Methods Of Dating Rock & Fossils

[Michael]

False! I accept all evidence. There is none for a same state past. Do not pretend otherwise.

Your first statement isn't congruent with the next two statements and the second one is easily demonstrated to be false. I can easily show you a human history based on historical documents like the Torah and the Bible that date back THOUSANDS of years, and the same laws of physics applied then as they do today. I also mentioned to you that there are ice core samples dating back 200,000 years, and their dating technique relies upon SEASONAL changes that would not be there had they formed all at once, just as tree rings would not form without SEASONAL variation.

Explain how a computer depends on a same state past? Bizarre.

If the laws of physics suddenly change tomorrow, would you expect that your computer would still work? Do you expect your car to start in the morning, or did you invest in that vehicle with no expectations whatsoever about whether it's going to start tomorrow, next week, etc?

 

[dad]

Your first statement isn't congruent with the next two statements and the second one is easily demonstrated to be false.

False. You have yet to do the demo.

I can easily show you a human history based on historical documents like the Torah and the Bible that date back THOUSANDS of years, and the same laws of physics applied then as they do today.

Me too. They do go back thousands of years. At least 4400 years.. I agree.

I also mentioned to you that there are ice core samples dating back 200,000 years, and their dating technique relies upon SEASONAL changes that would not be there had they formed all at once, just as tree rings would not form without SEASONAL variation.

False. The ice was formed fast. The variations do not represent seasons. (except for the last 4400 years or whatnot)

If the laws of physics suddenly change tomorrow, would you expect that your computer would still work?

I expect the laws to change soon actually. I also expect that most stuff will not work. Example: If Israel fled to the wilderness today, planes and choppers could mow them down in a heartbeat. In the future, they will not be able to. I also doubt nuclear reactions (bombs) will work!

 

[Jazer]

If the laws of physics suddenly change tomorrow, would you expect that your computer would still work? Do you expect your car to start in the morning, or did you invest in that vehicle with no expectations whatsoever about whether it's going to start tomorrow, next week, etc?

So if they drop an e bomb and the cars do not start then they will have effectively changed the laws of physics?

 

[dad]

So if they drop an e bomb and the cars do not start then they will have effectively changed the laws of physics?

E bomb?

 

[Jazer]

Me too. They do go back thousands of years. At least 4400 years.. I agree.

Something had to be different. They use to live up to 1000 years before the flood. Science can not explain that.

 

[dad]

Something had to be different. They use to live up to 1000 years before the flood. Science can not explain that.

I agree.

 

[Jazer]

E bomb?

Electronic bomb. Lots of stuff on this is you run a google search. HowStuffWorks "How E-Bombs Work"


I think during the 1000 year reign of christ they will not be able to have wars because of ebombs. Sort of like the star wars plan that President Reagan use to spend money on.

"The Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was proposed by U.S. President Ronald Reagan on March 23, 1983,[1] to use ground- and space-based systems to protect the United States from attack by strategic nuclear ballistic missiles. The initiative focused on strategic defense rather than the prior strategic offense doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD). The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) was set up in 1984 within the United States Department of Defense to oversee the Strategic Defense Initiative.

The ambitious initiative was "widely criticized as being unrealistic, even unscientific" as well as for threatening to destabilize MAD and re-ignite "an offensive arms race".[2] It was soon derided as Star Wars, after the popular 1977 film by George Lucas. In 1987, the American Physical Society concluded that a global shield such as "Star Wars" was not only impossible with existing technology, but that ten more years of research was needed to learn whether it might ever be feasible.[3]" wiki

 

[dad]

Electronic bomb. Lots of stuff on this is you run a google search. HowStuffWorks "How E-Bombs Work"

Ah...that old story. OK. I suspect that if a nuclear bomb were detonated over the US, the country that sent it would be a memory within 1/2 hour. They can track where it came from. Also, any localized difference in how laws work temporarily would not be a nature change. More of a nature tinker.

I think during the 1000 year reign of christ they will not be able to have wars because of ebombs. Sort of like the star wars plan that President Reagan use to spend money on.

Wow. So you think that the swords being beat into plows will not include nukes. OK. You think that the peace will be because of nukes. OK. Absurd.


By the way, our laws and forces are required for a nuclear reaction.

 

[RickG]

Something had to be different. They use to live up to 1000 years before the flood. Science can not explain that.

Or perhaps they counted years differently.

 

[KhaosTheory]

Something had to be different. They use to live up to 1000 years before the flood. Science can not explain that.

Is there any extra-biblical evidence for this? Like maybe some skeletons of 1000 year old people?

 

[selfinflikted]

Is there any extra-biblical evidence for this? Like maybe some skeletons of 1000 year old people?

Of course there isn't. People live longer now than they ever have.

 

[Michael]

Me too. They do go back thousands of years. At least 4400 years.. I agree.

Chauvet Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The cave is situated above the previous course of the Ardèche River before the Pont d'Arc opened up. The gorges of the Ardèche region are the site of numerous caves, many of them having some geological or archaeological importance. The Chauvet Cave is uncharacteristically large and the quality, quantity, and condition of the artwork found on its walls have been called spectacular. Based on radiocarbon dating, the cave appears to have been used by humans during two distinct periods: the Aurignacian and the Gravettian.[2] Most of the artwork dates to the earlier, Aurignacian, era (30,000 to 32,000 years ago).

Emphasis mine.

False. The ice was formed fast. The variations do not represent seasons. (except for the last 4400 years or whatnot)

Where did you even get a 4400 figure from in the first place? It certainly wasn't from the field of science related to ice core sampling. You claimed you ACCEPTED evidence, but when presented with such evidence, you simply ignore it, and insert you favorite date of choice (evidently).

I expect the laws to change soon actually.

How soon? Your lifetime? Why?

I also expect that most stuff will not work. Example: If Israel fled to the wilderness today, planes and choppers could mow them down in a heartbeat. In the future, they will not be able to. I also doubt nuclear reactions (bombs) will work!

Because.......?

 

[dad]

Chauvet Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emphasis mine.

From your own link I read this

".. the dating has been the matter of some dispute..."

Now if you want to try to support a date, good luck with that. There was a cave, people were in it...whoopee doo.

Where did you even get a 4400 figure from in the first place? It certainly wasn't from the field of science related to ice core sampling.

The bible has been studied to render dates such as Bishop Usher. One of the usual dates I see for the flood was about 4500 years ago. Looking at the clues in the book, I deduce that the nature change happened about a little more than a century after the flood. Hence the date.

You claimed you ACCEPTED evidence, but when presented with such evidence, you simply ignore it, and insert you favorite date of choice (evidently).

The belief that the present state existed in the past is NOT science. That is dream weaving. There is no evidence for the present state existing in the past to accept or reject!

How soon? Your lifetime? Why?

Because.......?

I do not expect nukes to work because...they work on present state forces and laws! When will the nature change take place? In the tribulation. Most Christians feel that the signs are really starting to indicate that we could really be close to that long awaited time of the latter days. Of course we don't know exactly when, but the Rapture could be any time now, Christians say.

 

[Michael]

From your own link I read this

".. the dating has been the matter of some dispute..."

The "some dispute" would be the range between 25,000 (at the earliest) vs. 32,000 at the latest, depending on the methods used and the materials used in the study. That's still WAY beyond the date ranges that you are talking about.

Now if you want to try to support a date, good luck with that. There was a cave, people were in it...whoopee doo.

It's your flippant treatment of physics and science in general that I have a hard time with.

The bible has been studied to render dates such as Bishop Usher. One of the usual dates I see for the flood was about 4500 years ago.

The Bible has also been studied by folks like the Popes and they don't come up with any such dates in terms of the age of the Earth or anything of the sort! What makes Usher more enlightened than the next guy in terms of "science"?

Looking at the clues in the book, I deduce that the nature change happened about a little more than a century after the flood. Hence the date.

Let me see if I can translate that statement a bit. You can't handle ANY scientific evidence from ANY branch of science, be it ice core analysis, or carbon dating, or ANY OTHER kind of evidence that might come up. Hence the date of the "change" in nature. Is that about it?

The belief that the present state existed in the past is NOT science. That is dream weaving. There is no evidence for the present state existing in the past to accept or reject!

From the perspective of science, you have that all backwards. The "present state" (of physics) as you call it has existed as far back in the past as we can look, and it will remain the same tomorrow and the next day and every day after that as far as we know.

Your EMOTIONAL need to have a specific "change" date in the past has no scientific support whatsoever. You're trying to defend an "alternate state" of physics for which you have no scientific evidence in any way, shape or form. The physics have remained the same for as long as we know. You're just "guessing" about some magic transition moment, where things suddenly and inexplicably changed for no apparent reason, other that to satisfy your personal subjective need for a YEC date, based on an entirely SUBJECTIVE interpretation of ONE BOOK!

I do not expect nukes to work because...they work on present state forces and laws! When will the nature change take place? In the tribulation. Most Christians feel that the signs are really starting to indicate that we could really be close to that long awaited time of the latter days. Of course we don't know exactly when, but the Rapture could be any time now, Christians say.

Jesus said that no one will know the time or the hour or the day when the Earth will eventually be destroyed. That could be BILLIONS of years from now for all you or I know. Why worry about it?

 

[dad]

The "some dispute" would be the range between 25,000 (at the earliest) vs. 32,000 at the latest, depending on the methods used and the materials used in the study. That's still WAY beyond the date ranges that you are talking about.

There is apparently more dispute than you thought! Care to support the dates? Show the basis? Hey face it... present state decay dating.

It's your flippant treatment of physics and science in general that I have a hard time with.

I am putting my best foot forward. Of course if I spoke freely I would be forever banned immediately.



The Bible has also been studied by folks like the Popes and they don't come up with any such dates in terms of the age of the Earth or anything of the sort! What makes Usher more enlightened than the next guy in terms of "science"?



Let me see if I can translate that statement a bit. You can't handle ANY scientific evidence from ANY branch of science, be it ice core analysis, or carbon dating, or ANY OTHER kind of evidence that might come up. Hence the date of the "change" in nature. Is that about it?



From the perspective of science, you have that all backwards. The "present state" (of physics) as you call it has existed as far back in the past as we can look, and it will remain the same tomorrow and the next day and every day after that as far as we know.

Your EMOTIONAL need to have a specific "change" date in the past has no scientific support whatsoever. You're trying to defend an "alternate state" of physics for which you have no scientific evidence in any way, shape or form. The physics have remained the same for as long as we know. You're just "guessing" about some magic transition moment, where things suddenly and inexplicably changed for no apparent reason, other that to satisfy your personal subjective need for a YEC date, based on an entirely SUBJECTIVE interpretation of ONE BOOK!



Jesus said that no one will know the time or the hour or the day when the Earth will eventually be destroyed. That could be BILLIONS of years from now for all you or I know. Why worry about it?[/quote]

 

[Michael]

There is apparently more dispute than you thought! Care to support the dates? Show the basis? Hey face it... present state decay dating.

The only dispute the website refers to the is the SCIENTIFIC part of the dispute. Your disputes have nothing to do with science, and everything to do with ABSOLUTE FAITH in your own PERSONAL interpretation of a single book that has little or nothing to do with "science".

I am putting my best foot forward. Of course if I spoke freely I would be forever banned immediately.

Ya, I know exactly how that works.

 

[RickG]

Yes I think we get that decay is assumed in sn1987a.

There is no assumption, it is directly measured with a gamma ray spectrometer.

However, have not addressed the light curve and dust. Do you realize that dust is involved, yes or no?

The dust is a remnant of the SN, it does not affect the electromagnetic spectrum, nor does the dust from SN1987A cause a visibility problem.

"Even though Supernova 1987A resides in another galaxy, there is very little dust along the line of sight between Earth and the supernova remnant, allowing researchers a clear view." (Scientific American, July 2011)

As for the light curve, it is the spectrum between 5.8 and 16.1 meV. It has nothing to light curving. Within that spectrum specific elements and compounds can be identified by exhibiting peaks of absorption at specific wavelenghts.

Science claimed a lot of stuff. Then they scrambled to cook up explanations after the fact about sn1987a.

No! You are the one cooking up stuff.

The issue here is in Supernovae. Specifically sn1987a. The light curve then, you think it exactly went as expected for the cobalt and etc?

Thanks for demonstrating that you are completely clueless about spectroscopy.

 

[dad]

The only dispute the website refers to the is the SCIENTIFIC part of the dispute.



Your disputes have nothing to do with science,

Radioactive decay in the far past have nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with ABSOLUTE FAITH. It has nothing to do with "science".


Now come on over to the winnin side...

 

[dad]

There is no assumption, it is directly measured with a gamma ray spectrometer.

And corrected for imaginary dust as needed?

The dust is a remnant the SN, it does not affect the electromagnetic spectrum, nor does the dust from SN1987A cause a visibility problem.

"Even though Supernova 1987A resides in another galaxy, there is very little dust along the line of sight between Earth and the supernova remnant, allowing researchers a clear view."[/b] (Scientific American, July 2011)

But it did delay us supposedly seeing things related to the claimed decay for considerable time...and etc...

As for the light curve, it is the spectrum between 5.8 and 16.1 meV. It has nothing to light curving. Within that spectrum specific elements and compounds can be identified by exhibiting peaks of absorption at specific wavelenghts.

And was it seen from day one and exactly fit what C56 or whatever would do..not affected by dust or anything else?


Now if you can clearly demo your claim here, it might help. If you are correct...fine. Let's have a clear look. Were your rays visible from day 1 then, doing exactly what was expected..yes or no?

 

[Michael]

Radioactive decay in the far past have nothing to do with science. It has everything to do with ABSOLUTE FAITH. It has nothing to do with "science".

The only faith that I posses is a faith in God and faith in the fact that God isn't out to 'trick' me.

Now come on over to the winnin side...

I'm unclear what you think the "winnin' side might be. The dark ages isn't a "winnin" moment in human history. I'll stick with science thanks.

Why should anyone choose your opinions and interpretation about a single book over the opinions of that same book by the Pope? How is it "winning" to exclude all other scientific documents as 'evidence'? What makes your beliefs 'winners' when you're left with the same irrational excuse each time you're faced with evidence that doesn't jive with your PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of one book?