10 Scientific Facts Evolution is Wrong

[Loudmouth]

That's your arena -- not mine.

Then I will take it over, and you must live with the results.

Embedded age would not add any Pb to zircons since they function just fine without them.

Therefore, if we find billions of years worth of Pb in zircons and meausured by the decay of U, then embedded age is false.

We find billions of years worth of Pb in zircons.

Embedded age is falsified.

 

[RickG]

Embedded age is nothing more than maturity without history.

Which doesn't work in the real world. How does one embed fractionation of stable isotope deltas?

 

[AV1611VET]

Your problem is ...

No, that's your problem.

I'm not tied down by science ... remember?

 

[bhsmte]

No, that's your problem.

I'm not tied down by science ... remember?

Nothing make believe is AV.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then I will take it over, and you must live with the results.

LOL -- I don't think so, chief.

Embedded age would not add any Pb to zircons since they function just fine without them.

Embedded age doesn't add lead to anything.

God does the adding.

It's called embedded age creation ... remember?

Therefore, if we find billions of years worth of Pb in zircons and meausured by the decay of U, then embedded age is false.

What, pray tell, is "billions of years worth of lead"?

Is that like saying I have a gallon of marbles?

We find billions of years worth of Pb in zircons.

I'm sure you do.

I'll bet you could "find" sixty feet of absolute zero, if you really wanted to.

Embedded age is falsified.

Was it ever worth falsifying in the first place to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Which doesn't work in the real world.

It did for a week; and that's all that was needed.

How does one embed fractionation of stable isotope deltas?

With a fractionator?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nothing make believe is AV.

What?

 

[Loudmouth]

LOL -- I don't think so, chief.

Yes, I do think so. You already gave permission.

"That's your arena -- not mine."--AV

Embedded age doesn't add lead to anything.

Then we should not find a single zircon that dates to billions of years, and yet we do.

God does the adding.

It's called embedded age creation ... remember?

Then you have God planting fossils, again. There are zircons that sit above fossils, and they are millions of years old. If those zircons are part of embedded age creation, then so too are the fossils.

What, pray tell, is "billions of years worth of lead"?

The amount of Pb produced by billions of years of U decaying in the zircon.

Was it ever worth falsifying in the first place to you?

Do you even care if it is false?

 

[RickG]

With a fractionator?

And the fractionator is the reason your age without history doesn't work. The fractionation of stable isotopes is "history". It provides a history of climate and temperature throughout deep time.

Your maturity without history myth is BUSTED!

 

[AV1611VET]

Then we should not find a single zircon that dates to billions of years, and yet we do.

Any zircon and lead you find didn't exist more than 6000 years ago.

Just out of curiosity, if zircon + lead leads you to believe it is billions of years old, what do zircon + aluminum lead you to believe?

All seriousness aside though, let me get this straight.

If God put lead into zircon (or zircon into lead) in 4004 BC, you scientists assume it was all zircon at one time, then decayed to lead over a period of billions of years.

Is that correct?

 

[Split Rock]

Was it ever worth falsifying in the first place to you?

Yes, because embedded age creationism actually makes testable predictions, even if you like pretending otherwise. Those predictions, that nothing made 6,100 years ago has any history older than 6,100, have been found to be incorrect. The earth has a clear history far older than 6,100 years. Therefore, embedded age is falsified. You just don't want to give up on it, because you think it explains the dating results we get so well within a YEC timeframe. Creationists are rarely ever prepared for the falsification of their pet "theories."

 

[AV1611VET]

And the fractionator is the reason your age without history doesn't work. The fractionation of stable isotopes is "history".

And guess what?

Embedded age is maturity without history.

So you'll have to come up with something other than the word history, if you want to retroactively apply this to the Creation week.

As soon as you employ the word "history," your argument becomes invalid.

 

[AirPo]

And guess what?

Embedded age is maturity without history.

So you'll have to come up with something other than the word history, if you want to retroactively apply this to the Creation week.

As soon as you employ the word "history," your argument becomes invalid.

 

[AV1611VET]

Let me show you where you're tripping yourself up:

that nothing made 6,100 years ago has any history older than 6,100

Anything made 6100 years ago has any history older than 0.

 

[Loudmouth]

Any zircon and lead you find didn't exist more than 6000 years ago.

Based on what evidence?

Just out of curiosity, if zircon + lead leads you to believe it is billions of years old, what do zircon + aluminum lead you to believe?

Aluminum isn't an element in the U decay chain. I don't even know if aluminum is the right size and charge to be included in the zircon like U is.

If God put lead into zircon (or zircon into lead) in 4004 BC, you scientists assume it was all zircon at one time, then decayed to lead over a period of billions of years.

We OBSERVE that zircon formation excludes Pb and includes U if present. We observe that the half life of U is millions of years. We OBSERVE that some zircons do indeed have Pb in them, even though zircons can not form with Pb in them. This means that the Pb present in zircons is due to the decay of U, and we can find out how long the zircon formed by measuring the amount of U and Pb.

If you are going to claim that God just inserted Pb into zircons for apparaently no reason at the creation week, then you need to explain why this would be required. Zircons with Pb function the same as zircons with no Pb.

Also, rocks used for radiometric dating are from igneous layers that are above fossils. Once again, you have God planting fossils in the ground as a part of the creation event.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me show you where you're tripping yourself up:

Anything made 6100 years ago has any history older than 0.

Then why do we find millions of years of fossils and radioactive decay in rocks?

 

[Loudmouth]

And guess what?

Embedded age is maturity without history.[/qu]

Your claims about embedded age require God to plant a fake fossil history in the ground. You are wrong.

 

[RickG]

And guess what?

Embedded age is maturity without history.

So you'll have to come up with something other than the word history, if you want to retroactively apply this to the Creation week.

As soon as you employ the word "history," your argument becomes invalid.

What part of CLIMATE HISTORY did you not understand. We can go back thousands, millions, and even billions of years of climate history based on the geochemical ratios of "stable" isotopes. That is age "with history".

 

[AV1611VET]

We OBSERVE that zircon formation excludes Pb and includes U if present. We observe that the half life of U is millions of years. We OBSERVE that some zircons do indeed have Pb in them, even though zircons can not form with Pb in them. This means that the Pb present in zircons is due to the decay of U, and we can find out how long the zircon formed by measuring the amount of U and Pb.

Is this technobabble a YES or a NO, please?

I thought my question was quite simple.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then why do we find millions of years of fossils and radioactive decay in rocks?

You assume millions of years, based on the formula: zircon + lead + deep time = zircon.

Please tell me what zircon + lead + zero time equal -- in your opinion.