What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Scientists Suggest That The Universe Knew

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,655
Reaction score
1,258
Points
170
Haha...do you ever have a moment of clarity and realize you have to cite fringe morons who have published no science? That you embarrass youself when you do this? I doubt it.
Hm... Instead of criticizing the creation scientist writers as fringe morons, what about turning the high powered analytical mind of yours and looking at the fringe morons here?

Notice how Wuwei has run, run, run away when I just asked him a few questions of why he came up with Rh-Os dating? He's obsessed with the age of the Earth and I think it's why he likes to follow me around. Isn't he a good example of the fringe morons here? Or flat Earther Hollie? Or how about using the goofy mind of yours and look in the mirror? I would say you three are prime examples of fringe morons. May as well start in our own backyard first.

Obviously, my sources would be different than the atheist scientist fringe moron garbage links.
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,437
Reaction score
5,811
Points
1,830
Hm... Instead of criticizing the creation scientist writers as fringe morons, what about turning the high powered analytical mind of yours and looking at the fringe morons here?

Notice how Wuwei has run, run, run away when I just asked him a few questions of why he came up with Rh-Os dating? He's obsessed with the age of the Earth and I think it's why he likes to follow me around. Isn't he a good example of the fringe morons here? Or flat Earther Hollie? Or how about using the goofy mind of yours and look in the mirror? I would say you three are prime examples of fringe morons. May as well start in our own backyard first.

Obviously, my sources would be different than the atheist scientist fringe moron garbage links.
Your juvenile tirades do nothing to rescue creationer falsehoods.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,655
Reaction score
1,258
Points
170
Cutting and pasting from a religioners personal blog is hardly a relevant argument.
Well, I'm subjected to your libtard atheist religioner fake websites such as wikipedia and more. Talk about fringe morons. Sheesh.

I rather use conservapedia and know the types of people I am dealing with. Is it because of anger that you call me a derogatory flat Earther when you are an atheist religioner?

"According to Anthony DeStefano:

But are (atheists) really dangerous, too?
You bet they are. The truth is, the atheist position is incapable of supporting any coherent system of morality other than ruthless social Darwinism. That’s why it has caused more deaths, murders and bloodshed than any other belief system in the history of the world.
Atheists, of course, are always claiming hysterically that Christianity has been responsible for most of the world’s wars, but that’s just another example of atheistic ignorance. The main reasons for war have always been economic gain, territorial gain, civil and revolutionary conflicts. According to Philip Axelrod’s monumental "Encyclopedia of Wars," only 6.98 percent or all wars from 8000 BC to present were religious in nature. If you subtract Islamic wars from the equation, only 3.2 percent of wars were due to specifically Christian causes. That means that over 96 percent of all the wars on this planet were due to worldly reasons.[25]
Various studies found that traumatic events in people's lives has a positive correlation with "emotional atheism".[26]

The atheist and lesbian Greta Christina told the journalist Chris Mooney on the Point of Inquiry podcast, "there isn't one emotion" that affects atheists "but anger is one of the emotions that many of us have ...[it] drives others to participate in the movement."[27]

Social science research indicates that antitheists score the highest among atheists when it comes to personality traits such as narcissism, dogmatism, and anger.[28] Furthermore, they scored lowest when it comes to agreeableness and positive relations with others.[29]

For additional information, please see: Atheism and social intelligence and Atheism and emotional intelligence and Atheism and unforgiveness and Atheism and bitterness"

...

"

Atheism and its retention rate in individuals​

See also: Atheism and its retention rate in individuals and Conversion from atheism to Christianity and Atheism and children and Desecularization and Atheism and apathy


In 2012, a Georgetown University study was published indicating that about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household in the United States remain atheists as adults.[30] See: Atheism and its retention rate in individuals
In 2012, a Georgetown University study was published indicating that only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.[30] See also: Atheism and children

A 2012 study by the General Social Survey of the social science research organization NORC at the University of Chicago found that belief in God rises with age, even in atheistic nations.[31] The Pew Forum reports about American atheists: "Among self-identified atheists and agnostics, the median age is 34, and roughly four-in-ten adults in these categories are between the ages of 18 and 29."[32] See also: Atheism and immaturity.

In addition, in atheistic Communist China, Christianity is experiencing rapid growth (see: Growth of Christianity in China). Also, there was a collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union (see: Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union)."

...

"

Difficulty in participating in atheist community​

See also: Atheism and loneliness and Atheism and apathy and Atheism and motivation and Internet atheism

According to an international study done by William Bainbridge, atheism is frequent among people whose interpersonal social obligations are weak and is also linked to lower fertility rates in advanced industrial nations (See also: Atheism and fertility rates).[33] See also: Atheism and loneliness and Atheism and social skills

In comparison to many religious groups, which have many meetings/conferences in numerous places in a given day or week which are convenient to attend, atheist meetings and atheist conferences are sparse. One of the causes of this situation is the apathy of many atheists (see: Atheism and apathy and Atheism and motivation).

Most atheist organizations are relatively small in terms of active participants as most atheists are apathetic about organized atheism (see: Atheism and apathy). An exception is the Communist Party of China which requires its members be atheists (see: Atheism and China and Atheism and communism). At the same time, due to the explosive growth of Christianity in China, there are now more Christians in China than Chinese who belong to the Communist Party of China (see also: East Asia and global desecularization).[34]

In recent times, the number of people attending atheist conferences has grown smaller.[35] Atheist David Smalley wrote: "And we wonder why we’re losing elections, losing funding, and our conferences are getting smaller."[20] In 2017, the atheist activist Lee Moore said about atheist conferences, "Most conferences are gone now. They're either gone or in some kind of life support form."[36]


Jerry Coyne speaking at a 2013 atheist meeting entitled The Amazing Meeting (TAM). TAM is an annual meeting.
Atheist Francois Tremblay wrote about the difficulty of motivating atheists to engage in activities related to atheism: "One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, "there is no god!" is not a very motivating call for most people." (see also: Atheism and inspiration).[37] The atheist Jerry Coyne said about atheist meetings/conferences, "But to me the speakers and talks have often seemed repetitive: the same crew of jet-set skeptics giving the same talks."[38]

In an essay entitled How the Atheist Movement Failed Me, an atheist woman noted that participation in the atheist community is often expensive due to the cost of attending atheist conferences and even local atheist meetings in restaurants and bars challenged her modest budget.[39] As a result of the challenges that atheists commonly have in terms of socializing in person, many atheists turn to the internet in terms of communicating with other atheists.[40] Often internet communication between atheists turns turns contentious (see: Atheist factions).

Christian organizations have been significantly more successful than atheist organizations as far as evangelizing via the internet (see: Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists).

For more information, please see: Atheism and loneliness"

 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
41,437
Reaction score
5,811
Points
1,830
Well, I'm subjected to your libtard atheist religioner fake websites such as wikipedia and more. Talk about fringe morons. Sheesh.

I rather use conservapedia and know the types of people I am dealing with. Is it because of anger that you call me a derogatory flat Earther when you are an atheist religioner?

"According to Anthony DeStefano:

But are (atheists) really dangerous, too?
You bet they are. The truth is, the atheist position is incapable of supporting any coherent system of morality other than ruthless social Darwinism. That’s why it has caused more deaths, murders and bloodshed than any other belief system in the history of the world.
Atheists, of course, are always claiming hysterically that Christianity has been responsible for most of the world’s wars, but that’s just another example of atheistic ignorance. The main reasons for war have always been economic gain, territorial gain, civil and revolutionary conflicts. According to Philip Axelrod’s monumental "Encyclopedia of Wars," only 6.98 percent or all wars from 8000 BC to present were religious in nature. If you subtract Islamic wars from the equation, only 3.2 percent of wars were due to specifically Christian causes. That means that over 96 percent of all the wars on this planet were due to worldly reasons.[25]
Various studies found that traumatic events in people's lives has a positive correlation with "emotional atheism".[26]

The atheist and lesbian Greta Christina told the journalist Chris Mooney on the Point of Inquiry podcast, "there isn't one emotion" that affects atheists "but anger is one of the emotions that many of us have ...[it] drives others to participate in the movement."[27]

Social science research indicates that antitheists score the highest among atheists when it comes to personality traits such as narcissism, dogmatism, and anger.[28] Furthermore, they scored lowest when it comes to agreeableness and positive relations with others.[29]

For additional information, please see: Atheism and social intelligence and Atheism and emotional intelligence and Atheism and unforgiveness and Atheism and bitterness"

...

"

Atheism and its retention rate in individuals​

See also: Atheism and its retention rate in individuals and Conversion from atheism to Christianity and Atheism and children and Desecularization and Atheism and apathy


In 2012, a Georgetown University study was published indicating that about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household in the United States remain atheists as adults.[30] See: Atheism and its retention rate in individuals
In 2012, a Georgetown University study was published indicating that only about 30 percent of those who grow up in an atheist household remain atheists as adults.[30] See also: Atheism and children

A 2012 study by the General Social Survey of the social science research organization NORC at the University of Chicago found that belief in God rises with age, even in atheistic nations.[31] The Pew Forum reports about American atheists: "Among self-identified atheists and agnostics, the median age is 34, and roughly four-in-ten adults in these categories are between the ages of 18 and 29."[32] See also: Atheism and immaturity.

In addition, in atheistic Communist China, Christianity is experiencing rapid growth (see: Growth of Christianity in China). Also, there was a collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union (see: Collapse of atheism in the former Soviet Union)."

...

"

Difficulty in participating in atheist community​

See also: Atheism and loneliness and Atheism and apathy and Atheism and motivation and Internet atheism

According to an international study done by William Bainbridge, atheism is frequent among people whose interpersonal social obligations are weak and is also linked to lower fertility rates in advanced industrial nations (See also: Atheism and fertility rates).[33] See also: Atheism and loneliness and Atheism and social skills

In comparison to many religious groups, which have many meetings/conferences in numerous places in a given day or week which are convenient to attend, atheist meetings and atheist conferences are sparse. One of the causes of this situation is the apathy of many atheists (see: Atheism and apathy and Atheism and motivation).

Most atheist organizations are relatively small in terms of active participants as most atheists are apathetic about organized atheism (see: Atheism and apathy). An exception is the Communist Party of China which requires its members be atheists (see: Atheism and China and Atheism and communism). At the same time, due to the explosive growth of Christianity in China, there are now more Christians in China than Chinese who belong to the Communist Party of China (see also: East Asia and global desecularization).[34]

In recent times, the number of people attending atheist conferences has grown smaller.[35] Atheist David Smalley wrote: "And we wonder why we’re losing elections, losing funding, and our conferences are getting smaller."[20] In 2017, the atheist activist Lee Moore said about atheist conferences, "Most conferences are gone now. They're either gone or in some kind of life support form."[36]


Jerry Coyne speaking at a 2013 atheist meeting entitled The Amazing Meeting (TAM). TAM is an annual meeting.
Atheist Francois Tremblay wrote about the difficulty of motivating atheists to engage in activities related to atheism: "One last problem that undermines any propagation of atheism is inspiration. Let's be honest here, "there is no god!" is not a very motivating call for most people." (see also: Atheism and inspiration).[37] The atheist Jerry Coyne said about atheist meetings/conferences, "But to me the speakers and talks have often seemed repetitive: the same crew of jet-set skeptics giving the same talks."[38]

In an essay entitled How the Atheist Movement Failed Me, an atheist woman noted that participation in the atheist community is often expensive due to the cost of attending atheist conferences and even local atheist meetings in restaurants and bars challenged her modest budget.[39] As a result of the challenges that atheists commonly have in terms of socializing in person, many atheists turn to the internet in terms of communicating with other atheists.[40] Often internet communication between atheists turns turns contentious (see: Atheist factions).

Christian organizations have been significantly more successful than atheist organizations as far as evangelizing via the internet (see: Internet evangelism: Christians vs. atheists).

For more information, please see: Atheism and loneliness"

That's a lot of cutting and pasting. Was it supposed to mean something?
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,750
Reaction score
805
Points
255
When was RH-Os decay done initially? What was it used to date to get the long half-life time? I suspect you're giving a different example of how radiometric decay can be used to date a rock and we went over that already -- The Radiometric Dating Game.
Long lived isotopes are dated by chemically determining how many atoms are in a sample and measuring the decay rate with a particle detector. I did it as a student once.

Your reference is almost 100% on volcanoes with dating involving argon. Even non-creationist sites says it is not reliable. The author has no analytic information, just uncertainty with his many phrases like:
I suspect not...
It is also possible that...
It seems to me...
I don't see how...
might be able to account for...
So it's not clear to me how...
It seems reasonable that...
is probably...
That doesn't sound like well thought out science.
Moreover, I've found that you're getting the radiometric age which may not have to do with actual age.
Getting the radiometric age is the whole point of an assay.
Finally, I can accept that you won't accept the creation science of radiocarbon dating of dinosaur fossils because it shows they died off in short time. It's real science, but you cannot accept it due and continually avoid it because it destroys your erroneous atheist worldview.
You are wrong. C14 dating that is near the noise floor of an instrument is worthless whether it's dinosaurs or trees. It's about instrumentation limitations not evolution.
Come now. Basically, all I get from you are libturd atheist science promotion and lies of atheist science arguments. I understand because it's based on trying to support your religion and contradicting what the Bible stated.
Your emotion is getting the best of you.
Thus, I agree that we'll disagree, but I didn't expect to find that we disagree on everything. My science is based on the Bible, but I try to leave out the religious parts as creationists have found that science backs up the Bible. For example, God creating singularity and the big bang cause spacetime and our universe to be formed. However, we find that afterwards atheist scientists took singularity for themselves and hypothesized that it and the big bang happens naturally. That's a ridiculous and weak argument and huge lie.
More preaching. You still have not addressed what you think is wrong with Rh-Os dating in diamonds. You deflect to the less rigorous dating of volcanos involving argon which is not the issue. You can believe creation as you will, but your science is bankrupt.

.
 

LittleNipper

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
5,613
Reaction score
823
Points
130
Backed by every shred of evidence we have ever collected in every field of science.

You have a book of myths written in the iron age.

I like my chances. Good luck!
No evidence but contrived opinion. Study mathematics, and you may learn something. You have no chances. You will live and you will die and that is the end of you presumptions ---- absolutely inevitable.
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,750
Reaction score
805
Points
255
Notice how @Wuwei has run, run, run away when I just asked him a few questions of why he came up with Rh-Os dating?
I'm still here buddy. What astounds me is that the reference you cited goes on and on how dating with argon is full of contamination but you embrace C14 and completely ignore contamination from the CO2 in the air.

I take it back. I'm not astounded by your hypocrisy anymore.
.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,655
Reaction score
1,258
Points
170
That's a lot of cutting and pasting. Was it supposed to mean something?
R.d0bf3248d9e24a0095cc2e5af5bdb17c

I would say the radiometric dating of rocks is important for the atheists. I suspect they'll pay for their false beliefs in the end.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,655
Reaction score
1,258
Points
170
Your reference is almost 100% on volcanoes with dating involving argon. Even non-creationist sites says it is not reliable. The author has no analytic information, just uncertainty with his many phrases like:
I suspect not...It is also possible that...It seems to me...I don't see how...might be able to account for...So it's not clear to me how...It seems reasonable that...is probably...That doesn't sound like well thought out science.
Your conclusions are just providing part of the sentence and leaving out what the writer was trying to convey such as, "So it's not clear to me how one can be sure of the 4.5 billion year age, even assuming a constant decay rate." It's disingenuous at best. Typical for atheists as stated in the conservapedia article.

Getting the radiometric age is the whole point of an assay.
Sure. However, radiometric age is inaccurate due to the assumptions made and the results have nothing to do with actual age.

You are wrong. C14 dating that is near the noise floor of an instrument is worthless whether it's dinosaurs or trees. It's about instrumentation limitations not evolution.
That's a mighty big assumption and is typical when atheists are faced with a dating method that would cause destruction of long age. What it means is the creation scientists have a dating method that is falsifiable and repeatable.

The same can't be said for radiometric dating of rocks as the results are based on the assumptions made. We find that it has problems when the actual conditions do not fit the assumptions.

"The requirements for radiometric dating are stated in another way, at the web site http://hubcap.clemson.edu/spurgeon/books/apology/Chapter7.html:
"But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially)."

Here are more quotes about radiometric dating from HDER Chapter 12:

"All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events' or `second' or `third events.' "

And again,

"It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past."

It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry. Some more quotes from the same source:"

Your emotion is getting the best of you.
Lol, not as much as pour vous. You're the one who went with ad hominem attacks first and continued repeating.

More preaching. You still have not addressed what you think is wrong with Rh-Os dating in diamonds. You deflect to the less rigorous dating of volcanos involving argon which is not the issue. You can believe creation as you will, but your science is bankrupt.
Well, did you answer my questions about Rh-Os dating so we could continue discussing? I suppose you answered it was done to diamonds and not rocks. Here they are again.

>>When was RH-Os decay done initially? What was it used to date to get the long half-life time? I suspect you're giving a different example of how radiometric decay can be used to date a rock and we went over that already.<<

Now that you said it was on diamonds, what do the results mean? What were the results?

You sure are touchy when the 1956 radiometric dating of meteors to find the "age of the Earth" was shown wrong.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,655
Reaction score
1,258
Points
170
I'm still here buddy. What astounds me is that the reference you cited goes on and on how dating with argon is full of contamination but you embrace C14 and completely ignore contamination from the CO2 in the air.

I take it back. I'm not astounded by your hypocrisy anymore.
Again, see my questions above.

I never said it was perfect. What do you want to know about the C14 results? They were done several times on organic materials at different times and can be done again. Is it accurate? To the point that results can be repeated based on using the same assumptions. Does it give us the actual age of the organic material? No, it just gives us the C14 age. Actual age could have had different conditions in the past and no one was there so assumptions were made.

This is in contrast to radiometric dating which was done once in the past and can't be repeated again. Do you know why? It's historical dating.

I think you're butthurt and that's why you're coming unglued emotionally and resorting to ad hominems. We didn't even discuss the C14 dating, but I tried to discuss your Rh-Os dating by asking questions. Sheesh. What a grouch!
 

Wuwei

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2015
Messages
4,750
Reaction score
805
Points
255
Your conclusions are just providing part of the sentence and leaving out what the writer was trying to convey such as, "So it's not clear to me how one can be sure of the 4.5 billion year age, even assuming a constant decay rate."
That was my whole point. Creationists are quite uncertain or guessing about many things. That's not science.
Sure. However, radiometric age is inaccurate due to the assumptions made and the results have nothing to do with actual age.
Sure. All measurements like that have error bars. The fundamental point is that creationists don't talk about them. In some cases billion year isotopes have accuracies +/- 10%. That does not negate the usefulness of the information.
That's a mighty big assumption and is typical when atheists are faced with a dating method that would cause destruction of long age. What it means is the creation scientists have a dating method that is falsifiable and repeatable.

The same can't be said for radiometric dating of rocks as the results are based on the assumptions made. We find that it has problems when the actual conditions do not fit the assumptions.
Long life attempts with C14 are falsified by the noise floor of the instrument.
these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially)."
They are not arbitrary assumptions. They are necessities. For both C14 and long lived isotopes. Scientists have always been aware of that. Besides decay rates do not change. It would be obvious if the did.

Your further quotes from YEC's are known by scientists. If a scientist is sloppy they will be challenged by other scientists.

Concerning neutrinos. The collision cross-section for neutrinos are such that half of low energy neutrinos are absorbed through 1 light year of lead! With higher energy neutrons it's 1000 light years of lead. A real scientist could easily calculate that the chances of neutrino interference is vanishingly small. Why don't creation "scientists" do the calculation rather than just saying "it's also possible". That is not science. They are duping creationists who read their web sites.
Now that you said it was on diamonds, what do the results mean? What were the results?
Research was done on several diamonds from Brazil and Africa. The African diamonds were around 3.5 billion years. The Brazilian diamonds were a billion or so years younger. Rh and Os were totally encased in the diamonds, so all the criteria for accurate dating was met. Finally the diamonds have the same lifetime as the encased Rh. It is as simple as that.

Meteors are on the order of 4+ billion years. Over 100 assays on moon rocks show show a range of dates around 4 billion years with a collective STD of a few hundred million.

The universe is old. That has always been my point.

As far as you second post, You still don't understand how the noise floor sets a limit on the accuracy, and any assay that gives the ball park of 80,000 years is dealing with 1 part per 1000 trillion C14 vs C12. Noise overwhelms the measurement rendering it useless.

.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,655
Reaction score
1,258
Points
170
That was my whole point. Creationists are quite uncertain or guessing about many things. That's not science.
And atheist scientists are not such as readily accepting billions of years universe and Earth from the 1950s? It's like atheists practice voodoo science with atheist evolution. They just want to contradict and disprove what the Bible said.

No guessing on the part of the creationists. It's already in the Bible and science backs up the parts of the Bible we are discussing. It came up with singularity first and the big bang, i.e. expansion of the universe, and then the atheist scientists stole it once the discovery of CMB. The atheist scientists claimed an infinite universe existed in order to not have God starting space and time and the universe, but they were freaking wrong. Now, they have to claim long time because the Bible stated cosmic expansion or big bang, i.e. there was a beginning.

Thus, it is you who are wrong once again. You have feces on your face and not egg because this has happened to the atheists over and over. The universe is not infinite. Earth didn't exist until it was created. The atheists can't even explain the energy nor the cosmic expansion unless they claim natural singularity. What bull. The Bible and the creationists stated what happened first and science has backed it up with creation singularity and the big bang.

You have gotten too emotional over this and the destruction of radiometric dating and don't know what you are talking about anymore. It really is sad and pathetic to read your posts.

Sure. All measurements like that have error bars. The fundamental point is that creationists don't talk about them. In some cases billion year isotopes have accuracies +/- 10%. That does not negate the usefulness of the information.
Lol. More lies. Creationists talk about the atheists and their evolutionary thinking all the time. We find we discuss how science backs up the Bible and then the atheist scientists steal what was discovered and try to make up stuff and an atheist version to explain the Biblical truth and science. I provided one of the biggest examples above.

As for measurements, I have been giving you what was measured and what the creationists have measured or did you just ignore radiocarbon dating? It sounds like your emotions have made you blind or deaf to what your opponent is presenting.

They are not arbitrary assumptions. They are necessities. For both C14 and long lived isotopes. Scientists have always been aware of that. Besides decay rates do not change. It would be obvious if the did.

Your further quotes from YEC's are known by scientists. If a scientist is sloppy they will be challenged by other scientists.

Concerning neutrinos. The collision cross-section for neutrinos are such that half of low energy neutrinos are absorbed through 1 light year of lead! With higher energy neutrons it's 1000 light years of lead. A real scientist could easily calculate that the chances of neutrino interference is vanishingly small. Why don't creation "scientists" do the calculation rather than just saying "it's also possible". That is not science. They are duping creationists who read their web sites.
Not for C14 when there is C14 remaining.

It's interesting you associate sloppiness with YEC scientists. In the link I provided, it was you who committed logical fallacies by taking statements out of their full context in order to show the writer wasn't accurate, sloppy, and not scientific. Taken in the entire context, it made science and was logical.

Concerning neutrinos. The collision cross-section for neutrinos are such that half of low energy neutrinos are absorbed through 1 light year of lead! With higher energy neutrons it's 1000 light years of lead. A real scientist could easily calculate that the chances of neutrino interference is vanishingly small. Why don't creation "scientists" do the calculation rather than just saying "it's also possible". That is not science. They are duping creationists who read their web sites.
I can only guess the neutrinos section and article was to show the various whining and complaints of atheists when creationists point out the truthful science first. Are you are taking things out of context again? What is the section or sections of what I provided that you are complaining about? Is it the below?

"
4. Do the radiometric dating methods possess the three qualifications to measure time correctly?
Answer:The radiometric dating methods cannot be proved to fulfill all of the requirements for a reliable clock.
a. The evidence generally supports the constancy of radioactive decay rates within narrow limits. However, some research suggests that special conditions may, perhaps, appreciably alter some radioactive decay rates.2 It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past.3 In addition, according to a recently developed theory, the speed of light has varied since the Creation, and this would have affected radioactive decay rates drastically. (See answer 7c below.)
b. The daughter products of the various systems are all found widely distributed in the earth's crust, e.g., Pb-206, Pb-208, argon-40, and strontium-87. It is generally not possible to be sure that some daughter product atoms were not present in the rock at time zero.
c. Finally, all of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as "metamorphic events" or "second" or "third events."4
From the above facts it can be seen that the radiometric dating methods do not in general fulfill all of the requirements for a reliable clock.
5. If the earth is really young, only thousands of years old, why do the radiometric methods usually give such large ages, millions or billions of years?
Answer: The half-lives of the parent atoms used in dating the rocks are very long, from hundreds of millions to billions of years. Since the daughter product atoms are found everywhere in the rocks -- and they are equated to time -- it should not be surprising to find that these methods yield large values for the age of the earth.
"
Research was done on several diamonds from Brazil and Africa. The African diamonds were around 3.5 billion years. The Brazilian diamonds were a billion or so years younger. Rh and Os were totally encased in the diamonds, so all the criteria for accurate dating was met. Finally the diamonds have the same lifetime as the encased Rh. It is as simple as that.

Meteors are on the order of 4+ billion years. Over 100 assays on moon rocks show show a range of dates around 4 billion years with a collective STD of a few hundred million.

The universe is old. That has always been my point.

As far as you second post, You still don't understand how the noise floor sets a limit on the accuracy, and any assay that gives the ball park of 80,000 years is dealing with 1 part per 1000 trillion C14 vs C12. Noise overwhelms the measurement rendering it useless.
Can you provide some links and articles where you are getting this? Am I just supposed to take your atheist word on Rh-Os dating?

The universe isn't billions of years old as you claim. Otherwise, our sun would have used up most of it's energy. It's still a strong sun.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,655
Reaction score
1,258
Points
170
I have read a few myths. They were all based on creationism.
Maybe you can explain the universe is old statement that atheists believe. We still have a young sun and not not an 80% burned out one if our Earth is 4.5 billions of years old. Second, where did all the energy in our universe come from in the atheist version? Sadly, the lack of detail and explanation of what happened in the atheist version makes their evolutionary science very, very, very questionable. Why is it always the creation scientists who explain what happened using the Bible first and then the atheist scientists make up lies to explains their version afterward?
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
55,511
Reaction score
10,691
Points
2,070
No evidence but contrived opinion.
Well you sound like a gotdam moron. Yes, all the evidence. And since you know less than nothing about evolution or any of the evidence, your opinion on either is completely worthless
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
71,712
Reaction score
4,662
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Maybe you can explain the universe is old statement that atheists believe. We still have a young sun and not not an 80% burned out one if our Earth is 4.5 billions of years old. Second, where did all the energy in our universe come from in the atheist version? Sadly, the lack of detail and explanation of what happened in the atheist version makes their evolutionary science very, very, very questionable. Why is it always the creation scientists who explain what happened using the Bible first and then the atheist scientists make up lies to explains their version afterward?
Sumerian "mythology" claimed it first.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
10,655
Reaction score
1,258
Points
170
Sumerian "mythology" claimed it first.
And atheist mythology is claiming something even wackier -- evolution and old Earth/universe mythology -- but millions of libtard fools are sucked into it today.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
71,712
Reaction score
4,662
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
And atheist mythology is claiming something even wackier -- evolution and old Earth/universe mythology -- but millions of libtard fools are sucked into it today.
We don't have Perfect Knowledge and even some basic research may be dangerous; the scientific method is still our best bet, in my opinion.
 

LittleNipper

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
5,613
Reaction score
823
Points
130
Well you sound like a gotdam moron. Yes, all the evidence. And since you know less than nothing about evolution or any of the evidence, your opinion on either is completely worthless
Sounds can be deceiving, as I'm sure your scientific experience warns you...
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$201.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top