Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[Flash]

.......For a long time many doubted the existence of planets outside our Solar System.

People are stupid, generally. Up until about 330 years ago we burned witches.
We have a vice president in 2019 who thinks the earth is 6000 years old.

...and we had a stupid President for eight years that thought the earth's climate was getting hotter because of man made CO2 and that Muslims were our buddies.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

People think there are multiple dimensions, but we've yet to prove the existence of the fourth dimension.

*facepalm*

Should we tell him, or let him wallow in stupidity?

 

[Wuwei]

With the Schweitzer's fossils, she found soft tissue remaining in them first. Thus, afterward the creation scientists did radiocarbon dating on them as they discovered it still had C-14 remaining. That was the key to these testings as the evos did radiometric dating first on all of these materials. Again, the creation scientists have been left out of the peer reviews of evo scientists, so never had a vehicle nor platform to disagree.

Show me a source that says carbon dating of the collagen tissue had C14.

With Shirey, he wasn't dating to find the age of the Earth. If he wants to provide his diamonds for examinations, then I'd be glad to contact Dr. Jason Lisle or anyone else who would be willing to test them.

I'm not sure what your argument with AMS is. I don't think you completely understood what RATE did. If Shirey would provide his diamonds, then RATE would probably get involved and be interested.

So you think Shirey was in error? He wrote many papers tracking the varying age of diamonds. Do you think all of his Rhenium/Osmium dating is wrong?

Do you have an article on there would be "absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes?" Then I'll know what elements you are using in your dating.

Papers? No need. It's really quite an obvious deduction. If the earth were 6000 years old and the parent half-life was billions of years, there would be little time for daughter isotopes to appear in only 6000 years because of the slow decay rate. They would be below the capability for detection. I covered this before, Don't you understand what radiological dating is?

.

 

[Wuwei]

With the Schweitzer's fossils, she found soft tissue remaining in them first. Thus, afterward the creation scientists did radiocarbon dating on them as they discovered it still had C-14 remaining. That was the key to these testings as the evos did radiometric dating first on all of these materials. Again, the creation scientists have been left out of the peer reviews of evo scientists, so never had a vehicle nor platform to disagree.

You will never find this on a creationists site. This is a revisit of C14 dating of collagen, diamonds or coal. The AMS has a physical limitation that prevents C14 measurement accuracy past 60,000 years. Anything at that date is 100% qustionable. The AMS counts atoms, so lets count them. In spectroscopy the count is in units of mole.

1 mole of carbon is 12 g. (6.022×10²³ atoms.)

The sample sizes for an AMS ranges up to 0.1g. So the amount for the largest sample size is
(0.1 g)x (1 mole/12 g) = moles of C atoms in a 1 mg sample =
8.3×10⁻³ moles.

The number of C14 atoms in a fresh sample is one part per trillion. Or
8.3×10⁻¹⁵ moles.

A 55,000 year old sample is about 10 half lives and would lose a factor of 1024 C14 atoms. Thus the remaining C14 would be 1024 times less:
8.1×10⁻¹⁸ moles

It's convenient to use much smaller units of moles:
8.1 amoles (8.1 attomoles) (atto = 10⁻¹⁸) of C14.
10 amoles is the limit of precision for an AMS system for detecting C14..

Analytical validation of accelerator mass spectrometry for pharmaceutical development
The AMS sensitivity expressed as LLOQ is 10 attomoles of 14C.

Difference between LOQ and LLOQ - Chromatography Forum
Definition of LLOQ: “Lower limit of quantification (LLOQ): The lowest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with suitable precision and accuracy. …. a determination of the practical working limits of the method in relation to acceptance criteria.”

Conclusion: This quantitative analysis of readings of very old collagen tissue, diamond or coal using AMS values in the range of 10 amoles shows creationists did not provide any information about age. The creationists who totally ignored the limits of AMS instruments suffered an unconscionable ignorance of the limitations of the instrument. Those creationists sites where you get your information regarding science are duping you and others into thinking science supports a young age of the earth.

If you want to believe in a young earth, OK do it. But please don't think science supports that belief.

.

 

[the other mike]

People think there are multiple dimensions, but we've yet to prove the existence of the fourth dimension.

*facepalm*

Should we tell him, or let him wallow in stupidity?

Let him wallow...he seems to enjoy it.

 

[luchitociencia]

I dont know how. And you don't either. What is wrong with you? But one thing is certain: you clearly know less than nothing about any of it.

See? And this is the point.

You are taking for granted a phenomenon (the primeval microscopic particle) that never existed.

Plus, you are following a theory based on magic.

Furthermore, you fraud, if you actually cared to know the working hypotheses out there right now,you wouldn't be sitting in a foreign troll farm, annoying strangers on a message board. You would be looking it up yourself. Thats enough right there for people to know you are a fraud.

And, who told you I care about a good for nothing theory? You yourself don't know the very genesis story of your big bang religion.

My work doesn't care about nationality, education, preferred sports, marital status, sexual orientation, and similar; but is about finding if the assumed theory is valid to be considered as scientific.

And the big bang theory fails right there, in its very beginning. The big bang theory is not science.

 

[luchitociencia]

Conclusion: This quantitative analysis of readings of very old collagen tissue, diamond or coal using AMS values in the range of 10 amoles shows creationists did not provide any information about age.

Same as you do.

You must update your knowledge about diamonds same as scientists have updated their knowledge about fossilization.

In the past, it was believed that in order for fossilization to happen, it was necessary a length of millions of years . But, it has been observed already that fossilization can happen in years, not in millions of years.

Fossilization (palaeontology) - encyclopedia article - Citizendium

Fossilization is not a process that only occurred millions of years ago. It has also occurred in the recent past, simply because the same geological processes that happened in the past are also taking place now.

Fossilized bird nest from a Cape Town wetland. Because it was only fossilized recently, it is termed a "sub-fossil".

In this aspect, Christians are ahead of you, you still living in the past with old beliefs. Science already has recognized that fossilization only requires "the right environment". That's all.

Here is how Christians enjoy better knowledge than you do.

Evidence For Rapid Complete or Partial Fossilization

"In 2004, five Japanese scientists published examples of rapid petrification in Sedimentary Geology...analyzed a small lake in the explosion crater of the Tateyama Volcano in central Japan. A mineral-rich solution springs up from the bottom and fills the 15 m lake with steaming hot acidic water. This mineral-rich water then runs over the edge as a waterfall...They discovered that the naturally fallen wood in the overflow had been petrified with silica. What surprised the scientists was the fact that the wood was less than 36 years old. As a result, the scientists conducted an experiment in which they fastened pieces of fresh wood in the lake with wire. Surprisingly, after only 7 years the wood had turned into stone, petrified with silica..."

I myself have found my fossil in process just by digging the ground when I was living in an apartment at ground level decades ago. It was about three feet deep to bury the dead dog of a neighbor. First I thought it was just a weird stone.








The same scenario with diamonds.

The formation of diamonds was thought as well as happening in early stages of the earth, here is the common belief.

Diamond - Wikipedia

Most natural diamonds have ages between 1 billion and 3.5 billion years. Most were formed at depths between 150 and 250 kilometres (93 and 155 mi) in the Earth's mantle, although a few have come from as deep as 800 kilometres (500 mi). Under high pressure and temperature, carbon-containing fluids dissolved minerals and replaced them with diamonds. Much more recently (tens to hundreds of million years ago), they were carried to the surface in volcanic eruptions and deposited in igneous rocks known as kimberlites and lamproites.

However, regardless of the "era", what is needed is an

Russian Diamonds vs Real Diamonds: Are They Any Different?

environment that reaches above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, with pressure of more than 700,000 pounds per-square-inch. Under this immense heat and pressure, the carbon’s properties and structure change on a molecular level. It begins to morph into a crystalline, prismatic structure that you recognize as a diamond.

Synthetic diamonds was the secret weapon hold by the Soviet Union, they were ready to release millions of diamonds at cheap price to kill the diamond industry in the world.

Russia was the first country to develop a machine that produced diamonds in an economic fashion. They lowered the overall cost of making the diamonds, but also increased the quality of synthetic diamonds to an amazing level. Today, Russia is still one of the top leaders of synthetic diamond-production and have set the bar for its quality.

Your millions of years of age for diamonds is just a belief from your part.

The creationists who totally ignored the limits of AMS instruments suffered an unconscionable ignorance of the limitations of the instrument. Those creationists sites where you get your information regarding science are duping you and others into thinking science supports a young age of the earth.

If you want to believe in a young earth, OK do it. But please don't think science supports that belief.

.

No one of the results given by your instruments has been verified.

You have a pile of assumed age over another assumed age for fossils and diamonds.

You can't prove their age using a different reliable method of measure, and this is what make all your data as mere conjectures.

It appears that if you really want to know about science, that you becoming a Christian will help you the most.

 

[james bond]

You don't understand the limits of Carbon dating. Read this again:

Haha. I just told you that we aren't ever going to know the exact age of the Earth and universe using science. Do you think science makes this claim? If you do, then you do not understand science. How many times has the age of the universe and Earth changed using secular methods? OTOH, creation states the universe and Earth are the same ages and we can't really change our position. The estimates may not be exact, but it is still a young Earth and universe versus two different old Earth and universe. The old Earth and universe were assumed in order to fit evolution. Thus, it's your side that uses circular logic of fitting long time to evolution. Were you not able to ascertain this? I don't think you did.

Sure, the creation scientists and I understand the limits of C-14 dating, but how do you explain the remaining C-14? It isn't contamination. The scientists who take the measurements would know how to handle this. Can you think outside the box? What you don't understand is the limits of radiometric dating and making wrong starting assumptions. It was done in order to fit evolution because evolution needed long time. This also explains why I brought up evolution, but this went . Who came up with the first long time age of the Earth and universe? You should know this if you understand your radiometric science.

Moreover, we did not even get to the names of these radiometric ages? What are they called? Name a few. Hint:

If you trace the etymology of most of these names such as Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and so on, then you will find it has to do with location. It has nothing to do with chronology.

Also, I don't think that it registered that the past was different from the present in your mind.

We never even got to the magnetic field. That is another big part of the creation cosmology. The magnetic field is weakening and will be gone in around 20,000 years. This is another reason the universe and Earth are young. We'd all be burnt to a crisp from the solar radiation if it were old. Can you get your mind around a young Earth or are you going to claim it is just religion? I didn't even argue religion. I used the supernatural, i.e. creation, which is a lot different than just the natural. That's why making the point that Christians invented the scientific method is important. This is why I mentioned:

"There is evidence of the supernatural is life itself. The Bible states that it was God's breath that gave life to man. No one has been able to re-animate life nor create life. That is stuff of science fiction such as zombies, mad doctors, and Frankenstein. Evos just a have "faith-based" belief spontaneous generation (past) and abiogenesis (present) is true. Spontaneous generation was debunked by Pasteur. Abiogenesis has been debunked, as well. Only life creates life. For example, Darwin was already given the living cell to explain evolution."

That's quite a chart there, JB! I just love it when people create educational material that itself is flawed. For instance, just on a casual glance:

• The "Palaeozaic" Era is actually spelled PALEOZOIC.
• The "Merozaic" Era is actually spelled MESOZOIC.
• And The Quaternary is but a sliver of time compared to the Neogene, not equal.

Really makes you wonder who produces this stuff that they don't even catch egregious typos visible at a glance that if they are getting the big, easy, obvious stuff wrong, just how flawed are the details in the technical and history books offered school kids these days?

I didn't want to point out the evolutionist's misspellings. My point was their layers have nothing to do with time chronology, but location. Certainly, it makes you wonder who puts out these egregious typos in the evolutionist camp, but I hope you didn't miss that almost all of it is bullsh*t.

 

[james bond]

I've taken Chem 1A, 1B, 4A, 4B at UC Berkeley.

Welp, better go back and take them again.

I'm positive I can blow you up before you can blink an eye.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've taken Chem 1A, 1B, 4A, 4B at UC Berkeley.

Welp, better go back and take them again.

I'm positive I can blow you up before you can blink an eye.

Haha....you freaks seem to have one skill: declaring victory. Yet the scoreboard shows you as losing by about eleventy trillion to zero. I suppose that, when you believe in magical zombie gods and evil sky daddies, this self delusion is a tiny leap for you.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, the religious freaks have once again derailed a science thread. Nice moderation, USMB.

 

[james bond]

I certainly understand. I read the Genesis some time ago. But it is metaphor and has nothing to do with science.

No. Even the theist evolutionists believe that. They think God made a common ancestor or he started the big bang. From natural selection which is true science, they were led to believe in macroevolution or fake science. We got prehistoric humans and creatures from that. If you aren't listening to God and his word, then who's are you listening to?

I think people like William Lane Craig, who I think is the best Christian apologist speaker I've heard, is influenced wrongly by the academic establishment. They do not want "philosophy" to interfere with what they consider hard science. Just compare that with the soft sciences. They consider themselves rationalists or empiricists, but end up losing their way. The creation scientists base it not only on empiricism, but facts, reasoning, and historical truths.

Thus, it comes down to comparing the two theories and choosing which one has the better science. Which one has the science to back it up? Evolution has nothing. So, it's the opponent side of creation that has nothing to do with science. Otherwise, the metaphor would have been exposed, you would have hundreds, if not thousands of examples or real science backing up evolution, and we would not be discussing it anymore.

Sir Charles Lyell was a geologist who first came up with a view that the earth formed over a long period of time and continues to slowly change shape. He did geological field studies before writing a book in 1830-1833. His work was published in Principles of Geology. Darwin was strongly influenced by Lyell and started writing about his own theory in the mid 1850's; 25 years later than Lyell. .

I don't know where you got the idea that Darwin first came up with an old earth idea. No wonder you dwell on evolution so much. You should reference Lyell. In dating the age of the earth, scientists don't dwell on evolution, they are more into geology and radiology than evolution. As I said before you keep bringing Darwin up. He has nothing to do with aging of the earth or universe.

Before Lyell was Scottish farmer turned geologist James Hutton. He's the one who influenced Lyell and was an atheist. All of the geology came from atheistic thinking to challenge the established Christian geologic thinking at the time. Hutton and Darwin both became atheists. What is important that came out of Hutton is uniformitarianism or the idea that the present is the key to the past. That is a lie.

I didn't say Darwin came up with the old earth idea. His explanation of ToE, Darwin did not create ToE, is what required long time. Thus, it wasn't until 1956 that gave him the long time:

Uniformitarianism
Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell

Natural selection
Natural Selection: Charles Darwin & Alfred Russel Wallace

Long time through radiometric dating
Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson

I couldn't find the article on Darwin needing long time; It could be under Clair Patterson, but here's another article. C'mon evolutionists know this.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in 5 Easy Points You'll Understand

 

[james bond]

In short, “Creation science” is not science. They do not use science; just maybe.

Where's your evidence to backup no daughter isotopes claim?

Of course, it is science. Creation scientists were the greatest contributors to science and came up with the scientific method. You aren't much of a scientist on your own. Evolution scientists are usually wrong, so you may as well be in that camp.

No, I didn't disagree on meteorite dating. I simply took your word that the particular meteorite he used was contaminated. However I did look further into it. Patterson continued to work and built a highly secure clean room at Caltech and went to great lengths to keep it from being contaminated by lead. He came up with new more accurate dating that everyone now accepts. Why didn't you know that. The creation sites you frequent seem to be cherry picking the history to serve their own purpose.

. Why should I help my opponent or someone who does not agree with me? You were so ignorant, I had to tell you about Clair Patterson and how the age of the Earth was derived. Isn't that what we were discussing ? Why don't you work your lazy, ignorant ass? I did my work learning about evolution, teach you, and then have to kick you in the ass. It's simpler to just kick you in the ass in front of everybody here.

 

[james bond]

People think there are multiple dimensions, but we've yet to prove the existence of the fourth dimension.

*facepalm*

Should we tell him, or let him wallow in stupidity?

You still need to learn how to read and comprehend, Stormy Daniels .

 

[james bond]

I've taken Chem 1A, 1B, 4A, 4B at UC Berkeley.

Welp, better go back and take them again.

I'm positive I can blow you up before you can blink an eye.

Haha....you freaks seem to have one skill: declaring victory. Yet the scoreboard shows you as losing by about eleventy trillion to zero. I suppose that, when you believe in magical zombie gods and evil sky daddies, this self delusion is a tiny leap for you.

How can I discuss anything regarding evolution or creation science with a moron and someone who cannot explain how to tie a shoelace?

 

[luchitociencia]

No need to be a religious person to ask how it comes a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing "expanded" by itself to form galaxies and stars.

The sole idea of such an expansion is lunacies.

Unfortunately still not born who can give the answer.

Until then, the Nobel Prize is exclusive solely for the discovery of "something orbiting" in other solar systems, which by preliminary data -from one sole method used- is strongly pointing to be planets.

Good discovery, worthy of a Nobel Prize!

 

[james bond]

People think there are multiple dimensions, but we've yet to prove the existence of the fourth dimension.

*facepalm*

Should we tell him, or let him wallow in stupidity?

Let him wallow...he seems to enjoy it.

I don't wallow. I'm sure your family brought you up well in it.

 

[james bond]

Speaking of diamonds, we know that there are plenty of synthetic diamonds now. Don't try to fool your lady friend with it. They'll know. And try to get the best, like a Tiffany's, if you can afford it. It will hold its resale value better. I think it's worse than cars once you take it out of the store .

 

[Wuwei]

With the Schweitzer's fossils, she found soft tissue remaining in them first. Thus, afterward the creation scientists did radiocarbon dating on them as they discovered it still had C-14 remaining.

Did you just make that up? I asked for a reference, but you did not give one. Where is it?

Where's your evidence to backup no daughter isotopes claim?

I told you twice already. Here is the third time. Anyone with a little science should be able to figure it out. U 238 has a half life of 4.468 billion years. An end product of the decay is lead. If the earth were only 10,000 years old the Uranium would have negligible decay in such a short time. There would be no lead.

Any other long lived isotope would also have negligible daughter products if the earth were only 10,000 years old.

Of course, it is science. Creation scientists were the greatest contributors to science and came up with the scientific method.

You referenced a lot of scientists in the early 1800's or before that were creationists. Everyone was! That is no surprise because the earth age of billions years wasn't known until the early 1900's.

I am talking about modern creationists of the last few decades. They are not scientists. They want to dismiss current science because they are young earthers, but the science that they speculate about violates well proven properties of the speed of light or fiddling with a nonlinear time. They have no theory that passes muster; just naive speculation.

The modern creationists you referenced don't understand the limit of AMS for carbon14 dating. Their error is like trying to measure the weight of a marshmellow with a bathroom scale. They will get zero and think it's weightless because they don't understand it's limitation.

In the rest of your post you are back to personal attacks.

So the story so far is that AMS can't be used to date diamonds.
Rhenium inclusions in diamonds lead to billions of years age of diamonds.
Patterson clearly showed primordial earth is 4.5 billion years.
Distant galaxies show the universe is around 13.7 billion years. Any attempt by creationists that try to deny that end up denying well established basic physics and lead themselves into self contradiction.

Getting science from creationist sites will only lead you astray.
.

 

[james bond]

With the Schweitzer's fossils, she found soft tissue remaining in them first. Thus, afterward the creation scientists did radiocarbon dating on them as they discovered it still had C-14 remaining. That was the key to these testings as the evos did radiometric dating first on all of these materials. Again, the creation scientists have been left out of the peer reviews of evo scientists, so never had a vehicle nor platform to disagree.

Show me a source that says carbon dating of the collagen tissue had C14.

With Shirey, he wasn't dating to find the age of the Earth. If he wants to provide his diamonds for examinations, then I'd be glad to contact Dr. Jason Lisle or anyone else who would be willing to test them.

I'm not sure what your argument with AMS is. I don't think you completely understood what RATE did. If Shirey would provide his diamonds, then RATE would probably get involved and be interested.

So you think Shirey was in error? He wrote many papers tracking the varying age of diamonds. Do you think all of his Rhenium/Osmium dating is wrong?

Do you have an article on there would be "absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes?" Then I'll know what elements you are using in your dating.

Papers? No need. It's really quite an obvious deduction. If the earth were 6000 years old and the parent half-life was billions of years, there would be little time for daughter isotopes to appear in only 6000 years because of the slow decay rate. They would be below the capability for detection. I covered this before, Don't you understand what radiological dating is?

.

Oompah. You haven't provided anything I asked for. Weak .