Evolutionary Theory

[Damaged Eagle]

By the way, C-14 in the atmosphere does not come from CO2. It comes from Nitrogen absorbing a neutron.

Radiocarbon Dating and Bomb Carbon - Beta Analytic

So let's say CO2 doubles, Nitrogen is unchanged and the creation rate of C-14 is the same.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide,

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

C14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, which is normally C12, which means it's the carbon atom that picked up two extra neutrons making the atomic mass unstable. It is not because of a nitrogen atom picking up an extra neutron or two.

If the volume of CO2 increases in the earth's atmospheric content it's most likely due to a decrease in free O2.

The nuclear tests conducted in the last century, especially those above ground, increased the content of C14 in the atmosphere also without significantly increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

If the carbon dioxide in the atmospheric content was double say ten thousand years ago for a few centuries. Yet assume for testing purposes that it remains constant throughout the past and the piece we're testing. Then it would throw off the radiocarbon dating process because we didn't account for the excess C14 that would be in the testing because it would be double the expected amount.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By the way, C-14 in the atmosphere does not come from CO2. It comes from Nitrogen absorbing a neutron.

Radiocarbon Dating and Bomb Carbon - Beta Analytic

So let's say CO2 doubles, Nitrogen is unchanged and the creation rate of C-14 is the same.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide,

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

C14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, which is normally C12, which means it's the carbon atom that picked up two extra neutrons making the atomic mass unstable. It is not because of a nitrogen atom picking up an extra neutron or two.

If the volume of CO2 increases in the earth's atmospheric content it's most likely due to a decrease in free O2.

The nuclear tests conducted in the last century, especially those above ground, increased the content of C14 in the atmosphere also without significantly increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

If the carbon dioxide in the atmospheric content was double say ten thousand years ago for a few centuries. Yet assume for testing purposes that it remains constant throughout the past and the piece we're testing. Then it would throw off the radiocarbon dating process because we didn't account for the excess C14 that would be in the testing because it would be double the expected amount.

*****SMILE*****

. "It is not because of a nitrogen atom picking up an extra neutron or two."

You are 100% wrong and clearly do not have any idea what you are talking about.

 

[MarkDuffy]

By the way, C-14 in the atmosphere does not come from CO2. It comes from Nitrogen absorbing a neutron.

Radiocarbon Dating and Bomb Carbon - Beta Analytic

So let's say CO2 doubles, Nitrogen is unchanged and the creation rate of C-14 is the same.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide,

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

C14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, which is normally C12, which means it's the carbon atom that picked up two extra neutrons making the atomic mass unstable. It is not because of a nitrogen atom picking up an extra neutron or two.

If the volume of CO2 increases in the earth's atmospheric content it's most likely due to a decrease in free O2.

The nuclear tests conducted in the last century, especially those above ground, increased the content of C14 in the atmosphere also without significantly increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

If the carbon dioxide in the atmospheric content was double say ten thousand years ago for a few centuries. Yet assume for testing purposes that it remains constant throughout the past and the piece we're testing. Then it would throw off the radiocarbon dating process because we didn't account for the excess C14 that would be in the testing because it would be double the expected amount.

*****SMILE*****

LOL

The Cosmic Story of Carbon-14

It is a reversible reaction.

 

[Votto]

 

[MarkDuffy]

By the way, C-14 in the atmosphere does not come from CO2. It comes from Nitrogen absorbing a neutron.

Radiocarbon Dating and Bomb Carbon - Beta Analytic

So let's say CO2 doubles, Nitrogen is unchanged and the creation rate of C-14 is the same.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide,

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

C14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, which is normally C12, which means it's the carbon atom that picked up two extra neutrons making the atomic mass unstable. It is not because of a nitrogen atom picking up an extra neutron or two.

If the volume of CO2 increases in the earth's atmospheric content it's most likely due to a decrease in free O2.

The nuclear tests conducted in the last century, especially those above ground, increased the content of C14 in the atmosphere also without significantly increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

If the carbon dioxide in the atmospheric content was double say ten thousand years ago for a few centuries. Yet assume for testing purposes that it remains constant throughout the past and the piece we're testing. Then it would throw off the radiocarbon dating process because we didn't account for the excess C14 that would be in the testing because it would be double the expected amount.

*****SMILE*****

C14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon, which is normally C12, which means it's the carbon atom that picked up two extra neutrons making the atomic mass unstable. It is not because of a nitrogen atom picking up an extra neutron or two.

By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide

CO2 is very rare in the atmosphere as are cosmic rays. You are claiming the random neutron will hit the very rare carbon and ignore the nitrogen AND DO IT TWICE?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

My apologies. It is nitrogen that converts into C14. That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 150231

My apologies. It is nitrogen that converts into C14. That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high.

*****SMILE*****

"That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high"

Think how embarrassed all the chemists and climatologists will be when they hear that a person who knows less than nothing about their fields has outsmarted them! Oh boy, will they have egg on their faces!

 

[Damaged Eagle]

View attachment 150231

My apologies. It is nitrogen that converts into C14. That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high.

*****SMILE*****

"That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high"

Think how embarrassed all the chemists and climatologists will be when they hear that a person who knows less than nothing about their fields has outsmarted them! Oh boy, will they have egg on their faces!

Sure. Sure. I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. So did some other past organizations that wanted things their way when disagreed with...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

View attachment 150231

My apologies. It is nitrogen that converts into C14. That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high.

*****SMILE*****

"That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high"

Think how embarrassed all the chemists and climatologists will be when they hear that a person who knows less than nothing about their fields has outsmarted them! Oh boy, will they have egg on their faces!

View attachment 150439

Sure. Sure. I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. So did some other past organizations that wanted things their way when disagreed with...

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. "

I.E., every major scientific organization and body in the world. All charlatans, right?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

View attachment 150231

My apologies. It is nitrogen that converts into C14. That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high.

*****SMILE*****

"That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high"

Think how embarrassed all the chemists and climatologists will be when they hear that a person who knows less than nothing about their fields has outsmarted them! Oh boy, will they have egg on their faces!

View attachment 150439

Sure. Sure. I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. So did some other past organizations that wanted things their way when disagreed with...

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. "

I.E., every major scientific organization and body in the world. All charlatans, right?

More like all in it for the money instead of the science.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"More like all in it for the money instead of the science."

View attachment 150231

My apologies. It is nitrogen that converts into C14. That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high.

*****SMILE*****

"That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high"

Think how embarrassed all the chemists and climatologists will be when they hear that a person who knows less than nothing about their fields has outsmarted them! Oh boy, will they have egg on their faces!

View attachment 150439

Sure. Sure. I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. So did some other past organizations that wanted things their way when disagreed with...

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. "

I.E., every major scientific organization and body in the world. All charlatans, right?

View attachment 150442

More like all in it for the money instead of the science.

*****SMILE*****

Ahh, so they are all lying to get rich. Fascinating. yessir, all up and down the coast you see the mansions of research scientists. If only the poor, destitute fossil fuel industry had money to throw around, they would be making the correct science, right?

 

[DOTR]

All evolutionary theory is a best guess as to a sequence of events that no one observed. The data is based on comparing fossils that may be years, decades, centuries, millennia, or even longer, that are supposedly related. Without direct observation of the sequence of events that the theory suggests makes the evidence presented suspect to misinterpretation.

*****SMILE*****

No, there IS observed real time evolution in mice, fish, and insects. Here is one example.

Evolution in real time on Bear Island
August 3, 2016 - 09:00

Article from NIVA - Norwegian Institute for Water Research
Researchers tracked the northern-most freshwater fish over an entire year with surprising results.

Evolution in real time on Bear Island

Interesting article. I wouldn’t call it “real time” however.
How about Cichlids? Amazing adaptive radiation.

 

[DOTR]

The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.

How about “spooky action at a distance”? The double slit experiment? Evaporating black holes? 11 dimensions? Any of that magical?

 

[Damaged Eagle]

"More like all in it for the money instead of the science."

View attachment 150231

My apologies. It is nitrogen that converts into C14. That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high.

*****SMILE*****

"That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high"

Think how embarrassed all the chemists and climatologists will be when they hear that a person who knows less than nothing about their fields has outsmarted them! Oh boy, will they have egg on their faces!

View attachment 150439

Sure. Sure. I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. So did some other past organizations that wanted things their way when disagreed with...

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. "

I.E., every major scientific organization and body in the world. All charlatans, right?

View attachment 150442

More like all in it for the money instead of the science.

*****SMILE*****

Ahh, so they are all lying to get rich. Fascinating. yessir, all up and down the coast you see the mansions of research scientists. If only the poor, destitute fossil fuel industry had money to throw around, they would be making the correct science, right?

More like they don't want to end up in the unemployment line for not agreeing to promote a politically motivated agenda.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"More like all in it for the money instead of the science."

"That makes it even easier for nuclear level interaction to produce C14 since the volume of nitrogen compared to other elements is so high"

Think how embarrassed all the chemists and climatologists will be when they hear that a person who knows less than nothing about their fields has outsmarted them! Oh boy, will they have egg on their faces!

View attachment 150439

Sure. Sure. I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. So did some other past organizations that wanted things their way when disagreed with...

*****CHUCKLE*****

"I know they have a 90 some percent consensus among the one's participating in promoting global warming. "

I.E., every major scientific organization and body in the world. All charlatans, right?

View attachment 150442

More like all in it for the money instead of the science.

*****SMILE*****

Ahh, so they are all lying to get rich. Fascinating. yessir, all up and down the coast you see the mansions of research scientists. If only the poor, destitute fossil fuel industry had money to throw around, they would be making the correct science, right?

View attachment 150448

More like they don't want to end up in the unemployment line for not agreeing to promote a politically motivated agenda.

*****SMILE*****

That's ridiculous. These people are oceanographer, geologists, meteorologists, climatologists, biologists. These fields of science don't go away, of course they would still have jobs. And you are suggesting they are all lying. That's a very bold suggestion

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.

The double slit experiment? Evaporating black holes? 11 dimensions? Any of that magical?

How about “spooky action at a distance”?

The Theory isn't whether evolution is right or wrong, it's the exact sequence of steps. There exists way, way too much evidence and data. Magical creation is a poorly formed joke compared to evolution foundation.

How about “spooky action at a distance”? The double slit experiment? Evaporating black holes? 11 dimensions? Any of that magical?

"How about “spooky action at a distance”?"

That's what scientists used to call magnetism.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

No they would never do that...

Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat | Graham Readfearn

NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud | Principia Scientific International

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

*****SARCASTIC SMILE*****

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No they would never do that...

Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat | Graham Readfearn

NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud | Principia Scientific International

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

*****SARCASTIC SMILE*****

Yes, you are suggesting they are all lying. Not some. All or nearly all. Shall we examine that claim? First question: absurd or not absurd?

 

[westwall]

No they would never do that...

Climate sceptics see a conspiracy in Australia's record breaking heat | Graham Readfearn

NASA Exposed in 'Massive' New Climate Data Fraud | Principia Scientific International

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

Fakegate: The Obnoxious Fabrication of Global Warming

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC used fake data to pressure policy makers

*****SARCASTIC SMILE*****

Yes, you are suggesting they are all lying. Not some. All or nearly all. Shall we examine that claim? First question: absurd or not absurd?

Ummm, he's not saying they're lying. THEY are saying they're lying. But those of us who aren't politically biased already knew that.