Methods Of Dating Rock & Fossils

[dad]

Your tennis ball model on rock decay...right, because you're not confused at all, lol.

You say something, contradict yourself, deny it, then deny you've denied it, then claim you didn't say it or deny it, then get muddled and forget what you claim you have or haven't said, then decide to change the subject before suddenly losing interest in trying to untangle yourself from the mess you've got yourself into and just just say "anyway, I win".

Tennis ball model...lol.

So no comments on decay as per topic from you. OK.

 

[dad]

Hey! I was actually giving you a compliment.

Great. Keep up the good work.

You have been given plenty of evidence by myself and others.

No, none ever. I see denial, and a defeated position of faith.

The problem is you keep ignoring it. You know, when you ask for evidence of something and you are given it; the proper thing to do is discuss it, ask questions, acknowledge your agreements and question what you disagree with by presenting "your" evidence.

About the only thing I can think of worth discussing is the light coming in and how man sees it. On that, you have spammed links, and talked down to us, and shown an inability to comprehend the basics. Maybe you can do better? We are here for you.

I have exposed how decay dating is same state religion. I have discussed why.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, I have been away for a few days, and it seems I didn't miss much. Still no actual evidence from dad. Nothing apart from his usual unsupported claims.

Start singing a new song, dad. This one's getting boring.

 

[RickG]

About the only thing I can think of worth discussing is the light coming in and how man sees it.

Look dad, it is more than obvious that you are unfamiliar with even the basic concepts of spectroscopy. There is nothing wrong with that, most people have never been exposed to it, even though the results from their medical exams are dependent upon it.

On that, you have spammed links, and talked down to us, and shown an inability to comprehend the basics. Maybe you can do better? We are here for you.

I have discussed information pertaining to spectroscopy in my own words and provided links to published research relative to what I have discussed so you may see and understand that what I am saying is supported by the scientific community. That is the way science should be discussed. Suggesting that that is "talking down" or "you can do better" is unnecessary and counter productive to any conversation.

 

[RickG]

I have exposed how decay dating is same state religion. I have discussed why.

Sir, all you have done is post demeaning and derogatory comments toward any science discussion presented to you by anyone. You bring nothing to the CF science forums but admonishment and disrespect with absolutely no intent upon engaging in any honest discussion or trying to understand anything that is presented to you.

 

[Elendur]

Sir, all you have done is post demeaning and derogatory comments toward any science discussion presented to you by anyone. You bring nothing to the CF science forums but admonishment and disrespect with absolutely no intent upon engaging in any honest discussion or trying to understand anything that is presented to you.

I second that.

 

[Zaius137]

Sir, all you have done is post demeaning and derogatory comments toward any science discussion presented to you by anyone. You bring nothing to the CF science forums but admonishment and disrespect with absolutely no intent upon engaging in any honest discussion or trying to understand anything that is presented to you.

Now Rick….

I see a great deal of denial from your quarter also. I have demonstrated very sound scientific evidence against your positions on radioactive decay stability and ice cores (your pet child). You may ride your high horse in an unworthy fashion when you claim science is on your side.

 

[RickG]

Now Rick….

I see a great deal of denial from your quarter also. I have demonstrated very sound scientific evidence against your positions on radioactive decay stability and ice cores (your pet child). You may ride your high horse in an unworthy fashion when you claim science is on your side.

Oh come on Zaius, if you are referring to the "Young Earth Creationist Dynamics" thread in the Creation & Evolution forums, you know that is not true.

Your whole argument for decay rates was based on a news article where a short-lived half-life isotope that exhibits beta decay varied slightly, and I do mean slightly. Your whole argument was that rates changed. Rates did not change, only an oscillation was observed. Suggesting that that is proof of changes in decay rates is unfounded and absurd.

Concerning the ice core discussion, we couldn't keep you on topic. You kept bringing up research on marine sediment cores and misrepresenting that data as ice core data. You must have parroted that confusion a dozen times or more never. The onset of continental glaciation 34 million years ago is clear in the marine sediment core proxy record. There are no multimillion year old ice core chronologies.

You call ice cores my "pet child", I agree, that is correct. It happens to be a significant part of my academic background. But what I like to discuss most with respect to ice cores is the climate data contained within those ice cores, not just your misguided idea on chronology.

 

[dad]

Sir, all you have done is post demeaning and derogatory comments toward any science discussion presented to you by anyone. You bring nothing to the CF science forums but admonishment and disrespect with absolutely no intent upon engaging in any honest discussion or trying to understand anything that is presented to you.

At least you call me sir. Meanwhile one must take light coming into earth and measured by a machine calibrated to cobalt for what it is. We also might ask what the dust does or not. We also might ask what the time delays mean...example hundreds of days before we see something... We also might ask if what we do see must mean decay or not. Whatever the answers, I am ready to adapt and prevail. Really. I will not allow God's word to be gutted and sullied. That OK with you sir?

 

[dad]

I second that.

Overruled.

 

[dad]

Well, I have been away for a few days, and it seems I didn't miss much. Still no actual evidence from dad. Nothing apart from his usual unsupported claims.

Start singing a new song, dad. This one's getting boring.

How anything gets for the other side is their problem. The air is fine up here.

 

[dad]

Look dad, it is more than obvious that you are unfamiliar with even the basic concepts of spectroscopy.

Whatever I do know we all can be sure did not come from you. You are not clear. Nor deep.

There is nothing wrong with that, most people have never been exposed to it, even though the results from their medical exams are dependent upon it.

The issue is the dust, and the fishbowl where se see the light, and the machines, and what it all means. Getting familiar with the evo belief system imposed on the universe is a non issue actually.

I have discussed information pertaining to spectroscopy in my own words and provided links to published research relative to what I have discussed so you may see and understand that what I am saying is supported by the scientific community.

False. Where?

That is the way science should be discussed. Suggesting that that is "talking down" or "you can do better" is unnecessary and counter productive to any conversation.

It is what it is. You really have not impressed me at all and I find your lack of substance artificial.

 

[Elendur]

False. Where?

This is a perfect example of your inconsistence.

You first reject that he's done it.

Then you ask where he's done it.

 

[dad]

This is a perfect example of your inconsistence.

You first reject that he's done it.

Then you ask where he's done it.

False. It wasn't done. Maybe you should read it this way....'where do you claim it was done?'

 

[Elendur]

False. It wasn't done. Maybe you should read it this way....'where do you claim it was done?'

If you mean that, write that. Tidy up your language.

 

[dad]

If you mean that, write that. Tidy up your language.

Here is the plain text version....If you claim you evidenced the same state past show us where.

 

[Elendur]

Here is the plain text version....If you claim you evidenced the same state past show us where.

Finally a post with good structure, now we just have to wait for RickG to log on and read it.

 

[dad]

Finally a post with good structure, now we just have to wait for RickG to log on and read it.

Like the guy who said me and my brother know everything? I ask you to show where a same state past was evidenced, and you say 'I don't know, that is something your brother knows'. OK.

 

[Elendur]

Like the guy who said me and my brother know everything? I ask you to show where a same state past was evidenced, and you say 'I don't know, that is something your brother knows'. OK.

Wait, you expect me to answer a question directed to someone else?

Alright:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7639776-44/#post60140831

 

[RickG]

At least you call me sir. Meanwhile one must take light coming into earth and measured by a machine calibrated to cobalt for what it is.

The entire electromagnetic spectrum is light whether visible or not. The part being measured is in the gamma ray spectrum which is not visible to our eyes, by is easily measured with instruments. Instruments can measured specific wave lengths or a full scan of wave lengths. Each chemical element is identifiable by its unique absorption at specific wave lengths. The only thing is that is calibrated is the base line which zero's the instrument so the amount of each specific isotope can be quantified. There is nothing mysterious about it.

We also might ask what the dust does or not.

Dust has absolutely nothing to do with the measurement of gamma rays. They are either their or not. The fact that they are measured is indeed a fact that they are there.

We also might ask what the time delays mean...example hundreds of days before we see something... We also might ask if what we do see must mean decay or not.

The time delay is nothing more than a sequent of events. Simply put, gamma rays are not produced at the initiation of a supernovae, rather a short period there after.

As to whether decay is seen, the production of gamma rays are a result of radioactive decay. No decay, no gamma rays.

Whatever the answers, I am ready to adapt and prevail.

This has nothing to do with anyone prevailing, it is what it is. Neither of us can change that.