- I blocked the lout
- So I cannot now go back and look at where he said all I answer, especially I am not finding the link I will refer to in β.
I am here in α concerned with a comment starting "sit bonum, tempora volvunt" which unlike the other things may have a grammatical meaning like "let it be good, times change" or more freely "let it be enough, times change".
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Tempora si volvunt, veritas tamen manet.
"So now you are saying your argument was something else?"
Not than what it was, but than what you got it to.
"You are whining about Argon and the lack of constants, what am I missing?"
You must have confused :
1) my "claim" about Argon absorption into sample being a possibility relating to the K-Ar dating
2) my "claim" about C14 level in atmosphere having certainly had an initial buildup when it was very far from constant, and that buildup period falling into recent times being a possibility relating to C14 dating
3) my "claim" about isotopes with higher half lives than C14 not having the half lives properly measured being another possibility relating to both K-Ar dating and the two U-Pb datings
4) my "claim" about some Pb having been there from start in U-Pb and Th-Pb datings being a possibility relating to U-Pb datings and to Th-Pb dating
AND missed that you are the one claiming each of these methods gives fairly reliable results for "older than Biblical creation" dates. I am in each case claiming an alternative possibility for the "age measures". You seem to prefer not getting it right.
"Are you now going back and editing your prior claims? I think you are."
Ah, no. Did I mention a man with your attitude towards God might be a lout towards men too? You are acting it.
"Aetas enim hujus mundi, metus imbecillam, istos. Spera in intellegere facientes magnitudo et tempus agere volentibus investigare et discernere uerum a falso."
Did you get the Latin phrases via Google Translate? They are not correct grammatically.
["since the age of this earth, fear weak [not coordinated], those [not coordinated withb either]" plus "spera in" takes a noun, not an infinitive like "intelligere" ...]
"Maybe these [blip]ers can convince you. Since actual textbooks don't mean anything to you. I don't agree with them either, because Jesus was full of [blip], just like you."
Textbooks mean more than they.
Really. They are really ignoring data when it comes to Bible and tradition, they are what I call Modernists.
"At least these people are talking in your dialect,"
Nope. I am an ex-Evolutionist, but never in my life was Modernist.
"good luck getting through any of the text with your ability to ignore good data."
Ah, thanks for the qualification "good" - you admit I am not ignoring the data you consider bad.
"And I will know if you are a true student of latin or just a Google Translate honk, if you cannot decipher my message."
You like projecting your own faults on others right? What you wrote was not grammatical Latin.
"So will every other catholic school kid."
There is at least one Latinist reading our thread on the blog message, I hope. A real one.
"At first you were marginally entertaining, but now you are the Creation Argument's White Ford Bronco, driving in a low-speed pursuit. Al Cowlings wants to stop and drop you off on the side of the road. You should do yourself a favor and get out of the Bronco."
"Run Juice Run!"
Oh dear ... you can spare yourself trouble by keeping out of this thread yourself. I might even block you.
"Amino acid racemization dating is a technique that is used to date fossilized objects up to several million years in age. The naturally occurring amino acid molecules usually possess a carbon centre with four different groups joining it; a hydrogen atom, the amino group, the acid group (hence the name of the class of molecule) and a side chain, which is what distinguishes amino acids. In three dimensional space, such a molecular topology can occupy one of two configurations. Convention labels these as D or L, which are referred to as stereoisomers and are essentially mirror images of each other. The ratio of these two isomers is initially unequal. With only one exception, naturally occurring amino acids used in polypeptide synthesis are in the L form. Over time this will decay to a more balanced state in a process called racemization, where the ratio between L and D stereoisomers will be equal (a racemic mixture)."
I was aware of racemic mixtures not being the ones in use in live organisms.
"Measuring the degree of racemization and other known quantities can show an estimated age of the sample. This is measured fairly unambiguously by the fact that different stereoisomers rotate plane polarised light in opposite directions (it is this interaction that determines the D and L labels) and so a ratio can be determined by contrasting an unknown sample with a pure D or L sample and a racemic mixture. By measuring the racemization of the amino acid isoleucine, for example, objects can be dated up to several million years old."
Supposing you know the speed of racemisation.
Which would need you to know how old samples of such and such racemity are, before you can use it to measure age of samples with unknown age.
Again, not at all a circle free method. K-Ar, not circle free, racemicity oh, sorry, racemity dating, not circle free, I think I had another one you had already tried in vain ... ah yes, the "time it takes to make crude oil"-method. Not circle free either.
- Btw, read the link anyway, found the outreach in bottom portion most annoying while the three answers don't adress the fact CMI gave a new misdating from 1996 lava flow. If pyroxene means solidified lava, one of their answers goes down here, as I mentioned earlier: DOME-1P pyroxene 2.8 ± 0.6 (2,200,000 - 3,400,000 years old)
Taken from this article:
CMI : Excess argon within mineral concentrates from the new dacite lava dome at Mount St Helens volcano
by Steven A. Austin
Dr. Steven A. Austin also is a geologist, btw:
CMI : Dr. Steven A. Austin
PLUS the problem of very long halflives, measuring those beyond C14:
New blog on the kid : Quarterlife is a Bad Term
- change of subject. In the following comment.
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl sooo your still ignoring that the univers HAS to be 11 billion years old because the radiation from the bing bang is 11 billion light years away??
- "Jeez S. Christ"
- +auchucknorris Hans is ignoring the solid and incontrovertible work of the whole of the scientific community, mostly because he thinks he is reading and comprehending things like Latin, Chemistry, Biology, Bio-Decomposition, Organic Decay, Radio-Carbon Dating, yet he is not in the least of abilities able to grasp that these stupid theories he espouses have been debunked, destroyed, and laid in the ground so long ago. So long ago in fact, that we have forgotten the arguments, since they are so unnecessary in our time.
He has some idea that because he has personally observed the chemical exchange between Argon and anything Greek with 3 syllables, he may now speak as an expert ombudsman on the realities of physics.
He tried some Anglicized Latin in a silly God-Promoting preface to one of his dumbcunt screeds, I sent him a deeply grammatical challenge in Latin which only someone NOT fluent in Latin would consider gibberish, and he fell into the trap. 7th Grade Catholic School Latin I say (and I'm hardly a master). [That was not a lie.]
If he is that weak in Latin, and that weak in Science, I think he should be perfect as our next President or Speaker of The House.
[I sense I am dealing with a black man who overemphasises status and on top of that overidentifies education, smartness and status. But there is some grasp of realities as to contemporary politics, perhaps.]
posted at 15:55 (symbolical?)
- because then that would mean that EVEN what hes saying now ALSO is inherently incorrect (not to mention any real scientist will laugh in his face for the shit he spews) but even in his twisted logic it HAS to be incorrect because of just one tiny simple other fact.. could bring up heaps more but like i said the simplest is the best with these people, seeing as they dont even understand what they are talking about.. or they would know what they are saying HAS to be wrong.. so telling them how they are wrong on something as complex as elemental decay, they wont even graps that you've proved them wrong and just frustrate your self... youll have better luck teaching a plant to read
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You mean teach a plant to reed? Would succed with some plants, namely with reeds. Even don't take all that much teaching, right?
"not to mention any real scientist will laugh in his face for the shit he spews"
How come Brooks (who is a real geologist, on her saying) left the conversation? Maybe she (Brooks is a girls' name, right?) didn't like loosing an argument in science but preferred leaving me to hecklers?
- "Jeez S. Christ"
comment landed on : 17:17 (symbolical?)
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Who are you trying to sell these horrible theories too? Only a simpleton would follow you past the first link. I mean, you are even dumber than John Morris Pendleton. Are you Ian Juby?
[I never answered him, but I am not and I respect Ian Juby more than him.]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @auchucknorris, light years away, you said? And Big Bang?
Now, I don't rely on the guys selling those as facts. There is for instance the question how you measure light years distances.
Come back when you have a little info on that, meanwhile, let's take radioactive dating.
A pesky little fact for you: directly measuring a speed is best done while it stays within optimal limits. Precisely as with a curve. Too fast is hard to distinguish from instantaneous, like too curved is hard to optically distinguish from single point. Too slow is hard to distinguish from not moving at all, like too huge a radius is hard to distinguish from straight line. You see someone walking or running, you can "measure" the speed directly. But a bullet is too fast and the sun is too slow. For a bullet, you have to use a long distance so the path takes a second or two. For the sun you have to compare to objects that are really still (like horizon) - by looking at it again.
So, how does this apply to half lives with samples observed decaying in a lab?
Wiki : list of radioactive isotopes by half-life
Take 103 seconds:
iodine-131/8.02/693 (8 days, 0 hours, 28 minutes, 48 seconds)
thulium-167/9.25/799 (9 days, 6 hours)
No competent lab assistant could possibly give thulium 167 same half life as iodine 131! A small sample that can be weighed, a scale with a fine trigger for when weight falls below a certain amount, another scale which is ordinary and untriggered but also fine tuned so you can measure up the exact double weight, a timer ... you can't miss it.
When it comes to H-7 or He-5, I am pretty sure they don't use that method.
half-life 1−24 seconds : 23 of them for H-7 and 760 of them for He-5.
Having any doubts about that one?
Now, lets go a bit higher up in half lives ... 109 seconds ...
americium-241/432.2/13.64 (432 years, 2 months, 12 days)
If you want to use sketched out method to be so exact, well, I suppose you may have started looking when Americium-241 was discovered and come back 432 years later ... only, it is NOT yet 432 years since Americium was discovered. But maybe you can count speed of the Geiger-meter ticking - comparing it with what you have otherwise. The half life measure is indirect again. But not impossible.
[By the way, if it were wrong, we would not be dating anything wrong, the isotope is used in smoke detectors, not in dating methods.]
Now, look at this:
I would not bet speed of Geiger-meter ticking would be so very different for these two that you can really measure even that.
Now, for C-14 I proposed a little trick somewhere (I'll know if you looked it up or not when I consult the comments previous to last, since I did not read all before an internet session stopped and now is another one ...)
Take an organic object 5,730 years old, you must be sure of the date (with a hundred years or so - I have also seen 5,690 mentioned, if I recall correctly). If the object shows half the C14 level of today's atmosphere, this means half life and C14 level back then are correct. That is 3,715 BC ... what exact objects do you have that are undisputedly dated (independently of C14 of course) to that date? None. But, we can take half of half life too. 2,865 BP = 850 B. C. - Lifetime of Homer? But we have perhaps not identified Homer's grave? If we can get one object, or the more the better, undisputedly dated to exactly that date, we can test C14 from there. Half a half life means it should have about 71% left.
Or if objects from back then that are really well dated historically are too scarce, a quarter of a half life. If C14 level was correct and half life is correct, an object from back then should have 84% of the C14 level. 1432 years and 6 months ago = 582 years and six months A. D. Or 580 - 585 A.D. Now there is no problem.
With enough measures, we can get a timeline back in history (recorded such) for the last two thousand years of C14 level reasonably stable and C14 half life known.
Further back [with C-14, that is] the problem is not the half life, but if we are or are not past the initial build up.
The ones just past C-14 are: plutonium-240 - 6,563 years to plutonium-239 - 24,110 years, reaching past : thorium-229, americium-243, curium-245, curium-250, tin-126, niobium-94.
I suppose one of these came into an artefact and that was dated by C14 for other parts and ... no? Not that many ancient Egyptian artefacts with americium or thorium? One might have hope for tin-126 - supposing there was no other tin in it to start with?
Are you starting to sense a kind of problem?
We have hardly used anything of this to calibrate past historic objects dated with C14. And if you try to top with prehistoric objects dated with C14, that gives way at the point where safe historic datings cannot be made with records, due to initial buildup problem for C14.
"The uranium–lead dating method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 704 million years."
"As time passes after the formation of such a material, uranium-234 in the sample, with a half-life of 245,000 years, decays to thorium-230. Thorium-230 is itself radioactive with a half-life of 75,000 years, so instead of accumulating indefinitely (as for instance is the case for the uranium-lead system), thorium-230 instead approaches secular equilibrium with its radioactive parent uranium-234. At secular equilibrium, the number of thorium-230 decays per year within a sample is equal to the number of thorium-230 produced, which also equals the number of uranium-234 decays per year in the same sample."
With these kinds of half lives, it is purely ridiculous to say we have even indirectly observed even a quarter or an eighth of a half life. I e, the half life cannot be said to be safely measured, and I do not mean it could be a few days off.
Now, what about K-Ar dating?
isotope/109 years/1015 seconds
1,277,000,000 years ... oh yeah, right, we must have been able to measure that accurately! Not.
- Then someone is relying on no Latinist (or no honest one) reading this thread. Guess who?
- By now, that guy has shown as total a disregard for argument as for the honour of God or of adversaries in the debate.
I blocked him after his last comment.
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl who me? for asking a simple question that doesnt agree with your WRONG stance on the age of the earth? how is light from 11 billion light years away (that came from and proves of the big bang theory. a;lso proving you wrong just because this light is from the one thing your saying didnt happen, because god did it ten thousand years ago) not proof that things existed up to 11 billion years ago and 10,000 years is not even close to the creation of existence.. even like the closest starts light is older than that
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No, +auchucknorris, the other guy. "Jeez ..." sth. To you I had previously given a much longer response. How about clicking in order to see previous comments on thread and not just watch the last one? The one for you was before the one for him. As to you, I tried to keep the discussion on the radioactive methods you have as yet not defended BEFORE we get into x billion light years away, which yu haven't substantiated either (you have of course said they are x billion ligght years away, usual number I keep seeing is not 11 but 13.5, big deal and it would follow light shone from them x billion light years ago, but you have still not substantiated claim) since you have not shown that the light sources in question are that far off. If you give up on radiometric dating, you can of course change subject to defending that.
Btw, closest stars, as astronomers count according to a system you have not proven so far, would be about 4 light years away. Not beyond 10,000.
[Linked here to show him how comments are really sorted.]
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl lol because this was your response
" light years away, you said? And Big Bang? Now, I don't rely on the guys selling those as facts. There is for instance the question how you measure light years distances"
lol and if you dont even know lightyears is a messurment of distance your a moron, and its not being sold as fact, it is fact.. beleive it or not what the human race considers fact isnt souly based on what you do and dont know, we dont ask "what does hans think about this thing thats backed up by irrefutable proof" "nah sorry it doesnt agree with his beliefs so hes still got his head in the sand so sorry cant be a fact yet" even tho that reality would be verry convenient for u lol and how to you messure?!?!? its called red shift you moron!! its not debatable!! not to mention we use regular old geometry to back up and verify these readings, so i know YOU dont know shit but its still proven, regardless of how ignorant YOU are... even with out red shift if you ever did school and triangle geomotry you do the same shit of sin cos tan to work out the missing side.. unless geometry is wrong... which it isnt, we can still get star distance much greater than 10,000 light years, and considering how many galixies there are with the un-fathomable amount of stars in each, to even suggest geometry is wrong and ALLLL those different galaxies are within 10,000 light years is laughable, even if the stars were squeezed together as tight as you could pack em its not even in the same ball park, you just HUGELY underestimate the size and scale of the universe, in every direction in every space of sky the universe is completely blanketed in galaxies, you look at the tiniest pin point your probs looking at more galaxies than you could imagine, each one of them in its self is 100,000's of light years across, and each one of them is so far away form the next even the closest are invisible to the human eye due to redshift, it is UNDENIABLE they are greater than 10,000 light years away,
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I take it you have tacitly given up on radiometric dating, then, since you don't mention it.
"lol and if you dont even know lightyears is a messurment of distance" - if I hadn't known that, how come I used (and you even quoted) "There is for instance the question how you measure light years distances"
Let's see if you are at least trying to be informative ...
"beleive it or not what the human race considers fact isnt souly based on what you do and dont know, we" - this was not informative, it was just misidentifying your set with "the human race" as if I were an elf or dawrf or hobbit or sth.
"how to you messure?!?!? its called red shift you moron!!" - last time I checked, red shift was foremost concerned with speed of expansion, and that only if attributin it to Doppler effect. How do you get a distance measure from that?
"not to mention we use regular old geometry to back up and verify these readings" - how about being more precise, let's take triangulation ... how many angles and distances have we got on different world views, and how many do we need to make a distance measure?
"so i know YOU dont know shit but its still proven, regardless of how ignorant YOU are... even with out red shift if you ever did school and triangle geomotry you do the same shit of sin cos tan to work out the missing side.. unless geometry is wrong" - oh dear, it seems you confused red shift with the parallax claim ... I am not claiming geoemtry is wrong, I am again asking (has nothing to do with red shift so far): how many sides and angles do we have on different world views and how many do we need? You DO remember high school geometry enough for that, don't you?
Here, let me refresh your memory of good old Soh-Cah-Toa a bit:
deretour : Trigonometry, principles, astronomic applications
"unless geometry is wrong... which it isnt, we can still get star distance much greater than 10,000 light years"
Oh, sure. To get 4 light years (supposing we do get them) the parallax angle (suppose the angle is parallactic and no proper movement) is 0.75 arc seconds.
Let me spell it out for you. If you have two cities on opposite sides of the equator, the vertical line in each of them will be 180° to the vertical in the other (i e the up of one will be the down of the other and vice versa). Add another city on the equator - equidistant from the two - and the angle between its verticals and either of the other will be 90°.
Those distances are really far.
Now exactly what kind of distance on earth do you need so that verticals in each place will be at 1 arc second (more than the largest parallax angle)? It is about 30 meters. That is how small the angle is. For 10,000 light years, the angle is very much smaller even than that.
Now, guess what? So small angles are not very easy to measure.
Perhaps you'll say I am making shit up ... no, wait a second.
360° = all equator around full circle = 6378.1 km (equatorial radius)*2*pi = 40,074,784 m
1° = 40,074,784 : 360 = 111,318 m
1 arc minute = 111,318 : 60 = 1,855 m
1 arc second = 1,855 : 60 = 30.92 m.
Two verticals are 30.92 m distant on Earth's surface and meet (as all verticals do) in Earth's centre. That is a very skinny angle. Not easy to measure at all.
If you doubt that, it is you who are saying geometry is wrong, not I.
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl 1st of all we dont use the the width of the earth we use the width of the orbit of the earth around the sun and just because you cant preceive it to be "easy" doesnt mean we cant, because yes.. yes we can, computers mixed with high powered telescopes easily and accurately, its not some kid with a protractor looking up at the night sky these are experts in their feild with very expensive high tech equipment, humans have some very amazing machinery, if you ACTUALLY dropped this shit and started LEARNING real science you'd be amazed and very interested, its so much more fulfilling knowing REAL truth rather than living in a made up reality were every ones against you because they know more than you.
also if you do learn it all you come the conclusion there is a very real chance there is a god, but you also realize its existence is something no human mind can even come close to fathoming and to assume some people 3000 years ago, stealing from other religions have no clue what they are talking about what it wants and what it did is rediculous and almost insulting to this being to describe it in such a way. it didnt take 10 days to make an earth a sun and some start, no it took litterally no time (because it created time as well in that instant) at all to spew forth the seeds for the entire universe and all its 100 BILLION galaxies each with 400 billion stars, and not just one planet with life but who even knows how many planets out there have life, more than you can image, each of them so far away from one another in both space and that will exist in different time periods separated by billions of years the real universe and REAL existence shits on your book, which is almost a spit in the face of any REAL creator, assuming it cares or even can care because its existence is so far away from our understanding of existence, saying it has emotions and human related existences filled with wants and cares doesn't even make sense once you get out of the 3rd dimension, were there isnt a future to want something in because time is a space like up down left and right, not how we perceive it from our 3 dimensional cage on the thin slice of wave we ride through it.
considering how long life takes to form and and planets start to cool for the seeds of single cellular life and our suns age from the beginning of the universe even tho there are potentially life forms billions of years more advanced than us, we are VERY well placed to be one of the most dominant and long lasting existences in universe, its still VERY early on, in the universes story, and as long as we dont kill each other theres a very good chance we can at least survive anything thing the universe throws at us (if not have the abilities to completely protect our selves by the time any thing catastrophic comes for us, you should be proud to be apart of it and the discoveries that can never be made again that are being made right now, its the greatest time in human history ever and you get to whiteness it and instead you are closing your eyes for a book that if you actually learnt about the universe youde know your wasting what very little time you have trying to slow down these discoveries and what they bring, but we need to work alot on the whole not killing each other thing before we keep inventing more ways to kill each other
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "1st of all we dont use the the width of the earth"
Studiously missing a point, aren't you?
I gave an idea of how narrow the angle is and youo try to ignore it and pretend I misunderstood.
"we use the width of the orbit of the earth around the sun"
Supposing that is how it works.
What is YOUR proof for Heliocentrism?
"and just because you cant preceive it to be "easy" doesnt mean we cant, because yes.. yes we can, computers mixed with high powered telescopes easily and accurately, its not some kid with a protractor looking up at the night sky these are experts in their feild with very expensive high tech equipment, humans have some very amazing machinery"
Sorry, but either the machinery works like a protractor in principle, then the angles for "4 to 10 light years" are very narrow and the angles for billions of light years impossibly narrow even for the machinery - OR it works by comparing the things, and then it is assumed most stars show no parallax and if they really do all parallax values are in trouble. Have you heard of 63 Ophiuchi? Well, you should take a look.
"if you ACTUALLY dropped this shit and started LEARNING real science you'd be amazed and very interested, its so much more fulfilling knowing REAL truth rather than living in a made up reality were every ones against you because they know more than you."
I do not think everyone is against me, but those who think they know "more than I" (really know I am wrong, which is another thing) and do not have the patience to get to grips with scientific and philosophical problems, which obviously includes you, those ARE against my honour, independence, dignity in discussion and a few more.
Ditch it, jerk!
"also if you do learn it all you come the conclusion there is a very real chance there is a god, but you also realize its existence is something no human mind can even come close to fathoming and to assume some people 3000 years ago, stealing from other religions have no clue what they are talking about what it wants and what it did is rediculous and almost insulting to this being to describe it in such a way."
Did I tell you I was interested in your take on un-Christian spirituality?
No. Ditch it.
"its the greatest time in human history ever and you get to whiteness it and instead you are closing your eyes for a book that if you actually learnt about the universe youde know your wasting what very little time you have trying to slow down these discoveries and what they bring, but we need to work alot on the whole not killing each other thing before we keep inventing more ways to kill each other"
Did I tell you I was interested in your take on Apocalyptics?
No. Ditch it.
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl lol you say impossibly narrow and yet offer no evidence, sorry mate saying "it cant be possible because i say so" isnt a valid argument, try again kid, offer proof it cant be done, you give me nothing to argue besides that your just making shit up and its laughable at this point.. because the answer is yes.. yes they can messure these tiny degrees, technically its a protractor.. that measures fractions of a degree... thats how it passed peer review.. thats why no one who actually knows what they are talking about would even bother arguing, your ignorance isnt proof of any thing other than your ignorance on the topic of which you speak my friend so either offer proof or kindly shut up
- It's not the "deepness" of the ground. It's the type of rock that it's found in. The earth has had many layers and each layer is of a different time and composition. Through the movement of the tectonic plates, those layers get pushed up and around. Fossils can be found on the surface. I have personally found many fossils of sea creatures on the tops of hills way above sea level in the Hill Country of Texas.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Fossils can be found on the surface. I have personally found many fossils of sea creatures on the tops of hills way above sea level in the Hill Country of Texas."
What do you think of my analysis here:
Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
- "you say impossibly narrow and yet offer no evidence"
You couldn't hit evidence as big as a barn if you had three feet to aim from.
I gave you mathematical evidence, you didn't want it. Shove off.
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl lol no you gave me wrong fault math assuming we can only use refrence points of 30 meters away.. when thats not even close or related to how we measure it so its VOID moron because its made up
[For those not quite following the argument with the full attention participants are assumed to have, I did not say our reference points are 30 meters from each other for α Centauri, I am quite aware Heliocentrics consider we have an Astronomic Unit apart from Earth position A to Earth position B : my point is, angle we are supposed to be measuring at α Centauri between two positions of Earth rather than at Earth between two positions of α Centauri is not greater than the angle at centre of Earth to two point on surface 30 meters apart. Which is a very slender angle, a very slender triangle, even with the supposed base of 2 AU. 2, not just one btw. But on top of confusing that issue, he never even tried to uphold Heliocentric interpretation of phenomena as the one corresponding to reality and "on" which one "can count." Didn't he comprehend I was challenging it?]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- sic scripsit (I am blocking the guy)
[did, can't access the thread, waiting for answer if any from ManDeeDooPwee]
- carbon dating i would assume. not sure.
[Like ManDeeDooPwee above this is in answer to original question by Belegur Mastema : How do they know the deepness of the ground determines the age the fossil comes from?]
- omitting (for now)
- two guys who were basically quarrelling (might get in later if anyone answers them and I answer that).
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +MOUNTAINOUS "carbon dating i would assume. not sure. "
You assume wrong.
+ManDeeDooPwee explained the reasoning very well:
"It's not the "deepness" of the ground. It's the type of rock that it's found in. The earth has had many layers and each layer is of a different time and composition."
The problem with this is : how does she know the types of rock are millions of years apart ratehr than coming from one and same flood?
The fact is, when a fossil is dated as Cretaceous or Permian or Carboniferous (including carbon) carbon dating is routinely not used. When it is used, you get other dates than those assumed for Cretaceous or Permian or Carboniferous.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Continued debate from ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material (Third sequel)
1) ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material, 2) Continued debate ... (first sequel), 3) Continued debate ... (second sequel), 4) Continued debate ... (Third sequel), 5) Continued debate ... sequel four