Circular Reasoning

[sfs]

3 words, the big bang.
even you must admit the physical constants of black holes are different from surrounding space.

There is nothing in established physics that would make the physical constants of black holes different from those of surrounding space. There's a reason they're called "constants".

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Justatruthseeker, for some reason when I hit the quote button on your post it comes up blank. I have no idea why this happens unless there is some function I'm not aware of that allows one to prevent another from quoting them. Nevertheless, I will respond to your post (#3) in general.

It is true that fossils cannot be dated directly, with the exceptions of those with chitinous shells, which also has specific limitations. However, that is why the age of fossils is given a relative age, not an absolute age as is done with rocks of igneous origin.

And as you correctly mentioned, sedimentary rock in which the fossils are contained cannot be dated directly. That is why a relative age is given to fossils. But first, lets define the difference between absolute and relative age.

Absolute age is the age of a rock or substance where an absolute age can be determined usually by radiometric means, but there are also some non-radiometric dating methods as well that yield absolute ages. It is also important to keep in mind that with absolute ages that they are reported with a margin of error statistically determined from the test results. Thus plus/minus so many years.

With relative ages, as you also covered, sedimentary strata is dated by igneous rock within those layers. Thus the age of any specific sedimentary layer is determined to be within an upper and lower limit, therefore, it is called a relative age.

Now, one thing you mention was Fermi's beta decay (1933) as being a problem, especially with radiocarbon dating. Indeed it is not. Fermi only described the process of beta decay. The fact is beta decay happens and it is directly measurable. In radiocarbon dating there are two main processes. One is to count beta particles in a sample which measures 14C activity and requires a significant size sample. The other, which is employed today at a much greater extent is Accelerator Mass Sepectromety (AMS), which doesn't count beta particles, rather it measures the ratio between 14C, 13C and 12C.

Moving on, finding igneous material to date in sedimentary strata is not difficult to utilize today as it was in the earlier days of radiometric dating. With improved instrumentation and new techniques continuously growing, samples with took much material to be processed can now be only a few milligrams. Thus, particles of volcanic ash deposited by volcanic eruptions of only a few milligrams can now be dated, and there are few places on earth where such particles are not found is sedimentary strata.

As for a fossil being used to data strata this is where the term "index" fossil is applied. Fossils which are only found in specific types of strata which has been previously radiometrically dated (the strata that is) only exist in that strata of that age, therefore their age is a relative value or "relative age" of that strata or range of strata in which they may overlap.

Yah, that's what it did to me - hit the back button and it showed up, but created a double post. So if it shows up blank you just need to hit the back button on your browser.

You mean relative ages when we have found soft tissue which was before it was found declared to be an impossibility on those 95 million year old claimed fossils???? They never bothered to even look, so sure it was impossible - now suddenly the math is again ignored - because it didn't match reality. But have they bothered to rethink their ages based upon the new evidence? Of course not.

And the electroweak theory was updated when it was found to violate parity, radiocarbon dating never was and never has been. We both know this, so why do you insist on ignoring the facts once again just to keep your beliefs from being shattered?

And excuse me if I have no "faith" in the classification of fossils never once observed in life. Especially when it is being shown that 2 out of every 3 were incorrectly classified. And this in just the 12 major ones of North America.

Jack Horner: Where are the baby dinosaurs? | Talk Video | TED.com

Are you going to now make the claim every other one was classified correctly???

All those you have classified as transitory I expect if you ever actually cut the bones in half will be found to be babies - and therefore another incorrect classification. But have they bothered to rethink their evolutionary tree lines? Of course not.

They will as always talk of revision - while continuing on as if nothing has happened. In the end nothing will get revised and the same old beliefs already falsified will continue, and claimed to be fact.

I mean come on - 2 out of every 3 wrong and they have the gall to use the word fact when talking about fossil classifications?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

3 words, the big bang.
even you must admit the physical constants of black holes are different from surrounding space.

they are still assumptions, they are not facts, i don't care how "reasonable" they are.

it's reasonable to assume that if i buy a liter of scotch and start drinking it, i'm gonna get snot nosed.
it might be a good guess, but that's all it is, a reasonable guess.

They are nothing but mathematical artifacts from "missing" science.

Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Many theories in physics have mathematical singularities of one kind or another. Equations for these physical theories predict that the ball of mass of some quantity becomes infinite or increases without limit. This is generally a sign for a missing piece in the theory"

The missing piece is they want to treat plasma in space like neutral matter - when no plasma physicist does so in any laboratory.

https://youtu.be/kanYuBptuZ0?t=144

On earth or in space.

What they won't tell you is that no known solution to Einstein's field equations exist for two such masses existing in the same universe - yet proclaim them in the billions. What they won't tell you is that the equation Ric=0 demands that no other matter exists in the universe when discussing black holes.

 

[lasthero]

You mean relative ages when we have found soft tissue which was before it was found declared to be an impossibility on those 95 million year old claimed fossils????

Who declared it was impossible?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Who declared it was impossible?

Your own textbooks.

Yes, they were shocked because they believed it possible. Yes, no one had ever bothered to look because it was believed to be possible. Is that the best you got???? Or is it you just have no idea what your theory actually says?

Only by accident - because no one ever bothered to look, because it was impossible.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

"The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils."

The most likely reason it was found is that your dating methods are just pure error. They claim strata takes millions of years - yet every ruin over a 1,000 years old is buried - most up to 10 feet below the surface. In a thousand years - not millions.

So much so the good ole boys club was ready to kick her out of the club because they were sure she was in error. So sure were they of the impossibility she was scared to even bring up her findings.

They'd already fired someone for finding it before.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

Only difference is she wasn't willing to confront the age issue, but was willing to go along with the farce - and so was allowed to stay.

 

[lasthero]

Your own textbooks.

Yes, they were shocked because they believed it possible. Yes, no one had ever bothered to look because it was believed to be possible. Is that the best you got???? Or is it you just have no idea what your theory actually says?

Only by accident - because no one ever bothered to look, because it was impossible.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

"The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils."

Why did you cut off there? Finish the paragraph.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Your own textbooks.

Yes, they were shocked because they believed it possible. Yes, no one had ever bothered to look because it was believed to be possible. Is that the best you got???? Or is it you just have no idea what your theory actually says?

Only by accident - because no one ever bothered to look, because it was impossible.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

"The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils."

Why did you cut off there? Finish the paragraph.

What your claims that after believing it was impossible you now make other claims? The test of a theory is it's ability to predict. Your predictions were all incorrect. So I am to believe this new prediction because?????

They can make all the "claims" they want - but they won't be any more correct than the originals. if they really believed what they now claim, then why wasn't that part of the original predictions????

It's always the same - they make claims - the claims are falsified - then make new claims which suddenly turn into facts - instead of the "claims" that they really are. They don't believe their ad-hoc fix to cover up their errors any more than you or I do.

You can't even find soft tissue preserved on anything over a few thousand years old. But if you think you can prove it, then show me soft tissue from something over 5,000 years old but less than 10,000 - not preserved in ice or by humans????? I mean surely the same process would preserve soft tissue on newer bones undergoing fossilization? That process has never been observed to preserve anything - but suddenly its the answer to your prayers isn't it.

I mean come on - is that the best you got too?

 

[lasthero]

They'd already fired someone for finding it before.

Lawsuit: CSUN Scientist Fired After Soft Tissue Found On Dinosaur Fossil « CBS Los Angeles

Only difference is she wasn't willing to confront the age issue, but was willing to go along with the farce - and so was allowed to stay.

You are aware that Schweitzer made her find long before the incident in the article you're showing, right?

 

[lasthero]

What your claims that after believing it was impossible you now make other claims? The test of a theory is it's ability to predict. Your predictions were all incorrect. So I am to believe this new prediction because?????

They can make all the "claims" they want - but they won't be any more correct than the originals. if they really believed what they now claim, then why wasn't that part of the original predictions????

It's always the same - they make claims - the claims are falsified - then make new claims which suddenly turn into facts - instead of the "claims" that they really are. They don't believe their ad-hoc fix to cover up their errors any more than you or I do.

No one ever predicted that soft tissue could never survive under any circumstances whatsoever. There's a difference between not brig aware of any circumstances in which it would be and saying it can't happen at all.

But go on. Find a scientist who declared it was completely impossible under ANY circumstances for soft tissue to be preserved.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No one ever predicted that soft tissue could never survive under any circumstances whatsoever. There's a difference between not brig aware of any circumstances in which it would be and saying it can't happen at all.

But go on. Find a scientist who declared it was completely impossible under ANY circumstances for soft tissue to be preserved.

you haven't shown me where that process is even a viable one. If it's viable, then why are not new fossils also subject to this same process? Surely if it was viable it would have been discovered on new bones as a viable process? Ahh, just made up on the spot, right?

 

[lasthero]

you haven't shown me where that process is even a viable one. If it's viable, then why are not new fossils also subject to this same process? Surely if it was viable it would have been discovered on new bones as a viable process? Ahh, just made up on the spot, right?

How do you know they're not subject to such process? And why arent creationist scientists constantly finding soft tissue in fossils?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Or does this preservation by iron only occur after something has sat in the ground for missions of years????? It sure has never been observed in real life on any bones at all.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How do you know they're not subject to such process? And why arent creationist scientists constantly finding soft tissue in fossils?

Soft tissues have been found by the hundreds now. As a matter of fact on every single bone she tested and by many other scientists since it suddenly was shown to be there. Don't try those strawmen arguments please.

Because no one has ever discovered soft tissue on bones undergoing fossilization from this process claimed to be the reason.

 

[lasthero]

Soft tissues have been found by the hundreds now.

Hundreds? Do you have a list?

As a matter of fact on every single bone she tested and by many other scientists since it suddenly was shown to be there.

You're grossly overstating your case.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You're grossly overstating your case.

You are grossly ignoring the evidence. But then you've never bothered to do even a cursory Google search on the subject, have you. Because you'd rather just make claims instead of accept the facts.

 

[lasthero]

You are grossly ignoring the evidence. But then you've never bothered to do even a cursory Google search on the subject, have you. Because you'd rather just make claims instead of accept the facts.

If it's so easy to find, you shouldn't have much difficulty supporting your argument. Where are the HUNDREDS of domosaur bones with soft tissue?

And how come it's always dinosaurs? How come it's never anything else that's fossilized?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But ignore the rest of the evidence - because you can't handle it.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

 

[lasthero]

But ignore the rest of the evidence - because you can't handle it.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

I'll tell you what, just - let's not hijack Ricks's topic anymore. Start up your own topic, and we can discuss your pet peeves there.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'll tell you what, just - let's not hijack Ricks's topic anymore. Start up your own topic, and we can discuss your pet peeves there.

Wouldn't matter - we'd still have to put up with your circular reasoning - which is what we are really discussing. Facts don't fit theory - well round and round we go - ignoring the facts. 2 of every 3 fossils shown to be incorrectly classified - rely on those same incorrect classifications anyways in the next post. And round and round we go all over again. Soft tissue doesn't fit what was claimed - why make new claims - and round and round we go.

It's all circular - because you will never accept the science - just the PR.

 

[lasthero]

Wouldn't matter - we'd still have to put up with your circular reasoning - which is what we are really discussing.

The topic is about dating techniques. Youre trying to make it a it your usual pet topics, the same way you always do.