated person would? Here is an example from one of the evolution astrophysicists. He thinks the universe is a simulation -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation. This was at a serious panel discussion. Do you get out much when you aren't being derogatory to a creationist?.

 

[Frannie]

I have absolutely no idea what or who you are talking about. You are shamefully wrong.
I don't think you pay attention nor understand my posts. I already told you my reference was Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
It is a rather long article that I read thoroughly and understood. Did you read it?

Yes, I posted the link. Your link in the other post leads to Angelo post. Instead of criticizing me for not understanding your posts, why not provide another evidence. If the Earth is old, then there should be evidence for it besides radiometric dating of rocks and fossils.

You didn't understand my answer twice. This is the third time.

No, I'm asking you where does RATE and the AWS lab bring it up?

I told you many times that Shirey was not interested in RATE. He had a much better way of dating diamonds. He found diamonds over 3 billion years old. That totally disagrees with Baumgardner, That is not apples to oranges. They both had the same quest: to date diamonds. Shirey proved you get wrong results if you use C14 dating. The only conclusion is that Baumgardner's work was not RATE it was discovering experimental errors in AMS.

Haha. That's not it. He had nothing to do with RATE which is what I said. Again, you do not understand what I have been patiently trying to get across to you. You are hung up on coal and diamonds and their dates and this in relationship with the age of the Earth. What did I say several times already? From the creation scientists view, we are not going to get the correct date of the Earth from science. God said he will keep some things to himself. Now, why is this? One has to look at the nature of God which you and I will never get to. I tried to get you to explain what other evidence for age that you had besides radiometric dating. The truth is there is no other science. At least, I don't think so.

So, I have to explain it to you and that is it is God's nature to create adult or mature things with his creation. He created a mature Adam and Eve. Not senior mature age, but young adults of child bearing age. He also created a mature or adult universe. It's probably a young adult age unierse. This means that the light from the distant heavens also reflected a mature universe. He didn't start like what atheists scientists believe with the big bang and that was from time 0. We do not know what time it was, but the universe came into existence not from scratch. Do you get it now? That's why we can do the different dating, but won't get far with it. If we look at the history of the Earth and universe, then we will get different ages from where we start. Some people refer to it as the "appearance of age," but that's not exactly correct. It is actually like if it was created from day one as and adult Earth and universe. The light we see from distant stars and stuff reflect it having traveled however old we are, but elapsed time since the creation is thousands of years from 6000 - 10,000 years old. A young Earth and universe.

Let's go back to the diamonds now. It wasn't contaminated. It just reflected what was inside and not from the outside and that was how long it had been there even though they were adult diamonds. Now, even creationists argue whether the Earth and universe and things in it are old or young. If we listen to God's word and take them literally, then it is young.

Here is a theistic creationist site and how it deals with it -- Appearance of Age - A Young Earth Problem. They think YEC is not correct, but interpret the Bible differently or not what God intended.

As for Shirey, what did he get using radiocarbon dating if it was wrong? I didn't think he did that. Thus, you are not comparing what RATE would do with the included diamonds.

The article says,
"Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results."The problem of contamination of daughter products must always be considered, but the "similar assumptions" aren't always similar. For example,
For Schweitzer's fossil, "three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%" -- 65 to 68 million years. That gave superb confidence in that date.

That is the way confidence is gained. Use three totally different techniques and see how they compare. Important science experiments are always tentative until they can be verified by totally different experimental methods.

Also the Shirely inclusions in diamonds had a decay product, Osmium which is an extremely rare element. It is very hard to see how a rare element would by chance be in the same inclusion as Rhenium.

As I said before, if you think RATE proves the earth is 6000 years old I gave you two counter examples. There are no doubt many more.
.

We never got to other evidence, so it really doesn't matter. You're going to believe in old Earth no matter what. How does that show an open mind? Remember, I bought into evolution and long time, but around 2007 - 2011 time frame, articles started coming out questioning evolution and its thinking. I compared both starting around 2012 and thought YEC theories explained it best. It was observable, testable, and falsifiable, but not great for age of the Earth and universe. We can only get evidence to support either old or young earth or what one believes as worldview because assumptions are different.

Bond, you are an uneducated slob with no experience or education in any of these fields. Does it embarrass you AT ALLthat an uneducated slob like you is claiming to better know a sibject than people who have dedicated their lives to it? Does baby jesus not want you to have shame?

I'm not a mind reader. Why don't you pick a couple of things Wuwei and I are discussing that you take exception to and we can talk?

Do you know how you look to others and me when you interrupt in such a rude manner? All you do is call people who disagree with youidiots and stupid and we do not know what you are talking about. IOW, you cannot explain what you are objecting to. You are so dumb that we just shrug our shoulders and there goes one of the stupidest posters ever in S&T and R&E. It's true. Just ask Frannie as an example.

Yes Mr. Bond, if you say so

 

[Wuwei]

Now you're resorting to word salad and you accused me of it. That is really boring and hypocritical. Actually, you are saying that magic in science happens, i.e. universes pop into existence out of nothing. Some call it the metauniverse . I can't help, but laugh at you. You are revealing yourself to be a so-called science person who believes in magic. By the same token, we can say that the supernatural is theoretical physics, not hypothetical, and I provided life and complexity and beauty in nature as the supernatural. That is observable and right in front of your nose. We've had Professor Michio Kaku find "proof" of God -- Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'. That's also metaphysics and theoretical physics, but used in a positive manner. It goes to show, you do not understand metaphysics nor theoretical physics. It seemed to me you didn't understand RATE and AWS.
>>Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.<<
Because religion is the other side of the coin to science. Why do you think we have S&T and R&E forums together? Why is today's one of the main science topics is creation vs. evolution? We also have many religious scientists who founded many of the greatest things in science such as the scientific method and laws of motion. You are a simpleton not knowing about basic matters. All you do is STUBBORNLY and NARROWLY focus on contamination of radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds. What else? The phoswich . Inclusion of diamonds that you won't let the other side check using radiocarbon dating .

I'm not interested in your personal mockery.

What gravity is we have found is that it is not one of the four fundamental forces. It just has properties like that of a force. One theory is from Einstein's GTOR as matter curving spacetime. Instead of a flat universe, we have a curves universe in shape. What you are focusing on is what Newton, a creation scientist, discovered. Real science backs up the Bible. At one time, we thought that the universe was flat and fixed. Today, we think it is flat and curved. Boy, again you show your idiotic notions of creation science. I think all of us here do not believe in geocentrism. It's a stereotype of stupid people who do not understand Bible theory in science.
And fire is the release of phlogiston? You don't say ? This and gravity is your evidence for an old Earth? Please explain.

That's right science evolves when new discoveries are made.

Yes, I did the comparison, but please do not put words in my mouth. The term "evangelicals" is in religion. What I said was science backs up the Bible theory and that we have creation science which is real science. Evolution is fake science. You believe in fake science for age of the Earth because of its assumptions. This is "faith based" science based on atheism. I don't state it is based on atheist religion ministers like Richard Dawkins. That is another reason I brought up what Peter Higgs believed and fought against. I'm doing a similar thing here. I'm acting like your hero.

I disagree that science backs up a strict interpretation of the Bible. My hero?

My science cannot change while yours changes like the age of the Earth. luchitociencia brought criticism of you in post #95 and others and you were so narrow in your thinking you could not address it.

Science is flexible and as new discoveries are made, theories are expanded and replaced. New lines of investigation are created. Creationism is a static and narrow "science". It has no ability to explain quantum mechanics, relativity, electromagnetism, nor any of the forces of physical nature.
.

 

[Frannie]

Now you're resorting to word salad and you accused me of it. That is really boring and hypocritical. Actually, you are saying that magic in science happens, i.e. universes pop into existence out of nothing. Some call it the metauniverse . I can't help, but laugh at you. You are revealing yourself to be a so-called science person who believes in magic. By the same token, we can say that the supernatural is theoretical physics, not hypothetical, and I provided life and complexity and beauty in nature as the supernatural. That is observable and right in front of your nose. We've had Professor Michio Kaku find "proof" of God -- Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'. That's also metaphysics and theoretical physics, but used in a positive manner. It goes to show, you do not understand metaphysics nor theoretical physics. It seemed to me you didn't understand RATE and AWS.
>>Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.<<
Because religion is the other side of the coin to science. Why do you think we have S&T and R&E forums together? Why is today's one of the main science topics is creation vs. evolution? We also have many religious scientists who founded many of the greatest things in science such as the scientific method and laws of motion. You are a simpleton not knowing about basic matters. All you do is STUBBORNLY and NARROWLY focus on contamination of radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds. What else? The phoswich . Inclusion of diamonds that you won't let the other side check using radiocarbon dating .

I'm not interested in your personal mockery.

What gravity is we have found is that it is not one of the four fundamental forces. It just has properties like that of a force. One theory is from Einstein's GTOR as matter curving spacetime. Instead of a flat universe, we have a curves universe in shape. What you are focusing on is what Newton, a creation scientist, discovered. Real science backs up the Bible. At one time, we thought that the universe was flat and fixed. Today, we think it is flat and curved. Boy, again you show your idiotic notions of creation science. I think all of us here do not believe in geocentrism. It's a stereotype of stupid people who do not understand Bible theory in science.
And fire is the release of phlogiston? You don't say ? This and gravity is your evidence for an old Earth? Please explain.

That's right science evolves when new discoveries are made.

Yes, I did the comparison, but please do not put words in my mouth. The term "evangelicals" is in religion. What I said was science backs up the Bible theory and that we have creation science which is real science. Evolution is fake science. You believe in fake science for age of the Earth because of its assumptions. This is "faith based" science based on atheism. I don't state it is based on atheist religion ministers like Richard Dawkins. That is another reason I brought up what Peter Higgs believed and fought against. I'm doing a similar thing here. I'm acting like your hero.

I disagree that science backs up a strict interpretation of the Bible. My hero?

My science cannot change while yours changes like the age of the Earth. luchitociencia brought criticism of you in post #95 and others and you were so narrow in your thinking you could not address it.

Science is flexible and as new discoveries are made, theories are expanded and replaced. New lines of investigation. Creationism is a static and narrow "science". It has no ability to explain quantum mechanics, relativity, electromagnetism, etc.
.

But when new discoveries invalidate old science the old science never was science in the first place.

 

[Wuwei]

Now you're resorting to word salad and you accused me of it. That is really boring and hypocritical. Actually, you are saying that magic in science happens, i.e. universes pop into existence out of nothing. Some call it the metauniverse . I can't help, but laugh at you. You are revealing yourself to be a so-called science person who believes in magic. By the same token, we can say that the supernatural is theoretical physics, not hypothetical, and I provided life and complexity and beauty in nature as the supernatural. That is observable and right in front of your nose. We've had Professor Michio Kaku find "proof" of God -- Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'. That's also metaphysics and theoretical physics, but used in a positive manner. It goes to show, you do not understand metaphysics nor theoretical physics. It seemed to me you didn't understand RATE and AWS.
>>Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.<<
Because religion is the other side of the coin to science. Why do you think we have S&T and R&E forums together? Why is today's one of the main science topics is creation vs. evolution? We also have many religious scientists who founded many of the greatest things in science such as the scientific method and laws of motion. You are a simpleton not knowing about basic matters. All you do is STUBBORNLY and NARROWLY focus on contamination of radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds. What else? The phoswich . Inclusion of diamonds that you won't let the other side check using radiocarbon dating .

I'm not interested in your personal mockery.

What gravity is we have found is that it is not one of the four fundamental forces. It just has properties like that of a force. One theory is from Einstein's GTOR as matter curving spacetime. Instead of a flat universe, we have a curves universe in shape. What you are focusing on is what Newton, a creation scientist, discovered. Real science backs up the Bible. At one time, we thought that the universe was flat and fixed. Today, we think it is flat and curved. Boy, again you show your idiotic notions of creation science. I think all of us here do not believe in geocentrism. It's a stereotype of stupid people who do not understand Bible theory in science.
And fire is the release of phlogiston? You don't say ? This and gravity is your evidence for an old Earth? Please explain.

That's right science evolves.

Yes, I did the comparison, but please do not put words in my mouth. The term "evangelicals" is in religion. What I said was science backs up the Bible theory and that we have creation science which is real science. Evolution is fake science. You believe in fake science for age of the Earth because of its assumptions. This is "faith based" science based on atheism. I don't state it is based on atheist religion ministers like Richard Dawkins. That is another reason I brought up what Peter Higgs believed and fought against. I'm doing a similar thing here. I'm acting like your hero.

I disagree that science backs up a strict interpretation of the Bible. My hero?

My science cannot change while yours changes like the age of the Earth. luchitociencia brought criticism of you in post #95 and others and you were so narrow in your thinking you could not address it.

Science is flexible and as new discoveries are made, theories are expanded or replaced. New lines of investigation are opened up.

Creationism is a static and narrow science. It has no ability to explain quantum mechanics, relativity, electromagnetism, or the other forces of physical nature.

.