Carbon dating

[philadiddle]

Fine. So I am not.
That does not change my statement from right to wrong.

I think the point is that you lied to try to make your position more credible. That's what bothers people.

I understand that you admitted it wasn't true and being pestered about it isn't productive so I will leave it in the past from this point forward.

 

[Orogeny]

So, why do I still have some posts to reply to? Why do you still read my post?

I answered that question quite clearly in this post.

 

[Sophophile]

By the way, I always do honest conversation, even I am playing with the definition of a word.

Like when you claimed to be a geology professor?

Yes. Believe it or not is up to you.

Boy, how did you find that one? Can we do search on this site?

juvenissun, this thread saddens me. You have not only revealed your own arguments to be self-contradictory and absurd, but you have also clearly admitted lying to advance your arguments.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Perhaps we have tormented you enough. In future people can refer back to this thread on the subject of your credibility.

To answer your question, I used Google to find your posting on the other thread. You should also know that I have followed many of your threads as a lurker, including the one where you referred to the other posters in this thread as raising "unworthy" questions. I think it is now established just who was making "unworthy" posts in this thread.

Regards
S.

 

[juvenissun]

juvenissun, this thread saddens me. You have not only revealed your own arguments to be self-contradictory and absurd, but you have also clearly admitted lying to advance your arguments.





Perhaps we have tormented you enough. In future people can refer back to this thread on the subject of your credibility.

To answer your question, I used Google to find your posting on the other thread. You should also know that I have followed many of your threads as a lurker, including the one where you referred to the other posters in this thread as raising "unworthy" questions. I think it is now established just who was making "unworthy" posts in this thread.

Regards
S.

Thanks for the tip. I did not know Google is so powerful.

You may say whatever you like to say about me, I don't care. If you do not appreciate what I said (such as geology), then I will try not to talk about those issues with you. If you do not like me, that is too bad. What people usually do is to put this kind of people on the ignore list (I never do that, though). Why don't you consider that?

 

[juvenissun]

I answered that question quite clearly in this post.

That is noble. My advice is to save this time for your own study. You still have a long way to go. Spend time on me will not get you anywhere.

 

[juvenissun]

I think the point is that you lied to try to make your position more credible. That's what bothers people.

I understand that you admitted it wasn't true and being pestered about it isn't productive so I will leave it in the past from this point forward.

I guess you will keep your words. I did not say I will do the same. I might claim that I am a geology professor again tomorrow. You were trying to catch the wind. So it is nice that you will stop and focus on the issues about the origin.

What is this thread about? C-14. Have you said anything about it yet?

 

[Orogeny]

That is noble. My advice is to save this time for your own study. You still have a long way to go. Spend time on me will not get you anywhere.

I spend plenty of time studying, which is why it doesn't take a whole lot of time out of my day proving you wrong again and again. I do have a long way to go, but I'm a darn sight farther along than you are when it comes to geology.

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

What is this thread about? C-14. Have you said anything about it yet?

Yes Juvie, maybe get back to the main points of this thread, after you took us on a 50+ post goosechase on the Juvie-go-round quibbling about what a “first language” was.


OK, back to our current list:

********************************************
1. Can you reaffirm that you won’t engage in the deceptive, evasive tactic described in post #57, and further that you’ll call out anyone, creationist or not, who does deceive that way? Also, that goes for claiming that overlapping ages disagree, because they don't give the exact same midpoint of their ranges?
2. Do you agree that the paper you cited is an example of different dating methods giving consistent ages for the NWA 1460 Sample?
3. Can you explain why different methods give the same dating answers for the data I posted in Post #10, or at least explain why a rational person would refuse to look at that data?
4. Do you acknowledge that the Geological Society of America (which includes geologists worldwide, and to my knowledge is the main geological society worldwide) has issued a statement that shows that the many different dating methods give consistent and reliable results?

Resolved - Yes. post 426.
I have said, the statement you quoted from them is fine to me. I do not bother to check if you quoted it correctly or not. It is one of the normal science statements. There should be tons of similar statements made since human knew science. I care none of them.
5. Do you acknowledge that the geological consensus is that there is no evidence for a global flood at any time in Earth's history, and that Flood geology was relegated to the trash bin of history by 1850? Resolved - "Yes", post #310.

6. Could you elaborate on why you want there to have been a global flood in prehistory, when you have already decided that the flood of Noah could not have happened when people existed, and hence you appear to already reject a literal reading of Genesis 5-10? Unresolved - though Juvie "surrenders this point" in post #348, he won't agree to any resolution text that mentions his posted ideas that:
1. Juvie claims that the years & ages in Genesis, and the whole Noah story given in Genesis are literally true.
2. Juvie claims that Noah may have existed in the precambrian.
3. Juvie claims that there is "no contradiction" in these views.

Juvie further adds that there may have been "different time streams", saying "The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. I think my new hypothesis to the solution of this problem is not too far away. Praise Him."
#7. Juvie, is English your first language?
Resolved – No. Juvie learned some language other than English first, but was multilingual as a child, including at least some English before adulthood. post 462.

 

[juvenissun]

#7. Juvie, is English your first language?[/FONT][/COLOR]
Resolved – No. Juvie learned some language other than English first, but was multilingual as a child, including at least some English before adulthood. post 462.

Here is your problem, no matter on what issue. You put A LOT of words into my mouth. It does me no harm. But I don't like to see it.

No. I did not learn other languages before English. I learned other languages together with English.

If this is science, you are making big mistake.

 

[Papias]

Juvie, I simply tried to peice together some coherence from your post, #455, which said:

Juvie wrote:

Papias wrote:

Yes to what? That one of the languages you spoke was english? So you grew up initially speaking two or three languages, one of which was english? Really? Was english the main one of those, or not?Papias

I can fool around the definition of this one too. But, I will save that. As a consequence, my answer could be interpreted as having a different meaning.

No.

Since you stated that English wasn't the main one, I reflected that in the resolution. Since you are disputing that, I'll change that to say "main" instead of "first".

So you are now saying that your first learned words were not from your "main" language?

Do you understand that since you admitted that you intentionally talk nonsense, and because you have been caught lying, it can be hard for me to know if you are just giving us word salad again, or if there is any truth in what you are saying? When added to your problems with English and grammar, it can be hard to figure out what is right. And then when the conclusions I manage to draw from your posts are not to your liking, you turn around and say I put words in your mouth? Wow.

Papias

 

[juvenissun]

Juvie, I simply tried to peice together some coherence from your post, #455, which said:

Juvie wrote:



Since you stated that English wasn't the main one, I reflected that in the resolution. Since you are disputing that, I'll change that to say "main" instead of "first".

So you are now saying that your first learned words were not from your "main" language?

Do you understand that since you admitted that you intentionally talk nonsense, and because you have been caught lying, it can be hard for me to know if you are just giving us word salad again, or if there is any truth in what you are saying? When added to your problems with English and grammar, it can be hard to figure out what is right. And then when the conclusions I manage to draw from your posts are not to your liking, you turn around and say I put words in your mouth? Wow.

Papias

Again, this is a good example of showing how hard a correct communication could be by any of the so-called language:

When you asked me: "Was english the main one of those, or not". My answer could only be yes or no. And the question means that whether English is the major one out of the three, because you defined the domain of the question that way. And my answer was no.

When you interpreted the my answer as: "first learned words were not from your "main" language", then this main becomes different from that main in the earlier question. This time, my answer would be: it is "one of the main languages I learned since my youth. But it was not as "main" as the other one, or two.

The key point is on what does the "main" mean. Does it mean fluency or importance. I might not speak English well in my youth, but it was one vitally important to me. So, was it one of my "main" language or not? How do you define the word "main"? I did not pick you on the meaning of this word when you asked the question (so you won't say that I am playing with the word again). See what happened? You screwed it up by using a wrong definition.

 

[Mallon]

Is radiocarbon dating accurate?

Usually, yes. We can verify its accuracy with other dating methods, like dendrochronology.

 

[juvenissun]

Is radiocarbon dating accurate?

I never do carbon dating and I do not intent to. However, in principle, all dating methods are of the same nature. Accurate or not depends on what are you asking. You actually have to examine it case by case. Any simple answer to your question is, at best, ignorant.

 

[Orogeny]

I never do carbon dating and I do not intent to. However, in principle, all dating methods are of the same nature. Accurate or not depends on what are you asking. You actually have to examine it case by case. Any simple answer to your question is, at best, ignorant.

So the answer that you've just given, which is essentially 'sometimes', is ignorant? Great. We agree.

Carbon dating, along with the other widely used dating methods, are reliable, and have been demonstrated to be reliable time and time again. Wildly inaccurate dates such as those used on creationist sites are generally due to misapplication of the technique in question.

 

[Papias]

Trying to get us back to the dating topic of this thread, How about looking at #3, which references the data on post #10, showing that C-14 and a bunch of other methods give consistent dates when the same sample is tested by multiple methods? Juvie, we went around with word games and such for at least posts 10 through 85, and more recently.

Can you offer any rational reason beyond the Juvie time warp that explains why all these methods give dates consistent with each other?

Papias


********************************************
1. Can you reaffirm that you won’t engage in the deceptive, evasive tactic described in post #57, and further that you’ll call out anyone, creationist or not, who does deceive that way? Also, that goes for claiming that overlapping ages disagree, because they don't give the exact same midpoint of their ranges?
2. Do you agree that the paper you cited is an example of different dating methods giving consistent ages for the NWA 1460 Sample?
3. Can you explain why different methods give the same dating answers for the data I posted in Post #10, or at least explain why a rational person would refuse to look at that data?
4. Do you acknowledge that the Geological Society of America (which includes geologists worldwide, and to my knowledge is the main geological society worldwide) has issued a statement that shows that the many different dating methods give consistent and reliable results?

Resolved - Yes. post 426.
I have said, the statement you quoted from them is fine to me. I do not bother to check if you quoted it correctly or not. It is one of the normal science statements. There should be tons of similar statements made since human knew science. I care none of them.
5. Do you acknowledge that the geological consensus is that there is no evidence for a global flood at any time in Earth's history, and that Flood geology was relegated to the trash bin of history by 1850?Resolved - "Yes", post #310.

6. Could you elaborate on why you want there to have been a global flood in prehistory, when you have already decided that the flood of Noah could not have happened when people existed, and hence you appear to already reject a literal reading of Genesis 5-10? Unresolved - though Juvie "surrenders this point" in post #348, he won't agree to any resolution text that mentions his posted ideas that:
1. Juvie claims that the years & ages in Genesis, and the whole Noah story given in Genesis are literally true.
2. Juvie claims that Noah may have existed in the precambrian.
3. Juvie claims that there is "no contradiction" in these views.

Juvie further adds that there may have been "different time streams", saying "The more I think about it, the more sense it makes. I think my new hypothesis to the solution of this problem is not too far away. Praise Him."
#7. Juvie, is English your first language?
Resolved – No. Juvie learned some language other than English as his main language, but was multilingual as a child, including at least some English before adulthood. post 462.

 

[juvenissun]

Trying to get us back to the dating topic of this thread, How about looking at #3, which references the data on post #10, showing that C-14 and a bunch of other methods give consistent dates when the same sample is tested by multiple methods? Juvie, we went around with word games and such for at least posts 10 through 85, and more recently.

Can you offer any rational reason beyond the Juvie time warp that explains why all these methods give dates consistent with each other?

Papias

In theory, it is very simple. Radiometric decay obeys one basic physics law (which I do not understand). So theoretically, dates given by different dating methods should be consistent.

 

[Orogeny]

A very good answer, Juvenissun. Here is the wikipedia article on radiometric dating, which does a very good job of explaining how radioactive decay works, as well as explaining the various dating techniques: Radiometric dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Papias]

Juvie wrote:

In theory, it is very simple. Radiometric decay obeys one basic physics law (which I do not understand). So theoretically, dates given by different dating methods should be consistent.

First, if you bothered to look at the data posted nearly 500 posts ago, you'd know that much of the data there that agrees with the radioactive data is from NON-RADIOACTIVE methods, like dendrochronology, varves, and others. We see this time and time again, where the radioactive methods are confirmed by methods that are non-radioactive, like obsidian hydration, amino racemization, and others, including historical records for the more recent events.

Second, the radioactive methods are different, some being based on atmospheric CO2, some other other situations, so it is not valid to assume that the fact a method is radioactive suggests that it should track together. Even if the phases used are the same, why would you say they would scale together, especially since you claim to not understand it anyway? This is starting to sound like all too common creationist line "I don't understand this science stuff, but I'll still say that all dose expirts iz wrong, and I'm right."

Third, let me get this straight - the person who claimed to be a geology professor, who claimed to have studied geology for 30 years, who claims to be a geochronologist, says he doesn't understand radioactive dating?

Wow.


Papias

 

[Orogeny]

Hey now papias, don't knock progress. He's not all the way there, but at least he's admitted that radiometric dating is theoretically valid. It's only a small step from there to realizing that they are valid in practice as well.

 

[berachah]

The earth is about 6000 years old, give or take a few years. Any young earth (Bible) believer can find all the scientific support they need from www.icr.org including how carbon dating proves the earth cannot be millions (never mind billions) of years old. Here's one for starters........
Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages