A short explaination of the human-nature

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nah, I'm done.

 

[Bradskii]

See my last post to @Warden_of_the_Storm about the simultaneity of the deaths. It took 150 days to kill off the land animals.

What? Just...what? So when I say 'then they must have all died at the same time', your response is 'Well, actually - there could have been a couple of weeks difference'.

This is a waste of my time, isn't it.

 

[Derf]

What? Just...what? So when I say 'then they must have all died at the same time', your response is 'Well, actually - there could have been a couple of weeks difference'.

This is a waste of my time, isn't it.

Months, maybe. Buried sequentially based on locale. So the dinosaurs seem to have died or at least have been buried prior to most mammals and man.

 

[Bradskii]

Months, maybe. Buried sequentially based on locale. So the dinosaurs seem to have died or at least have been buried prior to most mammals and man.

Months? You have no idea what you are talking about...

Dating on the time scales you mentioned are accurate to a few decades, not a few days. But to say that one age is measured at 2560 years old and another at 2590 is to say that they died at the same time. Not millions of years apart.

And you know what the evidence shows.

 

[Estrid]

What? Just...what? So when I say 'then they must have all died at the same time', your response is 'Well, actually - there could have been a couple of weeks difference'.

This is a waste of my time, isn't it.

I had way less patience

 

[Derf]

Months? You have no idea what you are talking about...

Dating on the time scales you mentioned are accurate to a few decades, not a few days. But to say that one age is measured at 2560 years old and another at 2590 is to say that they died at the same time. Not millions of years apart.

And you know what the evidence shows.

I know that the evidence for multiple dating techniques to give concordant results is severely lacking. Some of them actually DO give results millions of years apart...on the same sample. Some of them have to be supplemented with non-radiometric techniques because they don't seem to work for some geological layers. Sometimes freshly generated volcanic rock dates to millions of years old. And diamonds and coal have been found to have measurable C14 in them, more than can be accounted for by calibration errors or contamination, which would give dates less than 100,000 years. These factors make for reasons to question radiometric dating accuracy. From what I've heard, scientists usually get several ranges of dates when they submit a sample for analysis, and they get to pick the ones they like best, tossing out the "aberrant" ones.

 

[Bradskii]

I know that the evidence for multiple dating techniques to give concordant results is severely lacking. Some of them actually DO give results millions of years apart...on the same sample.

We're talkin a few thousand years old. The errors for carbon dating might be a decade or two out. So all biological material would date within a few years of each other. There'd be no need to use 'multiple dating techniques.' Just the one. And it would give the same answer. For everything.

And you know that isn't the case. You know that as a fact.

 

[Derf]

We're talkin a few thousand years old. The errors for carbon dating might be a decade or two out. So all biological material would date within a few years of each other. There'd be no need to use 'multiple dating techniques.' Just the one. And it would give the same answer. For everything.

And you know that isn't the case. You know that as a fact.

How many dinosaur bones have been carbon dated? One Christian ministry offered to pay $10000 to a well-known paleontologist to carbon-date his dinosaur finds. He wouldn't do it. He was afraid it would show something that didn't fit his paradigm.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know that the evidence for multiple dating techniques to give concordant results is severely lacking. Some of them actually DO give results millions of years apart...on the same sample. Some of them have to be supplemented with non-radiometric techniques because they don't seem to work for some geological layers. Sometimes freshly generated volcanic rock dates to millions of years old. And diamonds and coal have been found to have measurable C14 in them, more than can be accounted for by calibration errors or contamination, which would give dates less than 100,000 years. These factors make for reasons to question radiometric dating accuracy. From what I've heard, scientists usually get several ranges of dates when they submit a sample for analysis, and they get to pick the ones they like best, tossing out the "aberrant" ones.

And I need to know "from where you've heard." That's the main problem here. You DO HAVE TO DOCUMENT YOUR SOURCES!!!!

It's not good enough to simply spout what it is you think "makes the most sense" based upon alternative interpretations of various geological data or evidences.

Or, no no one has to listen to take you seriously on a scientific level. It's as simple as that. No one just has to take your brief word for any of it or take the all too often rebuttal of : Go do the homework!!

 

[Bradskii]

How many dinosaur bones have been carbon dated? One Christian ministry offered to pay $10000 to a well-known paleontologist to carbon-date his dinosaur finds. He wouldn't do it. He was afraid it would show something that didn't fit his paradigm.

You keep showing you are sadly lacking in basic science. Carbon dating is useless for dinosaur fossils. But all dinosaur bones could be. As there'd be millions of them available to you in your scenario. And they would be exactly the same age as all other animals, including human.

They are not. So what do you conclude from that? Where do you go from here?

 

[Derf]

You keep showing you are sadly lacking in basic science. Carbon dating is useless for dinosaur fossils.

Why do you say that?

But all dinosaur bones could be. As there'd be millions of them available to you in your scenario. And they would be exactly the same age as all other animals, including human.

They are not. So what do you conclude from that? Where do you go from here?

Assuming that the dating techniques could be relied upon for such short ages, which most can't., as I've already pointed out.

Where do I go from here? If radiometric dating is unreliable for short time frames (giving millions of years of age in cases where the ages are known to be less than one or two hundred, as an example), then the next thing to attempt would be to use the shorter time frame dating techniques, such as carbon14. You say it's useless, but why would one think it is useless? Isn't it because of the assumption of long ages? So there's a prediction from your side...that no measurable C14 would be detectable in dinosaur bones, right?

 

[Bradskii]

So there's a prediction from your side...that no measurable C14 would be detectable in dinosaur bones, right?

No, it's YOUR prediction that ALL bones from ALL creatures, including humans, from EVERYWHERE across the planet would have EXACTLY the same age whatever means you used to measure them.

That isn't the case, as you well know.

 

[Estrid]

We're talkin a few thousand years old. The errors for carbon dating might be a decade or two out. So all biological material would date within a few years of each other. There'd be no need to use 'multiple dating techniques.' Just the one. And it would give the same answer. For everything.

And you know that isn't the case. You know that as a fact.

Next, the attack on carbon dating then on all
methods of dating.

Then too floodies have so many weird n wacky
notions about the physical nature is said flood,
that unless you have a detailed account of what they
think happened, it's hard to show it didnt.

Everything from hydroplate to just a valley in the
middle east. Collapse of water canopy, flash frozen
mammoths....

No, it's YOUR prediction that ALL bones from ALL creatures, including humans, from EVERYWHERE across the planet would have EXACTLY the same age whatever means you used to measure them.

That isn't the case, as you well know.

There are lots of places a person can get
dinosaur bones. A ranch house in wyoming
State where I stayed used one for a doorstop.

I've seen lots of fossils incl dinosaur scattered all over er the ground.

A C14 test would cost less than a thousand.

Your friend there could get some chunks of
Dino bone off ebay.

Test away.

 

[Derf]

And I need to know "from where you've heard." That's the main problem here. You DO HAVE TO DOCUMENT YOUR SOURCES!!!!

It's not good enough to simply spout what it is you think "makes the most sense" based upon alternative interpretations of various geological data or evidences.

Of course. But it starts with that. Isn't that what Charles Darwin did...presented his "story" to explain what he thought he was seeing in his investigations? And then proofs or disproofs come. Evolution's "proofs" were wimpy, at best, and disproofs are piling up.

Or, no no one has to listen to take you seriously on a scientific level. It's as simple as that. No one just has to take your brief word for any of it or take the all too often rebuttal of : Go do the homework!!

Institute of Creation's RATE study confirmed
1. That measurable amounts of C14 was present in diamonds and coal (more than just background levels)
2. That large amounts of radioactivity occurred (no reference as both sides agree with this point)
3. That diffusion of the radioactivity byproducts (e.g. helium nuclei) was too slow for the radioactivity to have occurred over millions of years
4. That different long-age dating techniques give discordant results

Here's a link where you can go view their results: The RATE Project. I bought the technical books back when they first came out, but I lost my copies in a fire. Unfortunately, you have to review piecemeal articles (they're free). I don't know if the books are still for sale.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course. But it starts with that. Isn't that what Charles Darwin did...presented his "story" to explain what he thought he was seeing in his investigations? And then proofs or disproofs come. Evolution's "proofs" were wimpy, at best, and disproofs are piling up.

Institute of Creation's RATE study confirmed
1. That measurable amounts of C14 was present in diamonds and coal (more than just background levels)
2. That large amounts of radioactivity occurred (no reference as both sides agree with this point)
3. That diffusion of the radioactivity byproducts (e.g. helium nuclei) was too slow for the radioactivity to have occurred over millions of years
4. That different long-age dating techniques give discordant results

Here's a link where you can go view their results: The RATE Project. I bought the technical books back when they first came out, but I lost my copies in a fire. Unfortunately, you have to review piecemeal articles (they're free). I don't know if the books are still for sale.

Yeah, I'm familiar with this sort of argumentation already, and I have been since about 1988-89 (... i.e. the year I went to Bible college and one of the classes I took was on Gary Parker's and Henry M. Morris' "Creation Science." But I've learned some other things since then.)

Thanks for citing your sources. At least that part I can commend.

 

[Derf]

No, it's YOUR prediction that ALL bones from ALL creatures, including humans, from EVERYWHERE across the planet would have EXACTLY the same age whatever means you used to measure them.

That isn't the case, as you well know.

That wasn't my prediction. That was yours, based on a caricature of my view, which I've attempted to correct. What I've pointed out, and you've agreed with, is that long-age dating techniques don't work on things that are too young. One of the ways they "don't work" is that they give much older dates than expectations, so the dates have to be selected. Here's a couple of examples:

The pigs took it all

A popular myth is that radioactive methods confirm the geological time-scale and the concept of human evolution. The methods appear so impressive that many Christians accept them as evidence that the earth is very old. The best way to expose this myth is here.

creation.com

"Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks

For more than three decades potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks has been crucial in underpinning the billions of years for Earth history claimed by evolutionists. Critical to these dating methods is the assumption that there was no radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in the rocks...

www.icr.org

 

[Derf]

Next, the attack on carbon dating then on all
methods of dating.

Then too floodies have so many weird n wacky
notions about the physical nature is said flood,
that unless you have a detailed account of what they
think happened, it's hard to show it didnt.

Everything from hydroplate to just a valley in the
middle east. Collapse of water canopy, flash frozen
mammoths....

There are lots of places a person can get
dinosaur bones. A ranch house in wyoming
State where I stayed used one for a doorstop.

I've seen lots of fossils incl dinosaur scattered all over er the ground.

A C14 test would cost less than a thousand.

Your friend there could get some chunks of
Dino bone off ebay.

Test away.

It's already been done:

https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p095/c09580/9580-carbon-test.jpg

(From this article: flood-fossils-book)

 

[Bradskii]

That wasn't my prediction. That was yours, based on a caricature of my view, which I've attempted to correct. What I've pointed out, and you've agreed with, is that long-age dating techniques don't work on things that are too young.

No, no and no again. This IS your prediction. Or rather claim. That everything died at the same time. So you would predict that whatever ageing method was applicable would show the same date. It doesn't.

There's no point in complaining that different methods give different dates. The same method would give the same dates. Use carbon 14 as the method. It's suitable for the the time period you claimed. So ALL bones, ALL biological material would show that they all died at that time period.

That is not the case. And you know that's not the case. And you have no explanation for that. None at all.

 

[Derf]

No, no and no again. This IS your prediction. Or rather claim. That everything died at the same time. So you would predict that whatever ageing method was applicable would show the same date. It doesn't.

There's no point in complaining that different methods give different dates. The same method would give the same dates. Use carbon 14 as the method. It's suitable for the the time period you claimed. So ALL bones, ALL biological material would show that they all died at that time period.

That is not the case. And you know that's not the case. And you have no explanation for that. None at all.

I don't know that, nor do you, since most of the ones used for dinosaurs are longer age tests, while the shorter ones are not used on dinosaurs, except to give uncharacteristicly short ages. Remember that the biblical account describes a drastic change in the water cycle, introducing rainbows, which probably means rain was new at the flood. What other things might have changed? I don't know for sure, but earth's magnetic field is high on the list, maybe lessening to allow much more C14 to form. If so, then the tests aren't accurate when the dates cross the flood era. They can be used for a max, but not exact. All of our tests rely on observations of decay rates and initial mother/daughter ratios that we cannot observe in the past.

And we have evidence of widely varying dates on the same animal:
"Mammoth was carbon dated one part dated 29,500 and the other 44,000—same animal! “

Troy L Pewre, Quaternary Stratigraphic, Geological Survey Professional Papers 862 1975 p. 30

Quoted from CARBON 14 DATING INACCURATE ON MAMMOTH SKIN – Evolution is a Myth

By the way, those mammoth dates are on either side of the C14 date of the dinosaur. So while dates may vary widely enough not to be counted as precise, they may be accurately showing exactly what you say should be happening.

 

[Bradskii]

..but earth's magnetic field is high on the list, maybe lessening to allow much more C14 to form. If so, then the tests aren't accurate when the dates cross the flood era.

Abject nonsense. The point being made is that all dates would be the same. Not variable over tens of of thousands of years. But identical because everything died at the same time.

Are you seriously suggesting that the earth's magnetic field changed so much over a period of a few days that one sample would age around two thousand years and another at a few million?

I have better things that to do with my time than to respond to such blatant nonsense. Pester someone else with this scientifically illiterate fantasy.