# Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...



## Vastator (Oct 9, 2019)

Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets

Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?


----------



## Frannie (Oct 9, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> 
> Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?


Who doubted the existence of exoplanets


----------



## Blackrook (Nov 3, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> ...


Nobody.  The OP is being a tool.


----------



## Vastator (Nov 3, 2019)

Blackrook said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...


And that’s where you’re wrong. Yet again...


----------



## james bond (Nov 4, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> 
> Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?



No one doubted the existence of exoplanets outside our solar system .

The first guy deserved half the prize if he found tools to study the CMB and it helped reveal the existence of dark matter and dark energy.


----------



## Vastator (Nov 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> ...


Unfortunately... There are actually some who still; despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, doubt the existence of planets outside our solar system. Or at the very least, doubt the veracity of the claims for their discovery...


----------



## Vastator (Nov 4, 2019)

3 birds, one stone...


----------



## james bond (Nov 4, 2019)

Vastator said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



He was right and you were wrong .  The other two were the first to find _proof_ and got the other half of their Nobel prize.  Another example.  People think there are multiple dimensions, but we've yet to _prove_ the existence of the fourth dimension.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 4, 2019)

Awesome.


----------



## james bond (Nov 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Awesome.



Thank you.  My post was awesome .


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 4, 2019)

And we are close to finding exomoons:

Have Astronomers Detected Exomoons At Last? - Sky & Telescope


----------



## the other mike (Nov 4, 2019)

Vastator said:


> .......For a long time many doubted the existence of planets outside our Solar System.



People are stupid, generally. Up until about 330 years ago we burned witches.
We have a vice president in 2019 who thinks the earth is 6000 years old.


----------



## james bond (Nov 4, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > .......For a long time many doubted the existence of planets outside our Solar System.
> ...



The evidence shows it is 6000 years old as carbon-14 still remains in rocks and fossils.  We also have soft tissue and C-14 remaining in dinosaur fossils.  The atheist scientists lie to you by disregarding the evidence that contradicts evolutionary time scales.  Not only that the rock layers are named after location.  It has nothing to do with time.  The evos just made up that BS because they needed billions of years and hundreds of millions of years to cover up evolution.  There is plenty of evidence that evolution never happens, but many people end up being fooled by bullshit.


----------



## james bond (Nov 4, 2019)

Science is supposed to be the search for truth and knowledge, but it has become the search for evidence to back up lies.  

For example, only few of today's scientists are focusing on Earth losing its magnetic field.  Once it is gone, then it will allow harmful radiation waves upon the planet.  Instead, the evos made up lies about AGW and climate change and are oblivious to the real dangers.  I once was more optimistic about finding another planet to colonize, but now think we are SOL.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> Science is supposed to be the search for truth and knowledge, but it has become the search for evidence to back up lies.
> 
> For example, only few of today's scientists are focusing on Earth losing its magnetic field.  Once it is gone, then it will allow harmful radiation waves upon the planet.  Instead, the evos made up lies about AGW and climate change and are oblivious to the real dangers.  I once was more optimistic about finding another planet to colonize, but now think we are SOL.


You're a special kind of brainwashed aren't you ?


----------



## james bond (Nov 4, 2019)

Angelo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Science is supposed to be the search for truth and knowledge, but it has become the search for evidence to back up lies.
> ...



What has being dead, brainwashed, and stupid have got to do with it?  That sounds stupid af .

I was providing you science, but you didn't listen.  The evolutionists believe Earth is a dynamo which produces its magnetic field and thus keep it going for a long time.  However, this is not the case.  Evolutionists are usually wrong like you.

Instead, the Earth's magnetic field's energy has halved every 1,465 years,  If the Earth was more than 20,000 years old, then all the water would have evaporated off its surface and people would have died of severe sunburn.  Now that's really a case of global warming.


Europe was the first countries to send satellites around 2011.  Since then, the US, Russia have sent up its own satellites to join, but the liberal media does not brainwash you with the truth.  They brainwash you with the lies.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


----------



## james bond (Nov 4, 2019)

Angelo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...




You (xerox machine) and your family in work situations.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> Instead, the Earth's magnetic field's energy has halved every 1,465 years




Bond, your nonsense does not belong in the science section.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> You (xerox machine) and your family in work situations.



How Do We Know The Earth Is 4.5 Billion Years Old?


----------



## the other mike (Nov 4, 2019)

How Do We Know The Earth Is 4.5 Billion Years Old?

The 6,000 year age was arrived at by James Ussher, a 17th century Irish Archbishop who counted up estimates of the ages of Abraham’s family listed in the Old Testament and calculated that the creation began (on the Julian calendar) on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC, at 6 pm. Really.

Usher made a lot of assumptions, chose to ignore inconsistencies within even those scriptural sources known at that time, and was unaware of certain, now obvious translation issues, importantly including the way the Babylonians counted, but that’s beside the point. As William Henry Green wrote, “The Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.”

In other words, even if Ussher’s calculation were correct (it isn’t) it would only tell us when Abraham lived, not when the world was made.


----------



## james bond (Nov 4, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, the Earth's magnetic field's energy has halved every 1,465 years
> ...



I'm not an alarmist, but the Earth's magnetic field is weakening faster than climate change.


----------



## james bond (Nov 4, 2019)

Angelo said:


> How Do We Know The Earth Is 4.5 Billion Years Old?
> 
> The 6,000 year age was arrived at by James Ussher, a 17th century Irish Archbishop who counted up estimates of the ages of Abraham’s family listed in the Old Testament and calculated that the creation began (on the Julian calendar) on Saturday, October 22, 4004 BC, at 6 pm. Really.
> 
> ...



Give it Angelo .  Science is not your strong suit.  You're all over the place.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 4, 2019)




----------



## Crixus (Nov 4, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> 
> Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?




It's good to see folks like this recognized this way.


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 8, 2019)

Angelo said:


>




Why the need to constantly invent straw men?  Who believes the Earth was created in 168 hours?


----------



## james bond (Nov 8, 2019)

jwoodie said:


> Who believes the Earth was created in 168 hours?







Real creation science.

I do because the Bible says so and it took God that long.  There was only one witness -- God and he tells all in his autobiography.  Evolution says all of it was set up in around 20 mins, but does not state how it all happened.  Care to explain?


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> I do because the Bible says so and it took God that long. There was only one witness -- God and he tells all in his autobiography. Evolution says all of it was set up in around 20 mins, but does not state how it all happened. Care to explain?



I do not believe that God was bound by human understanding of time and space when he created the universe.


----------



## james bond (Nov 9, 2019)

jwoodie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I do because the Bible says so and it took God that long. There was only one witness -- God and he tells all in his autobiography. Evolution says all of it was set up in around 20 mins, but does not state how it all happened. Care to explain?
> ...



He created light or the EMS and he separated day and night.  It was evening and it was morning.  Sounds like space time to me.  The first day.

OTOH, the big bang has expansion but into what?  Did it make its own space?  It would need a void.  And where is the light?  Radiation?  If there was time, there would have to be day, night, morning, and evening.  None of that is explained.  Can you explain it?


----------



## jwoodie (Nov 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> He created light or the EMS and he separated day and night. It was evening and it was morning. Sounds like space time to me. The first day.



He created light = the Sun?
Day and night = rotation of the Earth?
So when was the Earth created?  Is/was it the center of the Universe?

I think that literal interpretations of words that were written for human understanding thousands of years ago put one inside an intellectual box.  Do you also take the Parables literally (i.e., the Prodigal Son was referring to a specific person)?  How about the Sun "stopping" in the sky?  We now know that the Earth revolves (and rotates) around the Sun, not vice versa.  Weren't these words used for human understanding at the time they were written?  

P.S.  Why aren't we still reading in Hebrew or speaking Aramaic?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> The evidence shows it is 6000 years old as carbon-14 still remains in rocks and fossils. We also have soft tissue and C-14 remaining in dinosaur fossils. The atheist scientists lie to you by disregarding the evidence that contradicts evolutionary time scales. Not only that the rock layers are named after location. It has nothing to do with time. The evos just made up that BS because they needed billions of years and hundreds of millions of years to cover up evolution. There is plenty of evidence that evolution never happens, but many people end up being fooled by bullshit.



One of my early jobs was to build a custom C14 system using a "phoswich" detector. The use of two phosphors allows C14 radiation from the sample to be distinguished from exterior radiation. However it is imperfect and there is always a residual amount of exterior radiation that adds to a background level. 

The 40,000 year accuracy limit is due to unwanted contamination (eg fingerprints) and cosmic rays. The background can be estimated and subtracted, but the statistics of a null experiment show that the statistical variance can give false positives when stretched to the 40,000 year limit. 

Any C14 "detected" from old fossils are no doubt contamination or variances in the assumed background level. If you found uncontaminated fossils that had a CO2 level of the young earth 6,000 years, then that would prove your point, but as it is you can't support creationism from C14 measurement error in fossils. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> Science is supposed to be the search for truth and knowledge, but it has become the search for evidence to back up lies.


That's a stretch. Creationism assumes a result and tries to rationalize it by dismantling scientific evidence. 

I'm curious; what does creationism say about the distance of galaxies? There is a lot of different techniques that determine the distances of a galaxies to be millions to billion of light years away. Does creationism argue that the farthest star is no more than 6,000 light years away?


----------



## percysunshine (Nov 9, 2019)

Ok, conducting the experiment which established a theory does deserve an attaboy.


----------



## james bond (Nov 10, 2019)

jwoodie said:


> He created light = the Sun?



No, EMS.  The sun was created on 4th day.



jwoodie said:


> Day and night = rotation of the Earth?



What causes the Earth to rotate?  

We first had the EMS as light.  That brought space into existence.  Separation of dark from the light and the creation of day, night, morning, and evening brought time into existence.  Thus, the first day came and gone.



jwoodie said:


> So when was the Earth created? Is/was it the center of the Universe?



The first day when God created the heavens above, i.e. the universe, and the Earth below.  Before that was absolute nothing called the void.  We do not know it was the center of the universe.

As for the rest, you are entitled to your opinion.



jwoodie said:


> P.S. Why aren't we still reading in Hebrew or speaking Aramaic?



That came later with the Tower of Babel.  I'm a Gentile, so read the English version of the Bible.


----------



## james bond (Nov 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Any C14 "detected" from old fossils are no doubt contamination or variances in the assumed background level. If you found uncontaminated fossils that had a CO2 level of the young earth 6,000 years, then that would prove your point, but as it is you can't support creationism from C14 measurement error in fossils.
> 
> .



Your's are false beliefs based on much false assumptions made in radiometric dating and discarding of valid evidence.  For example, if you did radiometric dating (not radiocarbon) dating on moon a sample of moon rocks and it gave a variety of readings, then all of it should be discarded.  Instead, only the ones that fit a preconceived range are accepted as accurate.  

Furthermore, the testing labs found soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, so it isn't just C-14 dating.  There is C-14 left in diamonds and coal.  These are world class laboratories doing the measurements, so they would take into account any contamination.  Your biased science is half baked.


----------



## james bond (Nov 10, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> That's a stretch. Creationism assumes a result and tries to rationalize it by dismantling scientific evidence.



Christians invented modern science -- Creation scientists - creation.com.  Basically, we have science based on creation and science based on non-creation science.

The stretch is on the part of ToE and evolutionary thinking and history.  We also have the Bible written before science was discovered.  This is what modern observable, testable, and falsifiable science backs up today.  Your evolutionary science came afterward and is based on uniformitarianism and Darwinism, both atheist in nature.  Darwin was given a living cell to start with.  No actual science backs it up, and we have discovered much of his theories were wrong.  It is based on historical science or circumstantial science.

ETA:  This is why I consider secular science who does not consider any science outside their own to be fake science.  You believe in wrong science and thus, your results are wrong.  It's like you were brainwashed and forgot all your science.  However, I do understand one needs funding in science and one has to play the "game" of science based on evolution in order to get the funding.  It doesn't mean that we toss creation science away.  Much of creation science today is to defend itself from wrong secular or atheist science.  One can't argue creation in Nature or Science publications nor in peer reviews.  Thus, those who argue creation had to form their own groups and are reduced to only one US university that will host them (there may be more in the world, but I am not aware).  



Wuwei said:


> I'm curious; what does creationism say about the distance of galaxies? There is a lot of different techniques that determine the distances of a galaxies to be millions to billion of light years away. Does creationism argue that the farthest star is no more than 6,000 light years away?





Astrophysics isn't one of my strengths is science, so will let Dr. Lisle and Dr. Humphries explain that.  It isn't just simple gravity and spacetime effects that we are seeing.  It is also due to the history of the speed of light.


----------



## james bond (Nov 10, 2019)

Here's the weird thing to me.  I understand most science although I'm a computer scientist by trade now.  Today's science is based on consensus and they think creation science is very far off or is a religion.  To the contrary, it is science.  It's the real science that is observable.  Nobody can see what a billion years looks life because we can't and haven't.  Things happened to the Earth that the secular scientists do not believe.  They believe the PRESENT IS THE KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE PAST.  This is wrong, and that's why their science ends up wrong.  The stuff you read in science text books based on evolution today are wrong.  The evolution stuff in many museums are wrong.  It is because they eliminated the creation based science.  I wasn't taught science this way.  Science was always about arguments and who had best theory and not consensus.

The secular physicists and theoretical physicists had to go to multiverses and such because they could not explain why we are here today.  They are lying to you or are wrong.  However, you will end up being brainwashed to believe this.

How does this affect you?  It means that you will live shorter lives.  Evolution and evolutionary thinking and living this way will not prolong your lives.  I will probably outlive those who are in the late 40s - 50s today and I'm a few years away from turning 60.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> For example, if you did radiometric dating (not radiocarbon) dating on moon a sample of moon rocks and it gave a variety of readings, then all of it should be discarded. Instead, only the ones that fit a preconceived range are accepted as accurate.


You seem to be saying scientists would cheat. If so, that is a weird thing to say.


james bond said:


> Furthermore, the testing labs found soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, so it isn't just C-14 dating. There is C-14 left in diamonds and coal. These are world class laboratories doing the measurements, so they would take into account any contamination. Your biased science is half baked.


The following is from the site,
Dinosaur Soft Tissue
It is a rather long article. The quotes are extracted from it

"I_n 2003, Schweitzer received some chunks of T. rex thigh bone (femur), from a recently-excavated fossil skeleton from base of the Hell Creek formation in Montana. This formation has been dated by various radiometric means to about 65-68 million years ago._"

"_three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%_".

"_After an animal dies, the iron from the hemoglobin in their red blood cells can be released to interact with other tissues. ... iron can facilitate the formation of oxy radicals, which facilitate protein cross-linking in a manner analogous to the actions of tissue fixatives (e.g. formaldehyde), thus increasing resistance of these ‘fixed’ biomolecules to enzymatic or microbial digestion_”. 

The soft tissue was somewhat elastic and found to be "_highly crosslinked collagen_"

As far as diamonds the author verifies what I said,
_"Doing carbon 14 dating on dinosaur fossils often gives dates of 20,000-40,000 years old, and trying to carbon date things like graphite and diamond often gives dates of around 50,000 years old. That is exactly what we expect when a dating method is pushed to its limits and beyond...at around 50,000 years old it is less than one C14 in 300 trillion_."

"_the air, the water, and the ground are swimming in modern levels of C14, and it takes only the merest bit of modern contamination to make something made of solid carbon (e.g. graphite or diamond) that is a million years old look like it is 50,000 years old.

"contamination with modern carbon is unavoidable, and the effects of that contamination become dominant for more ancient samples. We are essentially guaranteed to come up with an apparent “date” of 15,000-60,000 years, no matter how much older the sample actually is. That is the simple physical reality of carbon dating_"
.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 10, 2019)

I said,
"_That's a stretch. Creationism assumes a result and tries to rationalize it by dismantling scientific evidence_."
I totally disagree with your response.



james bond said:


> Astrophysics isn't one of my strengths is science, so will let Dr. Lisle and Dr. Humphries explain that.


However I did watch the video. The first video by Jason Lisle: PhD Astrophysics was very odd for an astrophysicist. He denied basic physics.

He had several reasons to rationalize billions of year old galaxies in a 6,000 year old universe. However is message is replete with phrases such as "_perhaps_" or "_interesting possibility_" These are his points which deny basic physics

Perhaps god is using an "anisotropic time zone." Similar to earth time zones. So it's not really an issue.
Perhaps time flows more slowly in distant galaxies.
Could be supernatural.
The cosmic microwave background is so uniform. (He doesn't understand what it is.)
It's not a problem for an infinite God.
What he is doing is assuming the result (creationism) and denying proven physics to do that. I really think this guy is very dim because an astrophysics would construct a more detailed model to support his gish gallop.

The second video started with too many long pauses and was biblical in nature. I only got about 1/3 of the way through it until Humphries took Einstein out of context.

.


----------



## miketx (Nov 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> And we are close to finding exomoons:
> 
> Have Astronomers Detected Exomoons At Last? - Sky & Telescope


No but they aren't far from discovering exomorons.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 10, 2019)

miketx said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > And we are close to finding exomoons:
> ...


Will probably be christians.


----------



## james bond (Nov 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You seem to be saying scientists would cheat. If so, that is a weird thing to say.



No, their assumptions are wrong.  GIGO.  Speaking of weird, what were you saying about radiocarbon dating?



Wuwei said:


> The following is from the site,



Her findings contradict evolution's long time.  What if you found the long-time was wrong?  What would be the repercussions?  It's not just that, but we have the other evidence against long time such as recession of the moon, bent rocks, decaying magnetic field, and more.

Even when the secular/atheist scientists found things wrong with Darwin's theories, they had to keep re-doing their experiments just to make certain.  Evolution is built-in science, but very little is true.



Wuwei said:


> I said,
> "_That's a stretch. Creationism assumes a result and tries to rationalize it by dismantling scientific evidence_."



Again, what you state and believe goes against the evidence.

You did not address Christians invented the scientific method.  They created the God of the gaps policy, i.e. not to use God to demonstrate your thesis.  What scientific method did evolutionists invent?  Radiometric dating with wrong assumptions?

I think your distant starlight problem was answered.  



Wuwei said:


> The cosmic microwave background is so uniform. (He doesn't understand what it is.)



You think CMB isn't uniform?  The big bang should have different temperatures as the universe expanded and doesn't account for the relative uniformity.  It is radiation.  We can discuss this, but you're glossing over a lot of things by just listing them.

I think Lisle is saying things were different in the past than in the present.  However, I can't explain why speed of light would change.

Also, I think Lisle brings in God because the creation side has no offense.  It's primarily defensive now as secular scientists try to debunk it, but have no scientific method to back their thesis.  The creationists cannot propose their own theories in scientific journals, so it is basically one-sided and biased cosmology.  For example, dark energy takes the place of God.  I think we accept dark matter even though we cannot observe it.

There is evidence of the _supernatural_ is life itself.  The Bible states that it was God's breath that gave life to man.  No one has been able to re-animate life nor create life.  That is stuff of science fiction such as zombies, mad doctors, and Frankenstein.  Evos just a have "faith-based" belief spontaneous generation (past) and abiogenesis (present) is true.  Spontaneous generation was debunked by Pasteur.  Abiogenesis has been debunked, as well.  Only life creates life.  For example, Darwin was already given the living cell to explain evolution.

Not only that, your side believes in multiverses and that it happens regularly.  That sounds supernatural.  The big bang with its infinite temperature, infinite density, and singularity sounds supernatural.  We just found evidence of other planets and solar systems when that has been accepted for decades.  The evidence that we saw and found led us to believe that to be the case.  The same with gravitational waves.  It's not the same with multiverses.  It's the same with the big bang.  The evidence goes against it, but the seculars just ignore evidence against it such as the CMB being uniform.

What about the Copernican principle?  Do you believe the universe is uniform?  Doesn't that ignore locality?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 11, 2019)

james bond said:


> No, their assumptions are wrong.


Idiotic YEC pap. You guys get confused on this point, because your minds are addled by religious nonsense. You start at your conclusion (your YEC dogma) and work backwards from there, making all manner of absurd claims to make reality fit your fantasy.

Scientists, on the other hand, arrived at their conclusions (that you call assumptions) through rigorous observation and testing.

You are so steeped in your magical fantasy that you cant imagine such a thing. So you try to make the world square peg fit into your round hole of narrow, magical dogma. And you are really falling on your face trying to do that.


----------



## james bond (Nov 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Will probably be christians.



It is you.  You are _wrong_ again, exomoron .  Sir Isaac Newton invented the reflector.  Johannes Kepler designed the convex lens and eyepiece.  Galileo took the design of refracting telescope and improved it so it can be used in astronomy.


----------



## CWayne (Nov 11, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> 
> Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?


A lot of very cool stuff going on in Astronomy.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2019)

james bond said:


> Her findings contradict evolution's long time. What if you found the long-time was wrong? What would be the repercussions? It's not just that, but we have the other evidence against long time such as recession of the moon, bent rocks, decaying magnetic field, and more.
> 
> Even when the secular/atheist scientists found things wrong with Darwin's theories, they had to keep re-doing their experiments just to make certain. Evolution is built-in science, but very little is true.


I don't want to get into all that gish gallop.

Creationists have no argument against C14 dating. The dating is accurate to over an order of magnitude beyond what creationists say the age of the universe is. They complain about diamond showing a 50,000 year life time. Even if that were not contamination it still shows an earth way older than 6,000 years. They have not answered that.

For Schweitzer's fossil, "_three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%_" -- 65 to 68 million years. That is four orders of magnitude greater than the creationist's 6 thousand years. Creationists have not successfully answered that.



james bond said:


> You did not address Christians invented the scientific method. They created the God of the gaps policy, i.e. not to use God to demonstrate your thesis. What scientific method did evolutionists invent? Radiometric dating with wrong assumptions?



It doesn't matter who invented the scientific method. It's a non-sequitur. Radiometric dating is a geology science not a Darwinian evolution science. My point has nothing to do with evolution.



james bond said:


> There is evidence of the _supernatural_ is life itself. The Bible states that it was God's breath that gave life to man. No one has been able to re-animate life nor create life. That is stuff of science fiction such as zombies, mad doctors, and Frankenstein. Evos just a have "faith-based" belief spontaneous generation (past) and abiogenesis (present) is true. Spontaneous generation was debunked by Pasteur. Abiogenesis has been debunked, as well. Only life creates life. For example, Darwin was already given the living cell to explain evolution.


Evolution again. You are deflecting from the subject of dating the history of the planet and universe.


james bond said:


> Not only that, your side believes in multiverses and that it happens regularly. That sounds supernatural. The big bang with its infinite temperature, infinite density, and singularity sounds supernatural. We just found evidence of other planets and solar systems when that has been accepted for decades. The evidence that we saw and found led us to believe that to be the case. The same with gravitational waves. It's not the same with multiverses. It's the same with the big bang. The evidence goes against it, but the seculars just ignore evidence against it such as the CMB being uniform.
> 
> What about the Copernican principle? Do you believe the universe is uniform? Doesn't that ignore locality?


First not all physicists believe in multiverses, etc. Everyone knows the COBE satellite shows nonuniformities. Look up the MOND theory.

Again those are not arguments concerning the age of the earth or universe. You have a tendency for gish gallop. You don't want to focus on the science of dating the universe. The video on the young earth that you cited had no quantitative science; only vague possibilities that are replete with contradiction.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2019)

CWayne said:


> A lot of very cool stuff going on in Astronomy.


I wasn't expecting much from the video, but I have to admit the animations blew my mind. 

One amazing thing is that in 1.2 million years a star with 60% mass of the sun is going to pass by at the distance of the Kuiper belt. What the presenter did not say is that it will totally destroy the orbits of our planets. 

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> CWayne said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of very cool stuff going on in Astronomy.
> ...


Well that's terrifying. Really?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well that's terrifying. Really?


Of course I'm not terrified. It would be a real fun thing to see.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Well that's terrifying. Really?
> ...


Which part?  The freezing to death,  or being burned alive?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Both may happen if it produces an earth elliptical orbit with a large eccentricity. The fun thing would be to see that star whiz by and light up the night for a few days. 

Only future generations would see the total annihilation of earth because the star most likely would spawn a smallish perturbation. The butterfly effect would do the rest. Multibody problems can have surprising endings.  However it would take many generations for it to become devastating. (I think.)


----------



## CWayne (Nov 11, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > CWayne said:
> ...


What is terrifying about it?  I won't be around to see it.  LOL

Someone else problem.  Besides, it is likely we'll be out among the stars by then anyway, providing we survive that long.


----------



## james bond (Nov 11, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Creationists have no argument against C14 dating. The dating is accurate to over an order of magnitude beyond what creationists say the age of the universe is. They complain about diamond showing a 50,000 year life time. Even if that were not contamination it still shows an earth way older than 6,000 years. They have not answered that.



I didn't even mention Gish.  He talked about proteins and was right about a lot of stuff.  He just talked fast.  As for the diamonds showing 50,000 years, it's closer to a young earth than evos claim that they are 1-2 billions years old. I wonder why you left the last part out haha.

""Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1-2 billion years old and related to the Earth's early history. Diamonds are the hardest known substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years--a far cry from the evolutionary billions!"

Six Evidences of a Young Earth



Wuwei said:


> For Schweitzer's fossil, "_three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%_" -- 65 to 68 million years. That is four orders of magnitude greater than the creationist's 6 thousand years. Creationists have not successfully answered that.



You say that creationists do not have answers, but you haven't explained the soft tissue and C-14 remaining in the dinosaur fossils.  With radiocarbon dating, they measured 40,000 years for dinosaur fossils.



Wuwei said:


> It doesn't matter who invented the scientific method. It's a non-sequitur. Radiometric dating is a geology science not a Darwinian evolution science. My point has nothing to do with evolution.



Sure, it does.  It means the Christians use real science for creation science and not fake science like big bang, multiverses, search for aliens, and assume we'll find aliens.  Will you admit that after 70 years of failure by SETI that there are no aliens?  If you could show any of this by the scientific method, then the religions that think science is important won't think you are just spewing hot air.

Now, you're saying it is a non-sequitur.  I'm not sure how you get that?



Wuwei said:


> First not all physicists believe in multiverses, etc. Everyone knows the COBE satellite shows nonuniformities. Look up the MOND theory.
> 
> Again those are not arguments concerning the age of the earth or universe. You have a tendency for gish gallop. You don't want to focus on the science of dating the universe. The video on the young earth that you cited had no quantitative science; only vague possibilities that are replete with contradiction.



The nonuniformities are what the creation scientists are saying.  They state that the uniformity isn't true like those who believe in the Copernican principle.  Instead, the universe in non-uniform when it comes to planet, stars, moons, and other space bodies.  It is based on locality.  Do you not believe in the Copernican principle?

What is uniform is temperature throughout the universe which goes against the big bang and the high temperature.

I did address the radiometric dating with C-14 dating.  What God stated was he will keep some things to himself so we will never know the true age of the Earth and universe using science.  You were complaining about 6,000 yrs vs 50,000 yrs and dino fossils of 40,000 years.  

We do not know how the universe works right now, but the cosmology is between Copernican principle vs the Anthropic principle.  Remember, I stated God is dark energy, but we do not know what the dark matter is and what they are doing.  We only see so much of the universe.  Anyway, the main takeaways from Lisle is that the past was different than the present.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 11, 2019)

james bond said:


> We do not know how the universe works right now, but the cosmology is between Copernican principle vs the Anthropic principle.


What a steaming pile of meaningless nonsense. It's like someone merged a random word generator and a mentally challenged ferret.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 11, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Creationists have no argument against C14 dating. The dating is accurate to over an order of magnitude beyond what creationists say the age of the universe is. They complain about diamond showing a 50,000 year life time. Even if that were not contamination it still shows an earth way older than 6,000 years. They have not answered that.
> ...



You don't understand the limits of Carbon dating. Read this again:

_"Doing carbon 14 dating on dinosaur fossils often gives dates of 20,000-40,000 years old, and trying to carbon date things like graphite and diamond often gives dates of around 50,000 years old. That is exactly what we expect when a dating method is pushed to its limits and beyond...at around 50,000 years old it is less than one C14 in 300 trillion_."

"_the air, the water, and the ground are swimming in modern levels of C14, and it takes only the merest bit of modern contamination to make something made of solid carbon (e.g. graphite or diamond) that is a million years old look like it is 50,000 years old.

"contamination with modern carbon is unavoidable, and the effects of that contamination become dominant for more ancient samples. We are essentially guaranteed to come up with an apparent “date” of 15,000-60,000 years, no matter how much older the sample actually is. That is the simple physical reality of carbon dating_"

You are going in circles.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 11, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> 
> Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?



Nobody with a brain ever doubted that virtually every star out there has a system of planets around them!


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 11, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> ...


Right, it was in the sci-fi, long before we ever actually saw an exoplanet.  As if it was a foregone conclusion. Like black holes.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 12, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> > Vastator said:
> ...



I'm talking about plain logic, not sci-fi.  Everything we know about planetary science points to the inevitability of planets as the accretion of the leftover remains not swept up in the initial stellar formation.  Let me put it to you this way, show me a list of stars that have been proven NOT to have any planetary bodies?!  Hmm?


----------



## james bond (Nov 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You don't understand the limits of Carbon dating. Read this again:



Haha.  I just told you that we aren't ever going to know the exact age of the Earth and universe using science.  Do you think science makes this claim?  If you do, then you do not understand science.  How many times has the age of the universe and Earth changed using secular methods?  OTOH, creation states the universe and Earth are the same ages and we can't really change our position.  The estimates may not be exact, but it is still a young Earth and universe versus two different old Earth and universe.  The old Earth and universe were assumed in order to fit evolution.  Thus, it's your side that uses circular logic of fitting long time to evolution.  Were you not able to ascertain this?  I don't think you did.

Sure, the creation scientists and I understand the limits of C-14 dating, but how do you explain the remaining C-14?  It isn't contamination.  The scientists who take the measurements would know how to handle this.  Can you think outside the box?  What you don't understand is the limits of radiometric dating and making wrong starting assumptions.  It was done in order to fit evolution because evolution needed long time.  This also explains why I brought up evolution, but this went .  Who came up with the first long time age of the Earth and universe?  You should know this if you understand your radiometric science.

Moreover, we did not even get to the names of these radiometric ages?  What are they called?  Name a few.  Hint:  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





If you trace the etymology of most of these names such as Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and so on, then you will find it has to do with location.  It has nothing to do with chronology.

Also, I don't think that it registered that_ the past was different from the present_ in your mind.

We never even got to the magnetic field.  That is another big part of the creation cosmology.  The magnetic field is weakening and will be gone in around 20,000 years.  This is another reason the universe and Earth are young.  We'd all be burnt to a crisp from the solar radiation if it were old.  Can you get your mind around a young Earth or are you going to claim it is just religion?  I didn't even argue religion.  I used the supernatural, i.e. creation, which is a lot different than just the natural.  That's why making the point that Christians invented the scientific method is important.  This is why I mentioned:

"There is evidence of the _supernatural_ is life itself. The Bible states that it was God's breath that gave life to man. No one has been able to re-animate life nor create life. That is stuff of science fiction such as zombies, mad doctors, and Frankenstein. Evos just a have "faith-based" belief spontaneous generation (past) and abiogenesis (present) is true. Spontaneous generation was debunked by Pasteur. Abiogenesis has been debunked, as well. Only life creates life. For example, Darwin was already given the living cell to explain evolution."


----------



## james bond (Nov 12, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> I'm talking about plain logic, not sci-fi. Everything we know about planetary science points to the inevitability of planets as the accretion of the leftover remains not swept up in the initial stellar formation. Let me put it to you this way, show me a list of stars that have been proven NOT to have any planetary bodies?! Hmm?



There are a lot of planets without a star, but usually a star has a planet nearby.  I think the astronomy pointed towards being able to prove it one day and we have.  We also have the 4th dimension which needs to be validated, but the evidence of that points to it existing.  What about gravity?  Certainly, we know it exists and now have demonstrated gravitational waves.  What about the magnetic field?  We have evidence for it, but do not understand it, as well.


----------



## james bond (Nov 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Of course I'm not terrified. It would be a real fun thing to see.



This is the first evidence of your nerdism.

What I like to see and think it's fun is the beauty and complexity of the universe.  We saw that in the video.  It's why the presenter had a large picture of what she showed in her office.  Such things as the aurora borealis with its lights that light up the night sky.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 12, 2019)

james bond said:


> It isn't contamination.


Yes it is.


Wuwei said:


> _"*contamination with modern carbon is unavoidable*, and the effects of that contamination become dominant for more ancient samples. We are essentially guaranteed to come up with an apparent “date” of 15,000-60,000 years, no matter how much older the sample actually is. That is the simple physical reality of carbon dating_"


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 12, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I'm not terrified. It would be a real fun thing to see.
> ...


It was sarcasm.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 12, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> I'm talking about plain logic, not sci-fi.


Yes I know. I am pointing put that this logic made it into sci-fi before we ever saw an explained.


----------



## james bond (Nov 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't contamination.
> ...



Are you talking about RATE dating?  I doubt we are talking about the same.  Where is the link to your claim above?  Not only that, we have even more contamination with the radiometric dating.  Are you going to deny that?

"During the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) research project at the Institute for Creation Research, co-sponsored by the Creation Research Society, some of the research effort was focused on investigating radiocarbon (carbon-14) dating. This is one of the radioactive dating methods, but because carbon-14 decays relatively rapidly it only provides “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years. In fact, if every atom making up the earth was carbon-14, even after just 1 million years there would be absolutely no atoms of carbon-14 left, because they would have all decayed away, based on today’s measured half-life! That’s why radiocarbon dating isn’t used to date rocks at millions of years.

The RATE radiocarbon research first focused on demonstrating that significant detectable levels of carbon-14 are present in ancient coal beds.1,2 Ten samples from U.S. coal beds, conventionally dated at 40–320 million years old, were found to contain carbon-14 equivalent to ages of around 48,000–50,000 years. The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either _in situ_ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory. Of course, these would not be the true ages of these coal beds, because these 48,000–50,000 year ages are calculated at the present-day level and production rate of radiocarbon. The fact that all these coal beds yield radiocarbon ages in the same “ballpark” is consistent with them all having been formed at the same time in a recent catastrophic event. This is, of course, consistent with masses of pre-Flood vegetation being swept away and buried on a huge scale globally during the cataclysmic Genesis Flood."

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed

You also need to acknowledge that the dating of the universe and Earth is not accurate when the dates have changed so much.  Now, there is a group claiming the universe is younger.  Again, the big difference is creation states both the Earth and universe are the same age and they are both young.  Can you walk around for a day and picture a young Earth?  The evos believe the Earth and universe are not the same age, but billions of years apart?  I can't walk around and think Earth is that 4.5 B years old when we still have the magnetic field and know the continents have shifted from one large one.  That goes against the present is the key to the past right there.  Also, what caused all the water to be on the surface of the Earth?

How did life even start on Earth?  You can't even form a cell whether in a lab or in nature.  That is the supernatural part of creation.  If one can create life from non-life, then we should see it in the lab and it happen in other parts of the universe.

I notice you are not answering my questions now, so I think you are stumped.  You did not know the name of the person who found the long time age of the Earth.  You're focusing on the contamination which is just one of the pieces of evidence, and I debunked you above.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 12, 2019)

james bond said:


> Are you talking about RATE dating?


No. You cannot glean any knowledge of the age of the earth or universe from diamonds or coal because the carbon decays to an immeasurable value. You have to rely on the many other elements such as radium, etc. that have a longer lifetime for RATE.


james bond said:


> Where is the link to your claim above? Not only that, we have even more contamination with the radiometric dating. Are you going to deny that?


This is the link:  Dinosaur Soft Tissue
Contamination always causes the instrumentation to give a false younger date.


james bond said:


> The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either _in situ_ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory.


Even if you put a *vacuum* as a sample for the instrumentation you would still get roughly 50,000 years because of residual cosmic rays that escaped the phoswich filter and spurious electrical discharges in the photomultiplier, and noise in the amplifier. That interference is always present and will always give a false indication that the age of the vacuum is 50,000 years.



james bond said:


> I notice you are not answering my questions now, so I think you are stumped. You did not know the name of the person who found the long time age of the Earth. You're focusing on the contamination which is just one of the pieces of evidence, and I debunked you above.


No. I am not stumped. The creationism questions you raise have been answered many times in many sites. I want to focus on the questions that are useful and relate to dating very early events on earth. This is a question of basic physics. If you don't understand it there is no point in other topics.

As far as the accuracy of carbon dating having an instrumentation limit, here is a simple analogy.

Suppose you have a digital timer with a one-tenth second resolution. You can time lots of things: how long to do 20 push-ups; 100 yard dash, etc. Suppose you wanted to time a bullet from a gun to a 10 foot distant target. If you press the timer button on and off as fast as you can, all you can do is say it's less than a tenth of a second.

That is similar saying when you get a reading of 50,000 years on a C14 dating instrument, all you can say is that it is greater than 50,000 years. There is zero confidence that it is even close to 50,000 years.


----------



## james bond (Nov 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> No. You cannot glean any knowledge of the age of the earth or universe from diamonds or coal because the carbon decays to an immeasurable value. You have to rely on the many other elements such as radium, etc. that have a longer lifetime for RATE.



Why would the C-14 decay to an immeasurable value?  I don't think you read my link to what RATE scientists measured and how it was done.  Are you basing it on circular logic by assuming your radiometric dating is correct?  Evolution needed long time and Clair Patterson gave it to the evolutionists.  This you did not know.   He used rocks to do the same thing, but for different elements.  Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson  And the evos wasted no time in coming up with their "precious" evolution layer chronology.  It starts with the assumption the layers on the bottom are older than the ones on top.  They do not believe in a global flood, but how does one get marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest.  Or a whale fossil on top of the Himalayas?  The evos think it walked up there .  How stupid af is that?

Is it any wonder that you do not want to bring evolution and evolutionary thinking into this?  

Remember, I wanted you to visualize an Earth 4.5 B years old?  Think about how much it has changed with little people on it.  We started as one mass of land, a supercontinent, and the plate tectonics moved it to seven continents.  No one believed such a thing could happen and it was only years later that we found out it was true.



Wuwei said:


> This is the link: Dinosaur Soft Tissue
> Contamination always causes the instrumentation to give a false younger date.



No evidence of contamination with RATE.  

Who wrote that article?  It's a farking atheist blog.  Totally biased.  No credibility.



Wuwei said:


> Even if you put a *vacuum* as a sample for the instrumentation you would still get roughly 50,000 years because of residual cosmic rays that escaped the phoswich filter and spurious electrical discharges in the photomultiplier, and noise in the amplifier. That interference is always present and will always give a false indication that the age of the vacuum is 50,000 years.



Assertion.



Wuwei said:


> No. I am not stumped. The creationism questions you raise have been answered many times in many sites. I want to focus on the questions that are useful and relate to dating very early events on earth. This is a question of basic physics. If you don't understand it there is no point in other topics.
> 
> As far as the accuracy of carbon dating having an instrumentation limit, here is a simple analogy.
> 
> ...



No, I mean you haven't answered my other questions.  I pointed out this coal and diamonds aren't the only evidence.

What I've shown with the Clair Patterson link is all evolution time chronology is based on older layers on the bottom and newer layers on top.  What if the Earth was hit by a giant asteroid which caused a great flood and upset those layers in the billions or years?  I showed massive changes occurred on the Earth's surface and your side claims massive changes occurred inside the Earth during this time.

That's why you _are_ STUMPED.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 14, 2019)

Your post seems to be stream of consciousness with a gish gallop of issues.


james bond said:


> Why would the C-14 decay to an immeasurable value? I don't think you read my link to what RATE scientists measured and how it was done.


I don't think you read and understood anything I posted.
 I spent almost a year designing a C14 detector and I know what I'm talking about. Yes, I read and understand what RATE scientists are doing. Exactly.
You ask about decay to an immeasurable value, but you already answered your own question!! Here:


james bond said:


> if every atom making up the earth was carbon-14, even after just 1 million years there would be absolutely no atoms of carbon-14 left, because they would have all decayed away


Let me try again.

C14 is measured by a radiation detector.
Each decay results a single particle being picked by the detector.
Connect the detector to a speaker and you will hear a click for each particle detected.
If a carbon containing substance is young, the clicks per minute will be high
If a carbon containing substance is old. the clicks per minute will be low.
If a million year old object with no contamination is tested, there will be no clicks due to C14 emission.
HOWEVER you will still hear clicks because, *the detection system will pick up cosmic rays, photmultiplier spurious discharges, and perhaps "shot noise." *
One cannot distinguish these three types of background sources from C14 decays.
Those spurious clicks are not contamination they are background noise.
Since those spurious clicks are indistinguishable from C14 clicks, you will get a few clicks per minute even if there is no contamination.
The researcher knows this and should understand that a measurement with very few clicks cannot be trusted.
The researchers in you RATE link shamefully ignored the possibility of spurious background.
That is an oversimplification, but I can't make it simpler than that.
As far as FAST research your link to Clair Patterson is correct -- the earth is billions of years old. You can't use C14 in FAST but as he says you can use radium and other isotopes for FAST research. 



james bond said:


> Who wrote that article? It's a farking atheist blog. Totally biased. No credibility.


Well, we are on the same page. To me the Bible is not credible as far as a scientific source for the age of the earth or universe either.

.


----------



## james bond (Nov 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Your post seems to be stream of consciousness with a gish gallop of issues.



It goes to show you do not really understand science.  Did you go to college?  You seem to hold education to a high esteem and sound like an international poster.  What do they teach in China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong higher institutions?

It's real science that provides further evidence than just C-14 left in carbon and diamonds measured by RATE scientists.

Don't give me that Gish gallop stuff.  That is an argument for internet atheists to dismiss what creation scientists tell them.  The internet atheists are of the lowest intelligence atheists on message forums and other parts of the internet where _anonymous_ human interaction happens.

You didn't even know about Clair Patterson and how he found the Earth was 4.5 B years old.  I gave you the answer.  Now, you don't even want to talk about him.  All you do is jump to conclusions and use it in your argument.  Why don't you criticize him for contamination?  What kind of scientist are you?  He made some assumptions like the meteorite was the same age as the Earth.  What was his logic for that?  Who knows where the meteorite had been?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 15, 2019)

james bond said:


> It goes to show you do not really understand science. Did you go to college? You seem to hold education to a high esteem and sound like an international poster. What do they teach in China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong higher institutions?


Try to calm down. Ad Hominem shouldn't be part of this discussion. You should know better.


james bond said:


> It's real science that provides further evidence than just C-14 left in carbon and diamonds measured by RATE scientists.


Let's try again. This time I will number the facets of C14 detection. Which step(s) do you think are in error?

C14 is measured by a radiation detector.
Each decay results a single particle being picked by the detector.
Connect the detector to a speaker and you will hear a click for each particle detected.
If a carbon containing substance is young, the clicks per minute will be high
If a carbon containing substance is old. the clicks per minute will be low.
If a million year old object with no contamination is tested, there will be no clicks due to C14 emission.
HOWEVER you will still hear clicks because, *the detection system will pick up cosmic rays, photmultiplier spurious discharges, and perhaps "shot noise."*
One cannot distinguish these three types of background sources from C14 decays.
Those spurious clicks are not contamination they are background noise.
Since some spurious clicks are indistinguishable from C14 clicks, you will get a few clicks per minute even if there is no contamination.
The researcher knows this and should understand that a measurement with very few clicks cannot be trusted.
The researchers in you RATE link shamefully ignored the possibility of spurious background.
Which of the above do you think is in error?


james bond said:


> Don't give me that Gish gallop stuff. That is an argument for internet atheists to dismiss what creation scientists tell them. The internet atheists are of the lowest intelligence atheists on message forums and other parts of the internet where _anonymous_ human interaction happens.


?? You are the one giving me the Gish Gallop stuff. Look up the definition in a slang dictionary. That sort of "atheist" bitterness doesn't win any science arguments.



james bond said:


> You didn't even know about Clair Patterson and how he found the Earth was 4.5 B years old. I gave you the answer. Now, you don't even want to talk about him. All you do is jump to conclusions and use it in your argument. Why don't you criticize him for contamination? What kind of scientist are you? He made some assumptions like the meteorite was the same age as the Earth. What was his logic for that? Who knows where the meteorite had been?


Yes, yes. It is common knowledge that the earth age was estimated using radiometric dating. It is known that meteorite samples were used because they were more geologically pristine. Also there are some areas on earth which are not from meteorites that verify the same age. Many isotopes can be used for dating periods millions to billions of years ago by looking at daughter products of decay.

If the earth were 6,000 years old, there would be negligible daughter products from any of the long lived isotopes because there would be negligible decay during that short time. However daughter products have been found.

 What more do you want to talk about as far as the radiometric dating of the earth?

.


----------



## james bond (Nov 16, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Try to calm down. Ad Hominem shouldn't be part of this discussion. You should know better.



It's not ad hominem.  I just wanted to know where you went to college.  I went  .



Wuwei said:


> C14 is measured by a radiation detector.
> Each decay results a single particle being picked by the detector.
> Connect the detector to a speaker and you will hear a click for each particle detected.
> If a carbon containing substance is young, the clicks per minute will be high
> ...



Is that what you think RATE did?  Do you want to know what RATE did?  What you copy and pasted from some website may not be what happened.  You have to be specific.

Now, what about Clair Patterson?  Where did he get his meteorite?  What did he assume in order to get the age of the Earth?  Isn't discussing that more important as that refuted the Earth is young.  Prior to the 1850s, the scientists thought the Earth was young.  AFAIK, it was after Darwin that the evolutionists needed long time.

What I am getting at is the crux of our discussion.  It is going to come down to each of us understanding how they got their ages.  So far, I got what the Bible says and C-14 left in carbon and diamonds and measured by RATE.  If also got soft tissues in dinosaur fossils and C-14 left in them and they were C-14 dated to 40,000 years.  Now, you got Clair Patterson  and his findings from 1956.

After we get this cleared, then we should be able to find further evidence to back up our positions.  That is where I hoped this discussion would lead, but you're stuck on normal C-14 dating and dealing with contamination.

If you have the truth of old Earth, then what do you have to worry about?  There should be plenty of evidence to back up your position  .

Anyway, the following c&p refutes your claim above:

"*Objections (technical) and answers*

The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC).
The 14C was produced by U-fission (actually it’s _cluster decay_ of radium isotopes that are in the uranium decay chain). This was an excuse proposed for 14C in coal, also analysed in Dr Baumgardner’s paper, but not possible for diamonds. But to explain the observed 14C, then the coal would have to contain 99% uranium, so colloquial parlance would term the sample ‘uranium’ rather than ‘coal’.1
The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds. But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out: ‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis _in situ_.’2 Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating.
The 14C ‘dates’ for the diamonds of 55,700 years were still much older than the biblical timescale. This misses the point: we are not claiming that this ‘date’ is the actual age; rather, if the earth were just a million years old, let alone 4.6 billion years old, there should be no 14C at all! Another point is that the 55,700 years is based on an assumed 14C level in the atmosphere. Since no one, creationist or evolutionist, thinks there has been an exchange of carbon in the diamond with the atmosphere, using the standard formula for 14C dating to work out the age of a diamond is meaningless. Also, 14C dating assumes that the 14C/C ratio has been constant. But the Flood must have buried huge numbers of carbon-containing living creatures, and some of them likely formed today’s coal, oil, natural gas and some of today’s fossil-containing limestone. Studies of the ancient biosphere indicate that there was several hundred times as much carbon in the past, so the 14C/C ratio would have been several hundred times smaller. This would explain the observed small amounts of 14C found in ‘old’ samples that were likely buried in the Flood.
* Reference*

Rotta, R.B., Evolutionary explanations for anomalous radiocarbon in coal? _CRSQ_ *41*(2):104–112, September 2004. 14C in coal was reported by: Baumgardner, J., Humphreys, D., Snelling, A. and Austin, S., The Enigma of the Ubiquity of 14C in Organic Samples Older Than 100 ka, _Eos Transactions of the American Geophysical Union_ *84*(46), Fall Meeting Suppl., Abstract V32C-1045, 2003. And also: Lowe, D., Problems associated with the use of coal as a source of 14C free background material, _Radiocarbon_ *31*:117–120, 1989.
Giem, P., Carbon-14 content of fossil carbon, _Origins_ *51:*6–30 (2001), grisda.org."
Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com



Wuwei said:


> ?? You are the one giving me the Gish Gallop stuff. Look up the definition in a slang dictionary. That sort of "atheist" bitterness doesn't win any science arguments.



LOL.



Wuwei said:


> Yes, yes. It is common knowledge that the earth age was estimated using radiometric dating. It is known that meteorite samples were used because they were more geologically pristine. Also there are some areas on earth which are not from meteorites that verify the same age. Many isotopes can be used for dating periods millions to billions of years ago by looking at daughter products of decay.
> 
> If the earth were 6,000 years old, there would be negligible daughter products from any of the long lived isotopes because there would be negligible decay during that short time. However daughter products have been found.
> 
> What more do you want to talk about as far as the radiometric dating of the earth?



Now, we're getting somewhere.  Can you provide a link?  Especially, if you have one of what Patterson did?  I think there is a Cosmos show on it, but don't want to spend the time finding and watching it.  I got my questions on what Patterson did above.


----------



## james bond (Nov 16, 2019)

Here's an article on what RATE did for those with open minds:

"*Scientists prove earth is THOUSANDS not billions of years old. *

Eight PhD scientists recently released their findings on the radioisotope evidence for the age of the earth. They were called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). They spent eight years on the project. They studied many radioisotopic dating methods including carbon 14.

You may remember the carbon 14 dating method from your high school biology class. Carbon 14 is useful only in dating samples containing carbon which usually means plant and animal matter (though diamonds also contain carbon).

Carbon 14 has a half life of only 5,730 years. This means an object 5,730 years old should have only half the amount of carbon 14 in ratio to carbon 12 as a new object.

Any object that is older than twenty carbon 14 half lives should not have any detectable carbon 14. In other words, since carbon 14's half life is 5,730 years, twenty half lives would be 114,600 years and there should be no detectable carbon 14 in a sample that old.

The RATE group tested ten samples of coal which it obtained from the US Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank. The ten samples were of coal taken from coalfields all across the United States. The samples represented a wide range of standard time frames in the geologic column including the Cenozoic, Mesozoic and Paleozoic.

The coal samples were considered to be tens to hundreds of millions of years old by traditional old earth standards. However, in direct contradiction to the standard old earth timeframe, all ten samples of coal had significant levels of detectable carbon 14.

The fact that carbon 14 was detected in every sample of coal clearly shows that the standard old earth estimates for the age of coal are wrong by several orders of magnitude.

Old earth evolutionists assume that coal deposits and their accompanying fossils are many millions of years old because evolutionary processes require millions of years. Their presupposition of evolution distorts their ability to objectively date coal. A scientist is supposed to be objective and go to wherever the facts take him or her.

Carbon 14 dating, which is a highly accredited radioisotopic dating method, shows that the coal samples could not be older than 114,600 years. The objective scientific facts point to young earth.

To be fair, I will point out that the age of any object cannot be nailed down with absolute certainty because geologic dating is forensic science and deals with nonrepeatable events that occurred in the distant past.

Forensic science is the type of science used by a police detective to reconstruct the timing of past events that occurred at a crime scene. Experimental science, by contrast, deals with repeatable events such as what occurs with chemicals in a test tube. Forensic science, since it deals with the past, is more subjective and open to interpretation.

The ten coal samples had carbon 14 levels consistent with an age estimate of approximately 50,000 years. That 50,000 year age estimate is quite older than the biblical time frame of approximately 6,000 years. The Bible, through its listing of the ages of the patriarchs in the genealogies, gives an approximate 6,000 year age of the earth since the creation.

The discrepancy is resolved when we take into account that the implied 50,000 year age of the coal is based on the assumption that the carbon 14 to carbon 12 ratio in the earth's environment was the same when the coal was formed as it is today.

Scientists at Answers In Genesis and The Institute for Creation Research who study the earth's magnetic field maintain that the earth's magnetic field was several times stronger in ancient times than it is today and therefore carbon 14 was formed in the upper atmosphere at a much slower rate. Therefore there was much less carbon 14 available in the ancient earth than there is now and this accounts for the low amount in the coal. This implies that the coal samples' actual age can reasonably be inferred to be within the biblical timeframe of 6,000 years.

To put it another way, the implied 50,000 year age of the coal blows away the old earth timeframe but even the implied 50,000 year age is likely much higher than the actual age of the coal. We can confidently say that the actual age is much younger than 50,000 years because carbon 14 levels were very low during the time of coal formation in the early earth.

The RATE group also tested twelve samples of diamonds and found detectable levels of carbon 14. This is especially significant because diamonds are not prone to any kind of potential contamination because of their extreme hardness. Old earth evolutionists claim that diamonds are up to 3.5 billion years old. The presence of carbon 14 in diamonds clearly shows the absurdity of that claim.

Other groups of scientists have found detectable levels of carbon 14 in dinosaur bones. I have read that scientists, even old earth evolutionist scientists, cannot find any fossil or coal that does not have carbon 14!

The RATE group was composed of scientists who believe in creation. Their work however, merely confirmed the work of noncreationist scientists who have measured carbon 14 in coal and diamonds since Accelerator Mass Spectrometry was used to measure carbon 14 beginning in the early 1980s.

As you can imagine, the discovery of carbon 14 in coal beginning in the 1980s sent shockwaves through the radiocarbon community. Dozens of papers were published in peer reviewed journals dealing with this embarrassing development. Painstaking efforts were made to eliminate any sample contamination or equipment malfunction yet carbon 14 kept showing up in coal and fossils!

One of the RATE scientists, John Baumgardner PhD, has cited many noncreationist scientific writings on carbon 14 in coal and diamonds. One of these is a 2007 paper by Taylor and Southon discussing the detection of carbon 14 in diamonds. Baumgardner also effectively rebutted a web posting by Kirk Bertsche that criticized the work of the RATE group.

Creationists claim that coal was formed rapidly during Noah's flood when "all the fountains of the great deep burst open" (Gen. 7:11 NASB.) This Bible passage refers to massive volcanism and tectonic shifts that occurred during the flood.

Huge land masses containing dense vegetation were subducted (buried) during the movements of the earth's plates. This resulted in vast stores of vegetation being buried deep beneath the earth's surface where temperature and pressure caused it to change into coal and oil. Some oil deposits are more than five miles below the earth's surface.

Coal formation had to happen rapidly because slow accumulation of plant matter allows the plant matter to rot before it can be turned into coal. Plant matter in today's Amazon basin rots far more rapidly than plant matter in more temperate climates.

Carbon 14 in coal and diamonds gives persuasive evidence favoring a young age of planet earth. Carbon 14, like the recent finds of blood remnants in dinosaur bones and other natural clocks showing a young age of earth are persuading an ever growing number of scientists.

It used to be that creationists were like a hidden guerrilla band among PhD scientists. Now with the rapidly growing Intelligent Design Movement a regular army of evolution denying scientists has emerged.

Creation of this planet occurred within the biblical timeframe. Young age of earth clearly disproves Darwinian evolution."

Read more: www.articlesnatch.com/Article/Carbon-14-In-All-Coal-And-Diam


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 16, 2019)

james bond said:


> Is that what you think RATE did? Do you want to know what RATE did? What you copy and pasted from some website may not be what happened. You have to be specific.


I did not copy it from a website. It's what anyone (me)would know who has had first hand experience in C14 detection. I dumbed it down to several simple statements. Only step 3 is what a RATE researcher would not do.



james bond said:


> Now, what about Clair Patterson? Where did he get his meteorite? What did he assume in order to get the age of the Earth? Isn't discussing that more important as that refuted the Earth is young. Prior to the 1850s, the scientists thought the Earth was young. AFAIK, it was after Darwin that the evolutionists needed long time.


Radiological dating using a variety of isotopes has been done countless times. The dating can reach back to millions and sometimes billions of years.
What Patterson and others wanted to do was date the earth back to the original cataclysm, but it was assumed the early earth was not stable enough to keep the daughter products of radiation from being compromised. So he looked at meteor fragments on earth and came up with 4.5 Billion years. As I remember there was an area that was thought to be undisturbed that agrees with the meteor date.



james bond said:


> If also got soft tissues in dinosaur fossils and C-14 left in them and they were C-14 dated to 40,000 years. Now, you got Clair Patterson and his findings from 1956.


NO no! The article never said they tested the soft tissue for C14. It would have all decayed. They used three separate isotopes all agreeing to within 4% The age of the rocks in that area is 65 million years old.



james bond said:


> Anyway, the following c&p refutes your claim above:


You don't trust work by "atheist scientists" and I don't trust work by creationists. The article didn't give enough information for evaluation. Any scientist will agree that proper preparation of a sample for testing is critical for confidence in the results. Just as critical is the validating and verifying accuracy of the instrumentation itself. I did not see anything written about the validation of the instrument.



james bond said:


> Now, we're getting somewhere. Can you provide a link? Especially, if you have one of what Patterson did? I think there is a Cosmos show on it, but don't want to spend the time finding and watching it. I got my questions on what Patterson did above.


No I don't have a link. You already provided a link a few posts back. Just what do you want from me?

.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 16, 2019)

james bond said:


> Here's an article on what RATE did for those with open minds:
> "Scientists prove earth is THOUSANDS not billions of years old.
> etc....


Creationists with open minds? Again they only dwelt on C14 and miscellaneous creationism. Scientists already know that C14 decays too fast for use in the 4.5 billion year old earth.
.


----------



## james bond (Nov 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I did not copy it from a website. It's what anyone (me)would know who has had first hand experience in C14 detection. I dumbed it down to several simple statements. Only step 3 is what a RATE researcher would not do.



So are you telling me that you've done radiocarbon dating?  What kind of work did you do?

Anyway, your objection in bold above was answered by, "The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC)."



Wuwei said:


> Radiological dating using a variety of isotopes has been done countless times. The dating can reach back to millions and sometimes billions of years.
> What Patterson and others wanted to do was date the earth back to the original cataclysm, but it was assumed the early earth was not stable enough to keep the daughter products of radiation from being compromised. So he looked at meteor fragments on earth and came up with 4.5 Billion years. As I remember there was an area that was thought to be undisturbed that agrees with the meteor date.



What creation scientists think is the meteorites Patterson measured were not as pristine as you claim.  Before Patterson, the Earth was theorized to be 3 billion years old.  One of the assumptions we agree was Patterson claimed the age of the Earth to be same as that of the meteorites.  He thought these meteorites were left over remains of material dating from the formation of the Earth and other planets.  However, there was a 1972 research by a scientist named Gale, showing that Patterson's beliefs about where the lead in meteorites cam from, was provably wrong.  Gale demonstrated that there was simply too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium.  He said much of the lead was originally in the meteorite.  Thus, the Earth was not shown to be 4.5 B years old.    

Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites



Wuwei said:


> NO no! The article never said they tested the soft tissue for C14. It would have all decayed. They used three separate isotopes all agreeing to within 4% The age of the rocks in that area is 65 million years old.



This wasn't from Dr. Mary Schweitzer.  It was another testing.

"In 2012, researchers analyzed multiple dinosaur bone samples from Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana. C-14 dating revealed that they are less than 39,000 years old. These remarkable findings were presented by the German physicist Dr. Thomas Seiler at a conference sponsored by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS) in Singapore. But apparently this evidence was unacceptable to influential evolutionists who subsequently found out about it. The abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.  Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers!"

Carbon 14 Dating of Dinosaur Bones | Genesis Park



Wuwei said:


> You don't trust work by "atheist scientists" and I don't trust work by creationists. The article didn't give enough information for evaluation. Any scientist will agree that proper preparation of a sample for testing is critical for confidence in the results. Just as critical is the validating and verifying accuracy of the instrumentation itself. I did not see anything written about the validation of the instrument.



I gave you the reference for the c&p.  It is from a secular publication.  Also, I posted what RATE did and it's a secular organization.  No creation scientists.

Thus, I'm not sure where you are getting the, "I don't trust work by creationists."  Aren't you being paranoid?

Furthermore, I already stated that there should be other evidence to back up our theories of young vs. old Earth.  Where are some of you other evidence?  If what your side claim is true, then there should be other types of evidence besides radiometric dating.  Creation scientists have other evidence besides their radiocarbon dating.



Wuwei said:


> No I don't have a link. You already provided a link a few posts back. Just what do you want from me?



I just wondered why you were quick to accept what Patterson did.  You didn't ask me any questions.  You didn't bring up any objections of contamination.  That seems very biased of you and I thought you were jumping to conclusions.

Now, I've found more information on what Patterson did and there was a provable refutation of Patterson's work in 1972 that was largely ignored.  There was way too much lead to be left over from uranium decay in the meteorites and that there was lead already present in the meteorites.  It was published in Nature.  This is the unfairness of evolutionary scientists of anything that goes against evolution.  It's bias against anything that goes against an old Earth. 

Radiometric dating age of earth - creation.com

Instead of just arguing over these radiometric and radiocarbon dating, again I ask you for what other evidence do you have for an old Earth besides dating?  Creation science has several, some of which I listed already.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 17, 2019)

james bond said:


> So are you telling me that you've done radiocarbon dating? What kind of work did you do?


The work was for tagging molecules in a medical diagnostic application. It was for looking at human carbon absorption and release of certain molecules. It was not dating. The dosage had, of course, to be low. Noise interference is always a factor for low dosages.



james bond said:


> Anyway, your objection in bold above was answered by, "The 14C readings in the diamonds are the result of background radiation in the detector. This shows that the objector doesn’t even understand the method. AMS doesn’t measure radiation but counts atoms. It was the obsolete scintillation method that counted only decaying atoms, so was far less sensitive. In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.12±0.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC)."


"counts atoms"? There is not enough information for me to evaluate how they did that. Where is the original research article? Was it verified by a second research team?



james bond said:


> This wasn't from Dr. Mary Schweitzer. It was another testing.


That's right. 



james bond said:


> What creation scientists think is the meteorites Patterson measured were not as pristine as you claim. Before Patterson, the Earth was theorized to be 3 billion years old. One of the assumptions we agree was Patterson claimed the age of the Earth to be same as that of the meteorites. He thought these meteorites were left over remains of material dating from the formation of the Earth and other planets. However, there was a 1972 research by a scientist named Gale, showing that Patterson's beliefs about where the lead in meteorites cam from, was provably wrong. Gale demonstrated that there was simply too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. He said much of the lead was originally in the meteorite. Thus, the Earth was not shown to be 4.5 B years old.
> 
> Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites


I'm willing to accept that some meteorites are not a good source for reliable dating of the primordial earth.



james bond said:


> Now, I've found more information on what Patterson did and there was a provable refutation of Patterson's work in 1972 that was largely ignored. There was way too much lead to be left over from uranium decay in the meteorites and that there was lead already present in the meteorites. It was published in Nature. This is the unfairness of evolutionary scientists of anything that goes against evolution. It's bias against anything that goes against an old Earth.
> 
> Radiometric dating age of earth - creation.com
> 
> Instead of just arguing over these radiometric and radiocarbon dating, again I ask you for what other evidence do you have for an old Earth besides dating? Creation science has several, some of which I listed already.


With three different methods for dating and getting 4% agreement it is pretty convincing that the age data Schweitzer got for her site leads to the conclusion that the earth is at least 65 million years old. That isn't the age of the earth, but it is a counter example to the 6,000 year hypothesis.



james bond said:


> Now, I've found more information on what Patterson did and there was a provable refutation of Patterson's work in 1972 that was largely ignored. There was way too much lead to be left over from uranium decay in the meteorites and that there was lead already present in the meteorites. It was published in Nature. This is the unfairness of evolutionary scientists of anything that goes against evolution. It's bias against anything that goes against an old Earth.
> 
> Radiometric dating age of earth - creation.com


I'm willing to accept that meteorites are not a good source for reliable dating of the primordial earth.



james bond said:


> Instead of just arguing over these radiometric and radiocarbon dating, again I ask you for what other evidence do you have for an old Earth besides dating? Creation science has several, some of which I listed already.


The evidence I cited for a 65 million old site is just one example of countless other sites with many different isotopes used for dating countless different ages for the sites. It is very convincing evidence that the earth is many millions, if not billions of years old.

.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 18, 2019)

What 007 says is very close to reality, but solely in part. Planet earth might be older than 50,000 years of age. However coal is not that old as earth because bones were found inside the coal.

Pictures come from an older internet webpage that is no longer online.

It had as title:_* Petrified human/hominid and other large animal bone in Carboniferous strata.*_

The samples were collected from coal mines in Pennsylvania and Mississippi.

Here the picture of the coal mine of Shenandoah, Pa.

 

As the legend explains, this is the tooth of a canine from a cat. You just can estimate the size of such cute kitty.



Even soft body parts as this human lung were found

 
Skull of ancient human.



A closer look of the skull

 

Even rests of tools were found inside the tons of coal in that mine.

There is no doubt that the current theories about coal from millions of years before species are simply dead wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 18, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Planet earth might be older than 50,000 years of age. However coal is not that old as earth


The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. This is not a mystery or the subject of any serious debate.


----------



## james bond (Nov 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The work was for tagging molecules in a medical diagnostic application. It was for looking at human carbon absorption and release of certain molecules. It was not dating. The dosage had, of course, to be low. Noise interference is always a factor for low dosages.



I'll go by what RATE said.  Your statements are biased and not the work of someone working in radiocarbon and radiometric dating.



Wuwei said:


> "counts atoms"? There is not enough information for me to evaluate how they did that. Where is the original research article? Was it verified by a second research team?



What about Patterson?  It took until 1970 for a second research team.  Too much lead in the meteorites means it was not a valid reading.  Also, you have avoided providing other evidence, so I'm going to assume this is the only counter argument you have.  Yours is too weak.

OTOH, I posted the link of what RATE did in post #71, 72, and here is one by the researcher -- https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-364.pdf.



Wuwei said:


> With three different methods for dating and getting 4% agreement it is pretty convincing that the age data Schweitzer got for her site leads to the conclusion that the earth is at least 65 million years old. That isn't the age of the earth, but it is a counter example to the 6,000 year hypothesis.



Still, we have the soft tissue and that should've been gone in 65 million years.  We do not know what happens in a million years.  We probably cannot do an experiment over hundreds of years.  So whatever Schweitzer hypothesized for the soft tissue cannot be tested.  

Already, you've avoided the point I brought up a few times of a supercontinent breaking up into seven continents.  We've discovered plate tectonics and how earthquakes cause these plates to move.  That and the surface of Earth being covered by 3/4 water is evidence for a global flood.  We also have marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and those are the majority of the fossils in the fossil record.  We also have the walking whale fossil in the Himalayas and more.

Your 65 million years layers do not explain fossilized trees running through the layers.  Also, it does not explain bent rocks.  Bent rocks are formed by laws of chemistry not long time pressure of hardened rocks.  This can be confirmed by the scientific method.



Wuwei said:


> I'm willing to accept that meteorites are not a good source for reliable dating of the primordial earth.



Thank you.  Yet, this is the dating that forms the basis of a 4.5 B yr-old Earth.



Wuwei said:


> The evidence I cited for a 65 million old site is just one example of countless other sites with many different isotopes used for dating countless different ages for the sites. It is very convincing evidence that the earth is many millions, if not billions of years old.



It's the fossil that is supposedly around 65 million yrs old.  I think you are saying the Earth is at least that old if not billions of years old.

I'm going with 40 K yr-old fossils and a young Earth.


----------



## james bond (Nov 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. This is not a mystery or the subject of any serious debate.



You cannot explain why they used a meteorite.  Who did the research?  What year was it done?  It's you who cannot be in any sort of debate because you do not know science.

ETA:  You've lost science arguments to ding and Frannie in recent posts.  You end up going to ad hominems after two posts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> It's you who cannot be in any sort of debate because you do not know science.


Sorry,you fraud. What I know or don't know about science is immaterial to the fact that the age of the earth is not the topic of any serious debate. Your idiotoc parlor tricks may work when brainwashing kids in Sunday school, but they dont work on rational adults. Only you delusional religious dummies think it is up for debate, and everyone else is laughing at you.


----------



## james bond (Nov 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > It's you who cannot be in any sort of debate because you do not know science.
> ...



I wasn't engaging in debate, but asking you questions to test your knowledge of science, so you'd have a chance to explain to me what I've learned and to impress others here with your knowledge.  Again, you do not know and went to ad hominem attack in one post.  Why do you even hang out in the S&T forum?


----------



## sparky (Nov 18, 2019)

~S~


----------



## james bond (Nov 18, 2019)

sparky said:


> ~S~



Lot of colorful ingredients, but lollipops and cake do not seem appetizing.  I think I'll let others go to the exoplanet first.


----------



## sparky (Nov 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> but asking you questions to test your knowledge of science,



~S~


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> I'll go by what RATE said. Your statements are biased and not the work of someone working in radiocarbon and radiometric dating.


Not biased. Hands on experience. The detectors are identical to those for RATE. The detection method is biased when it can't filter out all cosmic rays and electronic noise.



james bond said:


> OTOH, I posted the link of what RATE did in post #71, 72, and here is one by the researcher -- https://www.icr.org/i/pdf/imp/imp-364.pdf.


AMS like any sensitive instrument has has an upper limit of sensitivity. A mass spectrometer works by uniformly accelerating singly ionized atoms (or molecules,) and running them through a uniform magnetic field that curves their orbits. The amount of curvature is a proxy for the mass of the atom. However in counting two atoms with a similar mass, there is an error if the two atoms have the same atomic number. For C14 and N14 the AMUs differ by 1 part per million.
Nitrogen 14 . . 14.00307400446
Carbon 14 . . . 14.00324198870
That's just a 0.00012% difference. The samples must be totally clear of nitrogen because 96% of the nitrogen has ATNO 14. That means that the amount of N is billions of times the C14 content and that needs unprecedented purification. With AMS technology there are different reasons why there is an instrumentation limit that gives no reliable results older than roughly 50,000 years. A small non-uniformity of the fields and lack of perfect beam collimation also contributes to the difficulty in separating the isotopes to the extent needed.
Details are at Early expectations of AMS: Greater ages and tiny fractions: One failure. One success | Semantic Scholar



james bond said:


> Still, we have the soft tissue and that should've been gone in 65 million years. We do not know what happens in a million years. We probably cannot do an experiment over hundreds of years. So whatever Schweitzer hypothesized for the soft tissue cannot be tested.


Why do you say the soft tissue should have been gone. You are just guessing and that's not good enough. The article I cited shows how collagen can survive with iron creating many cross links between the molecules. Collagen was the only soft tissue that they found.



james bond said:


> Already, you've avoided the point I brought up a few times of a supercontinent breaking up into seven continents. We've discovered plate tectonics and how earthquakes cause these plates to move. That and the surface of Earth being covered by 3/4 water is evidence for a global flood. We also have marine fossils on top of Mt. Everest and those are the majority of the fossils in the fossil record. We also have the walking whale fossil in the Himalayas and more.
> 
> Your 65 million years layers do not explain fossilized trees running through the layers. Also, it does not explain bent rocks. Bent rocks are formed by laws of chemistry not long time pressure of hardened rocks. This can be confirmed by the scientific method.



I simply don't have the time to look at all the creationist arguments concerning

Supercontinent breakup
Plate techtonics
Global flood
Fossils on mountains
Trees in layers
Bent rocks
We haven't covered all the facets in the science of radiometric dating which involves fundamental nuclear physics and makes any other less developed creationist topics moot.



james bond said:


> Thank you. Yet, this is the dating that forms the basis of a 4.5 B yr-old Earth.





Wuwei said:


> I'm willing to accept that *some* meteorites are not a good source for reliable dating of the primordial earth.


I said *some *meteorites. I don't know if the one cited by Peterson is cherry picked to attempt to prove a point.



james bond said:


> It's the fossil that is supposedly around 65 million yrs old. I think you are saying the Earth is at least that old if not billions of years old.
> 
> I'm going with 40 K yr-old fossils and a young Earth.



Why do you want to ignore the three different methods of dating the area surrounding the fossils which all agree to 65 million years ± 4%? You will have to find a reason why all three are simultaneously invalid.

The lifetime of C14 is too short for carbon dating. There are other methods that ensure that there is no contamination, and are useful for the billions of years of the earth.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution | Research & News
Dr. Steven Shirey has been looking at diamonds that completely enclose minerals -- called inclusions. That avoids contamination. He looks for diamonds that contain a specific sulfide inclusion. He is not interested in RATE, nor creationism. He is interested in tracking diamonds through the earth's mantle.
_"The sulfide inclusion contains tiny amounts of a radioactive isotope of rhenium (¹⁸⁷Re), which decays extremely slowly over many billions of years to a stable isotope of osmium (¹⁸⁷Os). As the rate of radioactive decay is known, it’s possible to calculate the age of the diamond based on the ratios of ¹⁸⁷Re and ¹⁸⁷Os present."_​
_"A diamond crystal is a really good container for these exotic minerals, he says, and preserves them in pristine form on the way to the earth’s surface."_​
Diamonds from Canada’s Ekati mine are the oldest yet known, at 3.523 billion years ... - an astonishing age, when the earth was a quarter of its age today.​






Creationists have a counter-argument that if all 75 electrons are stripped from the Rhenium atom the half life is only 33 years. If all electrons are stripped nuclear beta−decay the decay energy is comparable to the free lowest bound orbital state. The electron is captured in orbit.

That is easy to do in theory. But in experiment the completely stripped Rhenium atoms must be totally isolated from contact with any loose electrons. An accelerator and a heavy-ion storage ring are used for the isolation. Or in nature stripped rhenium could possibly occur in a stellar plasma at several million degrees.

The creationist argument is disingenuous. In the formation of diamonds the intense pressure totally prevents electron isolation and the temperature is not not even close to the stellar plasma temperature around 27 million degrees.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...rate_and_changes_in_beta-_decay_branching#pf8

One solid counter example entirely destroys a hypothesis. If you want to believe in creationism, so be it. But creationists should learn not to use the hard science of physics to rationalize their belief.

.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> I wasn't engaging in debate, but asking you questions to test your knowledge of science, so you'd have a chance to explain to me what I've learned and to impress others here with your knowledge


Which is your cowardly and fraudulent way of changing the subject. All of your cheap tricks are older than dirt. Again, they may work when you are brainwashing children, but adults are laughing at you.


----------



## james bond (Nov 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Not biased. Hands on experience. The detectors are identical to those for RATE. The detection method is biased when it can't filter out all cosmic rays and electronic noise.



The AMS used is that from tne of the better radiocarbon labs in the US.

How does the cosmic rays and electronic noise occur in the AMS labs?

There was a critic named Bertsche and he referenced a Taylor and Southon (2007) paper who claimed the C14 was not intrinsic to the diamonds themselves.  I suppose that would include you cosmic rays and electronic noise.  I copied and paste the following for diamonds from Dr. John Baumgardner as rebuttal:

"In his 2008 critique Bertsche references the Taylor and Southon (2007) paper describing their application of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) to natural diamonds. Bertsche calls attention to the authors’ statement, “The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields.” He claims that this means that the measured 14C cannot be intrinsic to the diamonds themselves. What Bertsche fails to mention is that the correlation of low 14C level with high ion current was restricted to only a subset of the authors’ data. Such a correlation did not exist across all the samples the authors tested and reported. That pattern occurred only among the eight diamonds listed in part B of Taylor and Southon’s Table 2. Five of these diamonds were mounted with silver powder beneath them in the 1.6 mm holes drilled in the aluminum cathode sample holder, while the other three did not have the silver powder. The purpose of the silver powder was to enhance the thermal conductivity between the diamond and the aluminum sample holder. This difference in mounting procedure resulted in the surprising and unexplained increase in ion current and decrease in the number of 14C atoms detected as shown in part B of Table 2 for the samples without the silver powder.

How do the authors interpret this pattern? They state, “Previous tests showed that 14C count rates from silver powder cathodes were comparable with those from diamonds. Because of this and because the silver packing was largely shielded from the cesium beam by the diamonds themselves, the excess 14C was therefore probably due to differences between diamonds or run-to-run changes in the spectrometer, not from carbon in the silver powder.” Note that the authors emphatically do _not_ attribute the higher 14C counts, as Bertsche claims, to ion source memory contamination. One good reason for the authors’ caution was the _absence_ of this trend of higher 14C count with lower ion current in the measurements reported in part A of Table 2. Part A results are from a single diamond that was cleaved into six separate pieces. Results for these six samples show little variation in 14C levels despite moderately large differences in ion current. For example, samples 12674 and 12675 yielded the same 14C value of 0.015 pMC, despite the fact that sample 12675 displayed a 50% higher beam current compared with sample 12674. The correlation Bertsche is relying upon for his interpretation is altogether missing for the six samples listed in part A of Table 2. The simplest explanation for the trend in the eight samples in part B is that it is associated with the presence or absence of the silver powder. Precisely how the silver powder might be producing the observed trend is not clear. Indeed, the authors acknowledge their inability to provide a confident explanation.

Regardless of the actual cause, the glaring fact remains that Taylor and Southon detected levels of 14C in the diamonds they analyzed that were all well above the intrinsic sensitivity of their AMS hardware. That intrinsic sensitivity, typically observed with a blank aluminum sample holder (with no sample or silver powder present) is on the order of 0.00056 pMC, corresponding to about 100,000 years under the standard assumption of a constant past atmospheric 14C level. Note that the level measured for samples 12674 and 12675 are more than _25 times greater_ than this normal instrument background.

It is important to emphasize that placing the diamonds directly in holes bored in the instrument's cathode sample holder eliminates all of the potential sources of 14C contamination listed in Table 1 of Taylor and Southon's paper except for items (1), 14C intrinsic to the sample itself, and (7) instrument background. The authors argue that most potential sources of instrument background can be excluded for their system. They show from their investigations that contamination from CO2 and other carbon-containing species adhering to the diamond surface can now be effectively ruled out as well. This means that contamination from ion source memory is largely removed from the table. What then is left? It is item (1), namely, 14C intrinsic to the sample itself! The authors acknowledge this reality in the final sentence of section 1 of their paper when they state, “14C from the actual sample is probably the dominant component of the ‘routine’ background.” This statement directly contradicts Bertsche's assertion that these authors interpret their measured 14C values as “instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory.” The overall conclusion is that the 14C levels in natural diamond reported by Taylor and Southon are consistently far above the levels one would expect if these diamonds were truly more than a few hundred thousand years old. Despite the conflict it raises for Bertsche’s worldview, the Taylor and Southon paper tangibly strengthens the case that AMS instrument background can be eliminated, to a high degree of certainty, even as a remotely possible explanation for the substantial 14C levels measured so routinely in carbon-bearing samples from deep within the geological record.

Furthermore, despite Bertsche’s emphasis on the diamond measurements, to me whether or not there is 14C in diamonds is a relatively minor issue. The dramatically more important issue, as emphasized in our RATE report, is the consistent presence of even higher levels of 14C in all fossilized living things which still retain some carbon. That fact is powerful and indisputable support that the earth is young and that the Genesis Flood really did occur not so long ago.

John Baumgardner
November 2014"

Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?

Now, the carbon AMS measurements are a bit different.  We have two different methods producing two different ages.  Both RATE and the AMS lab seem to be saying there was no in situ or lab contamination added to the samples in the lab.

"During the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) research project at the Institute for Creation Research, co-sponsored by the Creation Research Society, some of the research effort was focused on investigating radiocarbon (carbon-14) dating. This is one of the radioactive dating methods, but because carbon-14 decays relatively rapidly it only provides “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years. In fact, if every atom making up the earth was carbon-14, even after just 1 million years there would be absolutely no atoms of carbon-14 left, because they would have all decayed away, based on today’s measured half-life! That’s why radiocarbon dating isn’t used to date rocks at millions of years.

The RATE radiocarbon research first focused on demonstrating that significant detectable levels of carbon-14 are present in ancient coal beds.1,2 Ten samples from U.S. coal beds, conventionally dated at 40–320 million years old, were found to contain carbon-14 equivalent to ages of around 48,000–50,000 years. The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either _in situ_ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory. Of course, these would not be the true ages of these coal beds, because these 48,000–50,000 year ages are calculated at the present-day level and production rate of radiocarbon. The fact that all these coal beds yield radiocarbon ages in the same “ballpark” is consistent with them all having been formed at the same time in a recent catastrophic event. This is, of course, consistent with masses of pre-Flood vegetation being swept away and buried on a huge scale globally during the cataclysmic Genesis Flood.

Buoyed by this success, the RATE radiocarbon research next checked for carbon-14 in diamonds. Diamonds are the hardest known natural substance and resist physical abrasion. Also, the chemical bonding of the carbon in diamonds makes them highly resistant to chemical corrosion and weathering. Diamonds also repel and exclude water from adhering to their surfaces, which would eliminate any possibility of the carbon in the diamonds becoming contaminated. Sure enough, the diamonds submitted for radiocarbon analyses did contain detectable, significant levels of carbon-14, equivalent to an age of around 55,000 years. Again, the laboratory did repeat analyses and discounted any possibility that this carbon-14 was due to contamination, _in situ_ to the diamonds or added in the laboratory. At 1–2 billion years old, these diamonds, which are formed deep inside the earth, are regarded as being related to the earth’s early history. Therefore, it was concluded that carbon-14 in these diamonds was consistent with a young age for the earth itself.

Confirmation that there is _in situ_ carbon-14 in diamonds has now been reported in the conventional literature.3 R.E. Taylor of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California–Riverside and of the Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at the University of California–Los Angeles teamed with J. Southon at the Keck Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the Department of Earth System Science at the University of California–Irvine to analyze nine natural diamonds from Brazil. All nine diamonds are conventionally regarded as being at least of early Paleozoic age, that is, at least several hundred million years old. So, if they really are that old they should not have any intrinsic carbon-14 in them. Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 64,900 years to 80,000 years. The ninth diamond was cut into six equal fragments, which were each analyzed. They yield essentially identical radiocarbon “ages” ranging from 69,400 years to 70,600 years. This suggests the carbon-14 was evenly distributed through this diamond, which is consistent with it being intrinsic carbon-14, and not contamination. Interestingly, samples of Ceylon graphite from Precambrian metamorphic rock (conventionally around 1 billion years old) were analyzed at the same time and yielded radiocarbon “ages” of from 58,400 years to 70,100 years.

These results, from a different radiocarbon laboratory to that used by the RATE group, confirm that there is intrinsic carbon-14 in natural diamonds. Therefore, they cannot be hundreds of millions or billions of years old, as there is no other current credible explanation for the presence of this carbon-14. Less carbon-14 was found in the diamonds in this study reported in the conventional literature. That was because the diamonds were mounted directly in the beam within the analytical instrument, whereas in the RATE study the diamonds were combusted to convert the carbon to carbon dioxide, which was then converted to graphite that was analyzed in the instrument. That process may have introduced some more carbon-14 to the analyses.

The University of California scientists, of course, did not conclude that the diamonds they analyzed are evidence that the earth is young. Instead, they interpreted these 64,900–80,000 year “age” to represent one component of “machine background” in the analytical instrument. Yet this begs the question as to why then did the Precambrian graphite contain on average more carbon-14 to yield younger ages than the diamonds? And why did the diamonds have such different carbon-14 contents to yield different apparent radiocarbon “ages”? Because the same instrument was used to analyze all the diamonds and the graphite, the results should surely have all been affected by the same “machine background.” Rather, these results may further confirm the conclusions of the RATE radiocarbon project that natural diamonds, which are related to the earth’s early history, show evidence of being only thousands of years old and provide noteworthy support that the earth is young."

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed

I'll respond to your other comments in a separate thread.


----------



## james bond (Nov 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Which is your cowardly and fraudulent way of changing the subject. All of your cheap tricks are older than dirt. Again, they may work when you are brainwashing children, but adults are laughing at you.



This is not within your science, so you use your cowardly and fraudulent ad hominem attacks.  Those who have debated with you when you actually knew something realize this.  Most of the time you do not know.  One of the ways to check for fraud is to ask a question you know the answer to.  You do not know.  

Generally, you avoid answering questions because you do not want to take the time to learn.  It's one of the best ways of learning and that is answering questions.  So people here laugh at you , not me .


----------



## james bond (Nov 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I simply don't have the time to look at all the creationist arguments concerning
> 
> Supercontinent breakup
> Plate techtonics
> ...



You miss my point.  My question to you was, if the Earth is old, i.e. 65 million years in one of your estimates, then what other evidence do you have for it being so old without using radiometric measurements?  Wouldn't you think there would be other facts and evidence to show the Earth is old?  Such as tree rings?  Geological explanations?  Other scientific thesis supporting it?  I question 65 million years just on the fact that we cannot do any experiments to show such long time.  Thus, is there forensic evidence to show long time?

We had luchitociencia post in #77 some evidence.

I've run out of time so will continue when I can.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 19, 2019)

Stop spamming the science section with religious horseshit!


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> The AMS used is that from tne of the better radiocarbon labs in the US.
> 
> How does the cosmic rays and electronic noise occur in the AMS labs?
> 
> There was a critic named Bertsche and he referenced a Taylor and Southon (2007) paper who claimed the C14 was not intrinsic to the diamonds themselves. I suppose that would include you cosmic rays and electronic noise. I copied and paste the following for diamonds from Dr. John Baumgardner as rebuttal:



This is beyond frustrating. You ask questions and I give you the answer as best as I can. Then you ask the same question again. Cosmic rays do not affect an AMS. Electronic noise is less important. There is a different set of inaccuracies that affect the limit of the AMS instrument. It's totally different than C14 decay detection.
Read the second paragraph again here
Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

You don't seem to know how an AMS works. The "MS" stands for mass spectrometer. It measures the mass of the atoms. I already told you the masses of C14 and N14 are the same to about one part per million. Here they are again.
Nitrogen 14 . . 14.00307400446
Carbon 14 . . . 14.00324198870​For all practical purposes they both have the same mass. So any nitrogen will be counted as Carbon 14. That is a contamination that will occur even with the best handling. Here is a site that explains it more. Most diamonds are contaminated.

Diamonds Containing Nitrogen
_"Diamonds without nitrogen, Type II, are extremely rare and only account for 1% of all diamonds found."_​What will happen is that a small amount of nitrogen will go through the AMS and be read out as Carbon 14  since it has the same mass.

I read the disagreement between Dr. Baumgardner and Dr. Kirk Bertsche here:
Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
The history and details of the actual experiments are way beyond my discretionary time allowance for further investigation such as the standard deviation of measurements and the affect of electric and magnetic field nonlinearity in the AMS. My conclusion is that C14 is not appropriate for RATE. There are other ways of setting a lower limit on the age of the earth which you haven't answered yet, such as diamonds with Rhenium inclusions.



.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> You miss my point. My question to you was, if the Earth is old, i.e. 65 million years in one of your estimates, then what other evidence do you have for it being so old without using radiometric measurements? Wouldn't you think there would be other facts and evidence to show the Earth is old? Such as tree rings? Geological explanations? Other scientific thesis supporting it? I question 65 million years just on the fact that we cannot do any experiments to show such long time. Thus, is there forensic evidence to show long time?


Yes there is further radiometric dating of areas older than the 65 million years example I gave. That example sets a lower limit. Analysis of diamonds with Rhenium inclusions gives dates of several billions years. There are other studies that I read about that give even older dates. Perhaps there is uncontaminated meteor data that would give a date of the chaotic epoch during planet formation. To me an exact date of the earth is not important in showing that the earth age is several billions of years which is much much older than 6,000 years.
.


----------



## james bond (Nov 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stop spamming the science section with religious horseshit!



None of it was religious nor horse doo.  There is also have atheist science where they make up stuff you can't see because of no creation rule.  

Truth can always be validated, so one side is right and the other wrong..


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Why do you want to ignore the three different methods of dating the area surrounding the fossils which all agree to 65 million years ± 4%? You will have to find a reason why all three are simultaneously invalid.
> 
> .



You know no science, at least empirical science.

You can use a hundred of different radiometric methods of measure and still all of them are INVALID.

The only way to validate the results from radiometric measure is confronting a different method of measurement against all the radiometric methods.

This is the ONLY and SOLELY way to verify if the radiometric measure is accurate AND VALID.

You have mentioned Carbon 14. Well, this radiometric method used for organic matter has been verified with a different method of measure. It was with an old tree. The counting of the internal rings, which are known are added one per year in the trunk of the tree, was confronted to the measure obtained by Carbon 14 method. The results were very close and doing so this radiometric method was verified.

All your results with millions of years are nothing but mere conjectures which can't be trusted at all. You just can't verify a radiometric method using another radiometric method, because such is the same monkey but with different banana.

Before you continue with your infantile 65 millions of years of age for dinosaurs, you better go and find how to verify your radiometric method using a complete different method of measure.

And if you can't find any,,, well, there you go, it was your turn to be the loser of the story.

No need from you to argue with me, because no verification of the radiometric method means you are lost in your fantasy, and this forum is about science.


----------



## james bond (Nov 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> This is beyond frustrating. You ask questions and I give you the answer as best as I can. Then you ask the same question again. Cosmic rays do not affect an AMS. Electronic noise is less important. There is a different set of inaccuracies that affect the limit of the AMS instrument. It's totally different than C14 decay detection.
> Read the second paragraph again here
> Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...



I should be the one frustrated.  First, you bring up contamination as your argument.  We discuss that, but only for the carbon and diamonds.  Nothing about what, if any, contamination was in the meteorite.  In fact, I tried to get you to explain that after I pointed out that Clair Patterson (not Peterson) hypothesized it in 1956.  You seem to agree that a meteorite readily explains a 4.5 B yr-old Earth.

So, I went along and a couple posts ago bring up cosmic rays and electronic noise.  Did I bring that up?  I don't think I did.  Now, you're bringing in Archbishop Ussher.  I never used him as reference nor any part of my argument.  I used C14 remaining in coal and diamonds dated to be long time and that it was able to be carbon dated.  That was what we are discussing and I compared it to what Patterson used to show it boils down to a young Earth vs old Earth theories.  Now, I'm confused why you are talking about AMS being different from C14 decay detection.  Did you read what RATE and Baumgardner did?



Wuwei said:


> You don't seem to know how an AMS works. The "MS" stands for mass spectrometer. It measures the mass of the atoms. I already told you the masses of C14 and N14 are the same to about one part per million. Here they are again.
> Nitrogen 14 . . 14.00307400446
> Carbon 14 . . . 14.00324198870For all practical purposes they both have the same mass. So any nitrogen will be counted as Carbon 14. That is a contamination that will occur even with the best handling. Here is a site that explains it more. Most diamonds are contaminated.



I knew that from reading the links I posted.  I answered that with what Dr. Baumgardner used as rebuttal to a critic named Bertsche.  I'm not going to be able it explain like Baumgardner, so I c&p his response.

The nitrogen complaint was addressed already in post #71, "The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds. But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out: ‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis _in situ_.’2 Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating."

>>Most diamonds are contaminated.<<

The purpose of the diamonds was to address the contamination of the coal.  I'm positive this was addressed in the links I gave, but here's another c&p since our opinions are opposite.

"However, as you have pointed out, the same RATE project also found radiocarbon measurements in not just coal, but also diamonds. Diamonds, being primarily carbon and with atoms in a tightly packed crystal lattice, are quite impervious to contamination. Yet when these diamonds were tested, we once again find 14C—highly problematic for the evolutionist—since uniformitarian geology places the age of diamonds at 1 to 3 billion years. Some evolutionists, realizing that they cannot appeal to contamination _in situ_ with diamonds, attempt to dismiss this problem by simply appealing to the possibility of contamination by modern carbon during the testing process. But once again, where is the evidence of such contamination? It again appears to be nothing more than a convenient attempt at ignoring the evidence because the data does not fit their uniformitarian worldview. The charge of “contamination by modern carbon” is even more unlikely given that modern laboratories are equipped with sophisticated procedures to ensure that results are _not_ contaminated by modern carbon. Dr Baumgardner performed this experiment with six alluvial diamonds from Namibia, one from South Africa, one from Guinea, West Africa, and four diamonds from two different mines in Botswana, South-central Africa. Therefore it is not possible to attribute 14C in diamonds as a one-time experimental error or sample chemistry. Neither can the findings be attributed to contamination by modern carbon since Dr Baumgardner also accounted for the amount of modern carbon in testing all 12 diamonds."

Carbon-14 diamonds TalkOrigins - creation.com

>>Diamonds Containing Nitrogen
_"Diamonds without nitrogen, Type II, are extremely rare and only account for 1% of all diamonds found."_
What will happen is that a small amount of nitrogen will go through the AMS and be read out as Carbon 14 since it has the same mass.

I read the disagreement between Dr. Baumgardner and Dr. Kirk Bertsche here:
Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
The history and details of the actual experiments are way beyond my discretionary time allowance for further investigation such as the standard deviation of measurements and the affect of electric and magnetic field nonlinearity in the AMS. My conclusion is that C14 is not appropriate for RATE. There are other ways of setting a lower limit on the age of the earth which you haven't answered yet, such as diamonds with Rhenium inclusions.<<

The nitrogen is addressed above.

I figured you weren't going to be convinced by RATE, but they were also backed up by the AMS lab which you do not address. 

As for the diamonds with Rhenium inclusions, the scientist comes afterward the RATE measurements and he isn't referring to what RATE did.  You admitted it as much.  Normally, you do not want inclusions in diamonds, but it appears these end up protecting the diamonds.  There has been not tests on diamonds with inclusions, so it's irrelevant to our discussion.

You do not trust creation scientists, but your scientist appears to be an atheist one calling 4.5 B year old Earth as young.  What a nutgoober!  When one cannot see beyond a lifetime or an experiment done beyond a lifetime, then it's all hypothesis.  He's basing things on the meteorite we discussed and you agreed there wasn't adequate correlation to the Earth.


----------



## james bond (Nov 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> This is beyond frustrating. You ask questions and I give you the answer as best as I can. Then you ask the same question again. Cosmic rays do not affect an AMS. Electronic noise is less important. There is a different set of inaccuracies that affect the limit of the AMS instrument. It's totally different than C14 decay detection.
> Read the second paragraph again here
> Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...



I should be the one frustrated.  First, you bring up contamination as your argument.  We discuss that, but only for the carbon and diamonds.  Nothing about what, if any, contamination was in the meteorite.  In fact, I tried to get you to explain that after I pointed out that Clair Patterson (not Peterson) hypothesized it in 1956.  You seem to agree that a meteorite readily explains a 4.5 B yr-old Earth.

So, I went along and a couple posts ago bring up cosmic rays and electronic noise.  Did I bring that up?  I don't think I did.  Now, you're bringing in Archbishop Ussher.  I never used him as reference nor any part of my argument.  I used C14 remaining in coal and diamonds dated to be long time and that it was able to be carbon dated.  That was what we are discussing and I compared it to what Patterson used to show it boils down to a young Earth vs old Earth theories.  Now, I'm confused why you are talking about AMS being different from C14 decay detection.  Did you read what RATE and Baumgardner did?



Wuwei said:


> You don't seem to know how an AMS works. The "MS" stands for mass spectrometer. It measures the mass of the atoms. I already told you the masses of C14 and N14 are the same to about one part per million. Here they are again.
> Nitrogen 14 . . 14.00307400446
> Carbon 14 . . . 14.00324198870For all practical purposes they both have the same mass. So any nitrogen will be counted as Carbon 14. That is a contamination that will occur even with the best handling. Here is a site that explains it more. Most diamonds are contaminated.



I knew that from reading the links I posted.  I answered that with what Dr. Baumgardner used as rebuttal to a critic named Bertsche.  I'm not going to be able it explain like Baumgardner, so I c&p his response.

The nitrogen complaint was addressed already in post #71, "The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds. But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out: ‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis _in situ_.’2 Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating."

>>Most diamonds are contaminated.<<

The purpose of the diamonds was to address the contamination of the coal.  I'm positive this was addressed in the links I gave, but here's another c&p since our opinions are opposite.

"However, as you have pointed out, the same RATE project also found radiocarbon measurements in not just coal, but also diamonds. Diamonds, being primarily carbon and with atoms in a tightly packed crystal lattice, are quite impervious to contamination. Yet when these diamonds were tested, we once again find 14C—highly problematic for the evolutionist—since uniformitarian geology places the age of diamonds at 1 to 3 billion years. Some evolutionists, realizing that they cannot appeal to contamination _in situ_ with diamonds, attempt to dismiss this problem by simply appealing to the possibility of contamination by modern carbon during the testing process. But once again, where is the evidence of such contamination? It again appears to be nothing more than a convenient attempt at ignoring the evidence because the data does not fit their uniformitarian worldview. The charge of “contamination by modern carbon” is even more unlikely given that modern laboratories are equipped with sophisticated procedures to ensure that results are _not_ contaminated by modern carbon. Dr Baumgardner performed this experiment with six alluvial diamonds from Namibia, one from South Africa, one from Guinea, West Africa, and four diamonds from two different mines in Botswana, South-central Africa. Therefore it is not possible to attribute 14C in diamonds as a one-time experimental error or sample chemistry. Neither can the findings be attributed to contamination by modern carbon since Dr Baumgardner also accounted for the amount of modern carbon in testing all 12 diamonds."

Carbon-14 diamonds TalkOrigins - creation.com


----------



## james bond (Nov 19, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Yes there is further radiometric dating of areas older than the 65 million years example I gave. That example sets a lower limit. Analysis of diamonds with Rhenium inclusions gives dates of several billions years. There are other studies that I read about that give even older dates. Perhaps there is uncontaminated meteor data that would give a date of the chaotic epoch during planet formation. To me an exact date of the earth is not important in showing that the earth age is several billions of years which is much much older than 6,000 years.



These radiometric dating is still based on assumptions made of what parent-daughter elements existed when the Rhenium inclusion diamonds were formed.  You do not know this and thus just validating what was discovered by Patterson in 1956.  Before that, we had the Earth around 3 B years old.  What I'm saying is this guy Shirey would've said 3 B years was young if not for Patterson.  He's an atheist scientist just backing up what was told to him.  I don't think it was his point to show the age of the Earth so why you bring him into the discussion is troubling.  Can't you see that this evolutionary thinking is just built upon false assumptions?

That's why I asked for other evidence that you have and Rhenium inclusion diamonds have nothing to do with age of the Earth.  You are talking apples and oranges.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> You miss my point.  My question to you was, if the Earth is old, i.e. 65 million years in one of your estimates, then what other evidence do you have for it being so old without using radiometric measurements?  Wouldn't you think there would be other facts and evidence to show the Earth is old?  Such as tree rings?  Geological explanations?  Other scientific thesis supporting it?  I question 65 million years just on the fact that we cannot do any experiments to show such long time.  Thus, is there forensic evidence to show long time?
> 
> We had luchitociencia post in #77 some evidence.
> 
> I've run out of time so will continue when I can.



I am giving you another link. Science magazine, I think is October 1952, but surely is between years 1952 and 1953.

The petroleum companies wanted to know the age of the hydrocarbons from the Gulf of Mexico.

The assumed age of the hydrocarbons by part of the theory in that time was of millions of years, which they assumed will take for organic matter to be converted into hydrocarbon. As it was found liquid hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of New Mexico, the decision was to check its age.

The results were *11,800 -14,600 years of age *(+- 1400 years),  with samples extracted from different sites of the Grande Isle core. A composite carbonate sample from the core as well gave *12,300 years of age* (+-1200 years), and the nonextractable organic matter , which comprises a major portion of the original organic content, had an *average age of 9,200 years* (+-100 years).

All the age determination was made by J. Laurence Kulp, from Lamont Geological Observatory of Columbia University.

There is plenty evidence that the story of dinosaurs living millions of years ago is just pure fairy tales. Just "a hypothesis", because evolution can't reach the title of being called "a theory".


----------



## james bond (Nov 19, 2019)

Wuwei, let's look at how atheist scientists or evolutionists use radiomentric dating.  For one, the evos assume that we observe different geological layers and that the older ones are lower while the newer layers are on top.  How do they explain earthquakes, floods, and other catastrophes that have happened over millions and billions of years?  Thus, how can you assume these layers formed without anything outside of it to disturb it?  It seems the evos assume the present is the key to the past.  I pointed out the names of these layers are not based on time chronology, but location.  Furthermore, one has to know what the parent-daughter isotope ratios were when these layers formed.  I just go through explaining your complaints about contamination, but what about contamination for these layers?

"The geological time scale, described in this book by Harland and others, is based on less than 800 dates obtained by various methods on rocks from different geological layers. These dates tend to agree with each other, but there are hundreds of thousands of other dates that have been measured and were not listed. Many of these other dates disagree with one another, so it is not clear what the significance of these 800 dates is.

The great majority of the dates on which the geological time scale is based, are measured using one method, the potassium-argon (K-Ar) method. In order to explain the fact that older dates tend to be found deeper down (if this is true), we really only need to explain why this shouuld be true for K-Ar dating, and then we have explained much of the geological time scale.

K-Ar dating is based on the decay of potassium 40 to argon 40. When lava is hot, argon escapes from it, so it starts out with potassium but no argon. Over time, potassium gradually decays to argon, and the rate at which this occurs can be measured in the laboratory. By measuring how much potassium and argon is in a rock, and knowing how fast potassium decays, one can compute how old the rock is. The more argon, the older the rock is. The more potassium, the younger the rock is, since a larger amount of potassium would produce argon faster.

However, the reality is much more complicated than this. The argon does not always escape when the lava is hot. The potassium can be removed later on, invalidating the calculation. Also, rocks absorb argon very easily from the environment. In fact, geologists have to take considerable precautions to get rid of the argon that accumulates on their lab equipment so that they can accurately measure K-Ar ages. Rocks can absorb a considerable amount of argon in this way, so all of the argon in a rock did not necessarily come from the potassium it contains. Atmospheric argon absorbed in this way can be corrected for, because it has a certain amount of argon 36 which can be measured. However, argon also comes up from the interior of the earth, and this argon has very little argon 36 in it, and cannot be detected. So we can explain the old K-Ar dates just by the fact that rocks absorb so much argon that comes up from the interior of the earth. Older rocks would have more time to absorb argon, and there was probably more argon coming through the earth at the time of the Flood and shortly thereafter than there is today. In fact, a number of geologists themselves now say that K-Ar dating is not very reliable, or mainly of historical importance. This is quite an admission, since most of the geological time scale is based on K-Ar dating.

Another problem with K-Ar dating is that many volcanoes that we know erupted in the past several hundred years give K-Ar dates in the hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

A large number of K-Ar dates on which the geological time scale is based, are dates from a mineral called glaucony. However, many geologists say that this mineral is highly unreliable for dating. So here we have a large part of the geological time scale based on a mineral which geologists themselves say is highly unreliable.

So I guess we'll have to discard K-Ar dating as a reliable dating method.

Now let's consider another method that some textbooks say is reliable. This is the dating of zircons by uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating and some other related methods. Zircon is a gemstone, a mineral that can have a considerable amount of uranium in it. However, when zircons form, they exclude lead. Over time, uranium decays to lead. By measuring the amount of uranium and lead in a zircon and knowing the rate of decay, we can measure the age of the zircon. Lead is somewhat mobile, however, as is uranium, and so other methods have been devised that can date zircons even if some lead leaves the rock.

The problem with this method is that zircons can include lead when they form, throwing off the date. They can also lose uranium. In addition, they can travel through lava without melting, so the date computed for a zircon may be measuring a much older event than the lava flow itself. Even geologists recognize that ages given by zircons are often much too old, even for them. Furthermore, a batch of zircons from the same place will often yield widely different ages.

So I guess we'll have to discard zircons as a reliable dating method."

The Radiometric Dating Deception


----------



## james bond (Nov 19, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You miss my point.  My question to you was, if the Earth is old, i.e. 65 million years in one of your estimates, then what other evidence do you have for it being so old without using radiometric measurements?  Wouldn't you think there would be other facts and evidence to show the Earth is old?  Such as tree rings?  Geological explanations?  Other scientific thesis supporting it?  I question 65 million years just on the fact that we cannot do any experiments to show such long time.  Thus, is there forensic evidence to show long time?
> ...



What has happened is the evolutionists have gone to other radiometric dating since 1956 and chronological layers of the Earth from the 1850s.  I'm assuming they used radiocarbon dating from 1946 to get the ages of hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico.  The evos are claiming the newer radiometric dating has made dating more accurate.  I don't think this is the case as other evidence does not back it up.  Otherwise, simpletons such as Fort Fun Indiana would have the evidence.

In 1907, the Earth was 2.2 B yrs old.  I think it goes to show they made assumptions that aren't correct.  A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Radiometric dating finds Earth is 2.2 billion years old


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> What has happened is the evolutionists have gone to other radiometric dating since 1956 and chronological layers of the Earth from the 1850s.  I'm assuming they used radiocarbon dating from 1946 to get the ages of hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico.  The evos are claiming the newer radiometric dating has made dating more accurate.  I don't think this is the case as other evidence does not back it up.  Otherwise, simpletons such as Fort Fun Indiana would have the evidence.
> 
> In 1907, the Earth was 2.2 B yrs old.  I think it goes to show they made assumptions that aren't correct.  A Science Odyssey: People and Discoveries: Radiometric dating finds Earth is 2.2 billion years old



That is obvious, however, as I have pointed before, without verification of the results using a different method of measure, the new results of millions of years of age are the whole invalid.

This is not what I demand but what science requires. 

Not a single result is valid without verification, and when is about chronological data, verification is a must, this requirement can't be avoided at all.


----------



## james bond (Nov 20, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > What has happened is the evolutionists have gone to other radiometric dating since 1956 and chronological layers of the Earth from the 1850s.  I'm assuming they used radiocarbon dating from 1946 to get the ages of hydrocarbons in the sediments of the Gulf of Mexico.  The evos are claiming the newer radiometric dating has made dating more accurate.  I don't think this is the case as other evidence does not back it up.  Otherwise, simpletons such as Fort Fun Indiana would have the evidence.
> ...



It really is a numbers game with the evos.  We have estimated countless numbers of stars and trillions of galaxies.  But that also means countless numbers of supernovas and trillions of black holes.  Countless amount of radiation from CMB.  Countless numbers of Higgs field and Higgs bosons.  Yet, this is not enough for them to have life elsewhere such that they have had to resort to going to multiverses.  What's missing is the countless numbers of life elsewhere.  If we had billions of years, this should've been enough time easily.  Thus, we have the fine tuning facts to explain for life being rare, but they don't believe that.  It's what the evo scientists discovered.

To me, what's missing is the other life.  What's missing is the evos not having a Kalam cosmological argument.  All they have is hypothesis for explain this massive expansion of lifeless space matter.

The evos had to resort to finding long time because they had no explanation for what they saw and radiometric dating gave it to them.  Thus, they poo poo anything with short time even though that came from secular or atheist scientists, as well.

We really should date things that we know using both methods and then see which one is more backed by science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 20, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you want to ignore the three different methods of dating the area surrounding the fossils which all agree to 65 million years ± 4%? You will have to find a reason why all three are simultaneously invalid.
> ...


Stop spamming the science section with your religious horseshit!


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> I should be the one frustrated. First, you bring up contamination as your argument. We discuss that, but only for the carbon and diamonds. Nothing about what, if any, contamination was in the meteorite. In fact, I tried to get you to explain that after I pointed out that Clair Patterson (not Peterson) hypothesized it in 1956. You seem to agree that a meteorite readily explains a 4.5 B yr-old Earth.....................


Yes you should be frustrated. Your entire post conflates contamination and instrument limitations in two different technologies. The concepts of contamination and instrument limitations are entirely different between the two.

There are two types of assays for dating the ratio of carbon isotopes:

Measuring the radioactivity decay rate of a carbon sample with a phoswich detector.
Counting the actual molecules of C14 and C12 by separating them out in a mass spectrometer (AMS)
Please come back and tell me the difference between these two technologies. If you can't do that there is no point in continuing this discussion because you are thinking one technology when I'm actually referring to the other. One problem is that there are too many issues in play. They should be handled one at a time.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> That's why I asked for other evidence that you have and Rhenium inclusion diamonds have nothing to do with age of the Earth. You are talking apples and oranges.


That is correct. What I am doing is showing that the earth is billions of years older than what creationists think. What I am not as interested in is demonstrating more closely how old the earth is thought to be.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei, let's look at how atheist scientists or evolutionists use radiomentric dating.


Non creationist scientists aren't always atheist.
There are many thousands of assays of dozens of long lived isotopes that have daughter products. The ratios indicate the age of the sample. If the earth were only 6,000 years old there would be no daughter products at all because 6000 years is way too short for any measurable amount to have been formed. 
.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> I figured you weren't going to be convinced by RATE, but they were also backed up by the AMS lab which you do not address.


That is not true at all. I covered it in detail with several paragraphs several posts back. I told you what the AMS technology is and how it has a different set of instrument limitations. You apparently didn't understand it at all.


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stop spamming the science section with religious horseshit!


----------



## Weatherman2020 (Nov 20, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > It's you who cannot be in any sort of debate because you do not know science.
> ...





Fort Fun Indiana said:


> fact that the age of the earth is not the topic of any serious debate.



A Revised Estimate of the Age of the Earth

And until 1929 science said the earth ALWAYS existed.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 20, 2019)

Weatherman2020 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


What a fucking stupid post.

No, the age of the earth is not up for any serious debate. Neither is the fact that human actions are rapidlymwarming the client. Take your hot garbage to the 'Spiracy Section.


----------



## james bond (Nov 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Stop spamming the science section with your religious horseshit!



You're the spammer and weirdo with your atheist magic beliefs.


----------



## james bond (Nov 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Yes you should be frustrated. Your entire post conflates contamination and instrument limitations in two different technologies. The concepts of contamination and instrument limitations are entirely different between the two.
> 
> There are two types of assays for dating the ratio of carbon isotopes:
> 
> ...



We already discussed AMS.  Where does the phoswich detector come in?  Are you saying that should have been used?

You are back to radiocarbon and I understand AMS.  I brought that up first, but you did not understand that Dr. Baumgardner sent it to a reputable AMS lab.  Otherwise, you would have started with that.  You also did not pay attention to his rebuttal and what creation.com stated about it.  You kept up with your contamination thesis which was shown to be irrelevant as both RATE and AMS confirmed it wasn't external contamination and from the handling.  RATE, AMS, and creation.com stated that it was low and gave you the amounts.

Finally, you present some horseshit about Dr. Shirey who is irrelevant in a discussion about age of the Earth; he came years after RATE.  That shows to me you did not understand about RATE and its coal and diamond measurements.

Anyway, we'll agree to disagree.  I think you do know about the subject, but will not admit what the opposition is saying whom you admitted do not trust.  This is what science is suppose to be about argument and never consensus or that consensus is right.  I can accept your position of believing its contamination and nothing else since it would destroy your worldview of an old Earth.

However, you do not have anything else while I have the magnetic field that is losing its field and is suppose to last 20,000 years.  The magnetic field would have run out before old Earth.  This explains the global warming better than CO2.

New Study Shows How Rapidly Earth's Magnetic Field Is Changing

6 Horrible Consequences of Earth Losing its Magnetic Field

I also have:





None of the following were observed except for #6:
 1.  Cosmic evolution - big bang makes hydrogen
 2.  Chemical evolution - higher elements evolve
 3.  Evolution of stars and planets from gas
 4.  Organic evolution - life from rocks or abiogenesis
 5.  Macroevolution - changes between groups of plants and animals
 6.  Microevolution - changes within groups

Anyway, I won't trouble your AMS and phoswich brain with it as you'll just ignore it.


----------



## james bond (Nov 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> What a fucking stupid post.
> 
> No, the age of the earth is not up for any serious debate. Neither is the fact that human actions are rapidlymwarming the client. Take your hot garbage to the 'Spiracy Section.



It just goes to show that you do not understand science.  You cannot discuss any science but black holes and astronomy, but not astrophysics.  You are a weakling.  Like I said, others have made you look like a fifth grader crying for his mommy like now.

Everybody knows you have never won a science argument here.  Weatherman2020 whipped your arse in two posts.


----------



## james bond (Nov 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Non creationist scientists aren't always atheist.
> There are many thousands of assays of dozens of long lived isotopes that have daughter products. The ratios indicate the age of the sample. If the earth were only 6,000 years old there would be no daughter products at all because 6000 years is way too short for any measurable amount to have been formed.



Today's science is atheist since the 1850s.  It does not recognize the supernatural and tries to explain it as natural.  Life itself is supernatural.  Only life begats life.  Not rocks, not geysers, not oceans, not primordial soup, not anything outside the cell.  Creation scientists also find beauty and complexity in nature is supernatural.  It doesn't just happen, but there is intelligence behind it in its design.  You made a big deal about AMS and phoswich detector.  Something like that would not form in nature by itself.  We can infer that there was intelligence behidnd its design.



Wuwei said:


> That is not true at all. I covered it in detail with several paragraphs several posts back. I told you what the AMS technology is and how it has a different set of instrument limitations. You apparently didn't understand it at all.



Again, we'll agree to disagree.  I understood what you said.  Just didn't agree with it and it wasn't what RATE and the AMS lab did.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> You are back to radiocarbon and I understand AMS. I brought that up first, but you did not understand that Dr. Baumgardner sent it to a reputable AMS lab. Otherwise, you would have started with that. You also did not pay attention to his rebuttal and what creation.com stated about it. You kept up with your contamination thesis which was shown to be irrelevant as both RATE and AMS confirmed it wasn't external contamination and from the handling. RATE, AMS, and creation.com stated that it was low and gave you the amounts.


That is absolutely not true about Dr Baumgardner. I covered it in a more complete post of the history of the dialog between Baumgardner and  Bertsche. I cited that more complete dialog here:  Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...
It is a long read, but I understood that dialog. In my post I said that there is nitrogen in diamonds and the atomic masses of C14 and N14 are the same. What you didn't understand is that AMS is a mass spectrometer and counts the number of atoms that have a particular mass. Since C14 and N have the same mass there would be a miss-count of the C14. *The contamination was not outside the diamond. It was inside. *
I further said that there was not enough information in the dialog of those two to really understand just what the accuracy of the AMS was. That is, there was no information on the standard deviation of measurements and the affect of electric and magnetic field nonlinearity in the AMS that would influence the error.

But all that went way over your head and you quoted an article that referred to nitrogen contamination in the type of instrument that measures radiation with a phoswich detector. They are two completely different technologies!!! I spelled out the difference:

Measuring the radioactivity decay rate of a carbon sample with a phoswich detector.
Counting the actual molecules of C14 and C12 by separating them out in a mass spectrometer (AMS)
Then I asked for you to describe those two different technologies and you were confused and said,


james bond said:


> We already discussed AMS. Where does the phoswich detector come in? Are you saying that should have been used?


It's obvious you don't understand either technology and the different types of inaccuracies they can have. I have been wasting my time.



james bond said:


> Finally, you present some horseshit about Dr. Shirey who is irrelevant in a discussion about age of the Earth; he came years after RATE. That shows to me you did not understand about RATE and its coal and diamond measurements.


Don't you read my posts? I said that the Shirey put a minimum age of the universe at 65 M years. I told you that already. I told you that what I was doing is showing that an age of the earth and universe is way beyond 6000 years. I was not attempting to show what the age of the earth is.



james bond said:


> None of the following were observed except for #6:
> 1. Cosmic evolution - big bang makes hydrogen
> 2. Chemical evolution - higher elements evolve
> 3. Evolution of stars and planets from gas
> ...


No I won't ignore it. I will simply dismiss it as a digression that does not cover anything about proving the earth is 6000 years old. Dating with isotope decay is what is relevant. You can disbelieve whatever you want, but you are way too distracted to keep your mind focused on the nature of the fact that isotopic dating is hard science and is the major way of discussing age of billions of years.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> Today's science is atheist since the 1850s. It does not recognize the supernatural and tries to explain it as natural. Life itself is supernatural. Only life begats life. Not rocks, not geysers, not oceans, not primordial soup, not anything outside the cell. Creation scientists also find beauty and complexity in nature is supernatural. It doesn't just happen, but there is intelligence behind it in its design. You made a big deal about AMS and phoswich detector. Something like that would not form in nature by itself. We can infer that there was intelligence behidnd its design.



That's metaphysics not physics. I have studied physics and am awed by the nature of the Standard Model and the prediction of the Higgs boson, and the very fact that the basic laws of physics follows mathematics to an unprecedented accuracy. The agreement between basic particle physics experiments with mathematical models is in the range of one part per billion or trillion. To me the great mysteries are why the universe follows mathematics that we can understand; the complexity of the plethora of elements and how it led to organic compounds and the nature of life; how the universe became the billions of galaxies with billions of stars. And finally the extrasolar planets which is the subject of the OP.

The difference between you and me is that you want to worship the "intelligent designer" with whatever liturgy you use. My "liturgy" is to investigate the "design" and not worship the "designer". You get your design from the bible. I get mine from detailed investigation with an open mind.

.


----------



## james bond (Nov 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> That is absolutely not true about Dr Baumgardner. I covered it in a more complete post of the history of the dialog between Baumgardner and Bertsche. I cited that more complete dialog here: Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...



Are you quoting Angelo or the sci-fi writer in Quora ?



Wuwei said:


> It is a long read, but I understood that dialog. In my post I said that there is nitrogen in diamonds and the atomic masses of C14 and N14 are the same. What you didn't understand is that AMS is a mass spectrometer and counts the number of atoms that have a particular mass. Since C14 and N have the same mass there would be a miss-count of the C14. *The contamination was not outside the diamond. It was inside. *
> I further said that there was not enough information in the dialog of those two to really understand just what the accuracy of the AMS was. That is, there was no information on the standard deviation of measurements and the affect of electric and magnetic field nonlinearity in the AMS that would influence the error.



I already replied to this objection at least twice using creation.com.  Do you read my links?:
"The 14C was produced by neutron capture by 14N impurities in the diamonds. But this would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount even in best case scenarios of normal decay. And as Dr Paul Giem points out: ‘One can hypothesize that neutrons were once much more plentiful than they are now, and that is why there is so much carbon-14 in our experimental samples. But the number of neutrons required must be over a million times more than those found today, for at least 6,000 years; and every 5,730 years that we put the neutron shower back doubles the number of neutrons required. Every time we halve the duration of the neutron shower we roughly double its required intensity. Eventually the problem becomes insurmountable. In addition, since nitrogen creates carbon-14 from neutrons 110,000 times more easily than does carbon-13, a sample with 0.000 0091% nitrogen should have twice the carbon-14 content of a sample without any nitrogen. If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample, radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data. Perhaps this effect should be looked for by anyone seriously proposing that significant quantities of carbon-14 were produced by nuclear synthesis _in situ_.’2 Also, if atmospheric contamination were responsible, the entire carbon content would have to be exchanged every million years or so. But if this were occurring, we would expect huge variations in radiocarbon dates with porosity and thickness, which would also render the method useless.1 Dr Baumgardner thus first thought that the 14C must have been there right from the beginning. But if nuclear decay were accelerated, say a recent episode of 500 million years worth, it could explain some of the observed amounts. Indeed, his RATE colleagues have shown good evidence for accelerated decay in the past, which would invalidate radiometric dating."

Diamonds: a creationists best friend - creation.com

Where does Baumgardner or creation.com mention a phoswich detector?  Please explain what you are talking about ?



Wuwei said:


> Then I asked for you to describe those two different technologies and you were confused and said,



I asked you questions about the phoswich detector and how was it relevant, but did not answer.



Wuwei said:


> Don't you read my posts? I said that the Shirey put a minimum age of the universe at 65 M years. I told you that already. I told you that what I was doing is showing that an age of the earth and universe is way beyond 6000 years. I was not attempting to show what the age of the earth is.



Yes, I did read it.  Again, why are you arguing apples and oranges?  If Shirey put a minimum age, then it doesn't mean that he was right.  He started off stating the Earth was 4.5 B yrs old and that was young.  Shirey did not mention anything about RATE.  If one wants to compare how his included diamonds to the results Dr. Baumgardner got, then Shirey or you should have RATE look into it.  This is why you are comparing apples to oranges.  I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase for you claims.

I said let's just agree to disagree.  Instead, I suggested measuring the dates of things we already know its age using radiocarbon vs radiometric dating.



Wuwei said:


> No I won't ignore it. I will simply dismiss it as a digression that does not cover anything about proving the earth is 6000 years old. Dating with isotope decay is what is relevant. You can disbelieve whatever you want, but you are way too distracted to keep your mind focused on the nature of the fact that isotopic dating is hard science and is the major way of discussing age of billions of years.



I've already stated radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions.  GIGO.  I've read articles where they measured seals and got hundreds of thousands of years old.  They were only a few years old.

"Radiometric dating is a much misunderstood phenomenon. Evolutionists often misunderstand the method, assuming it gives a definite age for tested samples. Creationists also often misunderstand it, claiming that the process is inaccurate.

*Radiometric Dating Is Not Inaccurate*
Perhaps a good place to start this article would be to affirm that radiometric dating is not inaccurate. It is certainly incorrect, and it is certainly based on wrong assumptions, but it is not inaccurate.

What do I mean? How can something be accurate and yet wrong? To understand this point, we need to understand what exactly is being measured during a radiometric dating test. One thing that is not being directly measured is the actual age of the sample."

...

"*Based Upon Assumptions*
The radioactive decay process above can be seen to produce 8 alpha-particles for each one atom of U-238. Each ÃŽÂ±-particle could gain new electrons and become an atom of helium. The rate of diffusion of helium from a zircon crustal can be measured. It turns out that this rate of diffusion of helium is compatible with the crystals being about 5,000 years old, not 1.5 billion years old. Although assumptions 2 and 3 are not provable, they actually seem very likely in this particular example. Therefore, it seems that the first assumption must be wrong1. Remember that we have already said that these experimenters are highly skilled. It is therefore unlikely that the laboratory technicians have made a mistake in their measurements of U-238 or Pb-206. The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that the half-life of U-238 has not been constant throughout the lifetime of the granite and its zircon crystals.

Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results.


For more on this important work, please see Humphreys, R., _Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear _Decay, in Vardiman, L., Snelling, A.A., and Chaffin, E.F. (2005), _Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume 2_, (California: Institute for Creation Research), pages 25-100."
Radiometric Dating — Is It Accurate?


----------



## james bond (Nov 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Today's science is atheist since the 1850s. It does not recognize the supernatural and tries to explain it as natural. Life itself is supernatural. Only life begats life. Not rocks, not geysers, not oceans, not primordial soup, not anything outside the cell. Creation scientists also find beauty and complexity in nature is supernatural. It doesn't just happen, but there is intelligence behind it in its design. You made a big deal about AMS and phoswich detector. Something like that would not form in nature by itself. We can infer that there was intelligence behidnd its design.
> ...



What happens today is your atheist scientists are the ones who create your metaphysics in regards to multiverses when there is no evidence for them.  Things do not just pop into existence.

Should multiverse theories be rebranded as meta physics?
Should multiverse theories be rebranded as meta physics?

Multiverses replaced God
Has the Multiverse Replaced God? | Reasonable Faith

As for what you stated above, I already brought that up with the evidence of the supernatural right in front of your nose as_ life_.  Or that which keeps us alive.  Once you die, then you enter a different state.  Next, I presented the beauty and complexity in nature as evidence for the supernatural.  The things you mention do not just happen randomly or without intelligence behind it.

Who came up with the Standard Model?  One of the scientists is religious.  Abraham Pais' religion is Judaism.

Peter Higgs of Higgs boson fame is an atheist, but believes religion and science can co-exist.  He criticizes Richard Dawkins and his approach.  I agree.  The creation scientists should not have been systematically removed from peer reviews and should be able to present their papers in science journals.  Your theoretical physicists and physicists believe in multiverses.  That is metaphysics, too.  The concept of dark energy sounds like metaphysics when it violates the law of thermodynamics as part of laws of nature.

Please do not use the words "intelligent designer."  That gets confused with the Discovery Institute.  ID and God as designer with intelligence behind it are two different sciences. Where the overlap is both entities do not believe in evolution.

I don't think you get it from detailed investigation with an open mind when you cannot discuss other evidence to back up your old age of the Earth.  You have no other evidence besides radiometric dating which is based on wrong assumptions such as the present is the key to the past.  You won't believe gravity wasn't as strong in the past even though presented with the evidence.  This is because I already mentioned that it destroys your old Earth worldview.   Your side also believes in superposition of the sedimentary layers.  I already stated there was a global flood and that greatly changed the layers.  One evidence is the surface of the Earth is coered by 3/4 water.  How did that happen?  Instead, while I know you can understand reading a science paper, I think you're still very narrow in your approach.  We each have different postulates, so I do not think we will end up agreeing when we disagree.  Otherwise, your worldview will be destroyed.  What I have going for me is that my basic science theories cannot change while yours can.  How many different ages of the Earth have you had?  Why were they wrong?  What makes you think that you are right now when your opponent claims you are making invalid assumptions?


----------



## the other mike (Nov 21, 2019)

We'll let China figure it out.

*China Considers Voyager-like Mission to Interstellar Space*


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> Are you quoting Angelo or the sci-fi writer in Quora ?


I have absolutely no idea what or who you are talking about. You are shamefully wrong.
I don't think you pay attention nor understand my posts. I already told you my reference was Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
It is a rather long article that I read thoroughly and understood. Did you read it?



james bond said:


> I asked you questions about the phoswich detector and how was it relevant, but did not answer.


You didn't understand my answer twice. This is the third time.



james bond said:


> Yes, I did read it. Again, why are you arguing apples and oranges? If Shirey put a minimum age, then it doesn't mean that he was right. He started off stating the Earth was 4.5 B yrs old and that was young. Shirey did not mention anything about RATE. If one wants to compare how his included diamonds to the results Dr. Baumgardner got, then Shirey or you should have RATE look into it. This is why you are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not going to go on a wild goose chase for you claims.


I told you  many times that Shirey was not interested in RATE. He had a much better way of dating diamonds. He found diamonds over 3 billion years old. That totally disagrees with Baumgardner, That is not apples to oranges. They both had the same quest: to date diamonds. Shirey proved you get wrong results if you use C14 dating. The only  conclusion is that Baumgardner's work was not RATE it was discovering experimental errors in AMS.



james bond said:


> *Based Upon Assumptions*
> The radioactive decay process above can..............


The article says,
_"Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results."_​The problem of contamination of daughter products must always be considered, but the "similar assumptions" aren't always similar. For example,
For Schweitzer's fossil, "_three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%_" -- 65 to 68 million years. That gave superb confidence in that date.

That is the way confidence is gained. Use three totally different techniques and see how they compare. Important science experiments are always tentative until they can be verified by  totally different experimental methods.

Also the Shirely inclusions in diamonds had a decay product, Osmium which is an extremely rare element. It is very hard to see how a rare element would by chance be in the same inclusion as Rhenium.

As I said before, if you think RATE proves the earth is 6000 years old I gave you two counter examples. There are no doubt many more.
.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You seem to be saying scientists would cheat. If so, that is a weird thing to say.



Of course they do.

Just look the fake picture of the imaginary black hole.

By no means black holes can exist. The bodies in the universe are not subjected to dumb formulas in a piece of paper.

It happens that such imaginary body can't release radiation because its  assumed cold temperature, but by chance, just for a thousandth of a grade, the assumed body won't reach the total freezing required to impede expelling radiation. Whoa! Who knows how scientists were so lucky to foresee such exact measure in a body they never saw before by any means. They just made calculations and Zas! the black hole became a reality!

As the guys in my job used to say: What a crap!



Wuwei said:


> _
> "contamination with modern carbon is unavoidable, and the effects of that contamination become dominant for more ancient samples. We are essentially guaranteed to come up with an apparent “date” of 15,000-60,000 years, no matter how much older the sample actually is. That is the simple physical reality of carbon dating_"
> .



Go straight to what really happened.

The whole radiocarbon in the entire planet was messed up because the atomic bombs tested on the atmosphere since the end of the 40's up to the end of the 60's.

US, UK, France, China, Russia, were the main countries doing nuclear tests on the atmosphere, even the US tested one reaching high altitude and radio communication went off. They discovered that a nuclear explosion on the top of the atmosphere should destroy the total global communication because the whole satellites will become out of order. This could "turn blind" the entire armies of the world. This is why the rest of the world don't want a country like North Korea testing the sending of missiles going up to the atmosphere.

When they discovered the mess they did with radiocarbon plus other effects which changed the environment on the entire planet, these countries made the agreement to make nuclear tests underground only.

It is known already that all the tests made with Carbon 14 are not accurate since the nuclear tests affected radiocarbon in the planet. However,* Carbon 14 is the only radiometric method of measure that has been VERIFIED.*

The whole rest of methods do not have any verification.

With Carbon 14 you have a close idea of the age of the samples, with the other radiometric methods you don't know anything about accuracy, you just ASSUME those are fine.

Science is not based on assumptions but facts.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 21, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Just look the fake picture of the imaginary black hole.


You sound like an idiot.


----------



## james bond (Nov 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I have absolutely no idea what or who you are talking about. You are shamefully wrong.
> I don't think you pay attention nor understand my posts. I already told you my reference was Are the RATE Results Caused by Contamination?
> It is a rather long article that I read thoroughly and understood. Did you read it?



Yes, I posted the link.  Your link in the other post leads to Angelo post.  Instead of criticizing me for not understanding your posts, why not provide another evidence.  If the Earth is old, then there should be evidence for it besides radiometric dating of rocks and fossils.



Wuwei said:


> You didn't understand my answer twice. This is the third time.



No, I'm asking you where does RATE and the AWS lab bring it up?



Wuwei said:


> I told you many times that Shirey was not interested in RATE. He had a much better way of dating diamonds. He found diamonds over 3 billion years old. That totally disagrees with Baumgardner, That is not apples to oranges. They both had the same quest: to date diamonds. Shirey proved you get wrong results if you use C14 dating. The only conclusion is that Baumgardner's work was not RATE it was discovering experimental errors in AMS.



Haha.  That's not it.  He had nothing to do with RATE which is what I said.  Again, you do not understand what I have been patiently trying to get across to you.  You are hung up on coal and diamonds and their dates and this in relationship with the age of the Earth.  What did I say several times already?  From the creation scientists view, we are not going to get the correct date of the Earth from science.  God said he will keep some things to himself.  Now, why is this?  One has to look at the nature of God which you and I will never get to.  I tried to get you to explain what other evidence for age that you had besides radiometric dating.  The truth is there is no other science.  At least, I don't think so.

So, I have to explain it to you and that is it is God's nature to create adult or mature things with his creation.  He created a mature Adam and Eve.  Not senior mature age, but young adults of child bearing age.  He also created a mature or adult universe.  It's probably a young adult age unierse.  This means that the light from the distant heavens also reflected a mature universe.  He didn't start like what atheists scientists believe with the big bang and that was from time 0.  We do not know what time it was, but the universe came into existence not from scratch.  Do you get it now?  That's why we can do the different dating, but won't get far with it.  If we look at the history of the Earth and universe, then we will get different ages from where we start.  Some people refer to it as the "appearance of age," but that's not exactly correct.  It is actually like if it was created from day one as and adult Earth and universe.  The light we see from distant stars and stuff reflect it having traveled however old we are, but elapsed time since the creation is thousands of years from 6000 - 10,000 years old.  A young Earth and universe.

Let's go back to the diamonds now.  It wasn't contaminated.  It just reflected what was inside and not from the outside and that was how long it had been there even though they were adult diamonds.  Now, even creationists argue whether the Earth and universe and things in it are old or young.  If we listen to God's word and take them literally, then it is young.

Here is a theistic creationist site and how it deals with it -- Appearance of Age - A Young Earth Problem.  They think YEC is not correct, but interpret the Bible differently or not what God intended.

As for Shirey, what did he get using radiocarbon dating if it was wrong?  I didn't think he did that.  Thus, you are not comparing what RATE would do with the included diamonds.



Wuwei said:


> The article says,
> _"Other radiometric dating methods are based on similar assumptions. If the assumptions cannot be trusted, then the calculations based on them are unsound. It is for this reason that creationists question radiometric dating methods and do not accept their results."_The problem of contamination of daughter products must always be considered, but the "similar assumptions" aren't always similar. For example,
> For Schweitzer's fossil, "_three completely different radioactive dating methods, applied to three different minerals, all gave the same dates, within a spread of only 4%_" -- 65 to 68 million years. That gave superb confidence in that date.
> 
> ...



We never got to other evidence, so it really doesn't matter.  You're going to believe in old Earth no matter what.  How does that show an open mind?  Remember, I bought into evolution and long time, but around 2007 - 2011 time frame, articles started coming out questioning evolution and its thinking.  I compared both starting around 2012 and thought YEC theories explained it best.  It was observable, testable, and falsifiable, but not great for age of the Earth and universe.  We can only get evidence to support either old or young earth or what one believes as worldview because assumptions are different.


----------



## james bond (Nov 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You sound like an idiot.



You need to stop bragging about yourself.

He said science is based on facts.  I would go a step further and say it is based on who has the best evidence to support the theories to explain the facts.  If one can apply the scientific method, then that's it.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I have absolutely no idea what or who you are talking about. You are shamefully wrong.
> ...


Bond, you are an uneducated slob with no experience or education in any of these fields. Does it embarrass you AT ALLthat an uneducated slob like you is claiming to better know a sibject than people who have dedicated their lives to it? Does baby jesus not want you to have shame?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> He said science is based on facts.


No, you stupid shit. He said the image of the black hole was fake. Pay attention before you open your cryhole.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> What happens today is your atheist scientists are the ones who create your metaphysics in regards to multiverses when there is no evidence for them. Things do not just pop into existence.
> .....
> Who came up with the Standard Model? One of the scientists is religious. Abraham Pais' religion is Judaism..
> ......
> ...


Multiverses and dark matter is not metaphysics. It's hypothetical physics. Not all scientists believe in that. They are simply an interesting thoughts that people want to write papers about as far as I'm concerned. Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.



james bond said:


> I don't think you get it from detailed investigation with an open mind when you cannot discuss other evidence to back up your old age of the Earth. You have no other evidence besides radiometric dating which is based on wrong assumptions such as the present is the key to the past. You won't believe gravity wasn't as strong in the past even though presented with the evidence. This is because I already mentioned that it destroys your old Earth worldview. Your side also believes in superposition of the sedimentary layers. I already stated there was a global flood and that greatly changed the layers. One evidence is the surface of the Earth is coered by 3/4 water. How did that happen? Instead, while I know you can understand reading a science paper, I think you're still very narrow in your approach. We each have different postulates, so I do not think we will end up agreeing when we disagree. Otherwise, your worldview will be destroyed. What I have going for me is that my basic science theories cannot change while yours can. How many different ages of the Earth have you had? Why were they wrong? What makes you think that you are right now when your opponent claims you are making invalid assumptions?


So you think evangelicals are correct and anyone that disbelieves them are not. The global flood is from people who believe the Bible is not metaphor. I know your science is the Bible and is static. 

Gravity is constant there is no evidence to the contrary. Real science evolves when new discoveries are made. If real science were static we would still believe in Aristotle's celestial spheres, the sun goes around the earth, and fire is the release of phlogiston. My assumptions are based on observed evidence, yours are based on the Bible. That isn't science.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> Haha. That's not it. He had nothing to do with RATE which is what I said. Again, you do not understand what I have been patiently trying to get across to you. You are hung up on coal and diamonds and their dates and this in relationship with the age of the Earth. What did I say several times already? From the creation scientists view, we are not going to get the correct date of the Earth from science.


I told you that that the scientists I referenced found areas of earth that are millions to billions of years old. I also told you I wasn't talking about RATE, I was showing you scientific evidence that the earth is much older than evangelicals insist.


james bond said:


> So, I have to explain it to you and that is it is God's nature to create adult or mature things with his creation. He created a mature Adam and Eve. Not senior mature age, but young adults of child bearing age. He also created a mature or adult universe...............


I'm interested in science not Biblical stories.



james bond said:


> Let's go back to the diamonds now. It wasn't contaminated. It just reflected what was inside and not from the outside and that was how long it had been there even though they were adult diamonds. Now, even creationists argue whether the Earth and universe and things in it are old or young. If we listen to God's word and take them literally, then it is young.
> 
> Here is a theistic creationist site and how it deals with it -- Appearance of Age - A Young Earth Problem. They think YEC is not correct, but interpret the Bible differently or not what God intended.


Again, this falls outside the realm of science.



james bond said:


> As for Shirey, what did he get using radiocarbon dating if it was wrong? I didn't think he did that. Thus, you are not comparing what RATE would do with the included diamonds.


Both scientists I cited showed that you have no valid reason to think the earth is young.



james bond said:


> We never got to other evidence, so it really doesn't matter. You're going to believe in old Earth no matter what. How does that show an open mind? Remember, I bought into evolution and long time, but around 2007 - 2011 time frame, articles started coming out questioning evolution and its thinking. I compared both starting around 2012 and thought YEC theories explained it best. It was observable, testable, and falsifiable, but not great for age of the Earth and universe. We can only get evidence to support either old or young earth or what one believes as worldview because assumptions are different.


I am not going to start digging into all the other "evidence". I simply don't have time. Radiometric dating using many different isotopes with redundancy and repeatability breaks your case. One failure breaks your whole hypothesis. I have experience with isotopes and detection methods so this topic was easy. Your slant now is turning more to religion and away from physics. I know you have a hatred for atheist scientists, but they have evidenced belief and it goes against faith in a strict interpretation of the Bible. That's the way things are.

.

..
.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 21, 2019)




----------



## james bond (Nov 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Multiverses and dark matter is not metaphysics. It's hypothetical physics. Not all scientists believe in that. They are simply an interesting thoughts that people want to write papers about as far as I'm concerned. Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.



Now you're resorting to word salad and you accused me of it.  That is really boring and hypocritical.  Actually, you are saying that magic in science happens, i.e. universes pop into existence out of nothing.  Some call it the metauniverse .  I can't help, but laugh at you.  You are revealing yourself to be a so-called science person who believes in magic.  By the same token, we can say that the supernatural is theoretical physics, not _hypothetical_, and I provided life and complexity and beauty in nature as the supernatural.  That is observable and right in front of your nose.  We've had Professor Michio Kaku find "proof" of God -- Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'.  That's also metaphysics and theoretical physics, but used in a positive manner.  It goes to show, you do not understand metaphysics nor theoretical physics.  It seemed to me you didn't understand RATE and AWS.

>>Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.<<

Because religion is the other side of the coin to science.  Why do you think we have S&T and R&E forums together?  Why is today's one of the main science topics is creation vs. evolution?  We also have many religious scientists who founded many of the greatest things in science such as the scientific method and laws of motion.  You are a simpleton not knowing about basic matters.  All you do is STUBBORNLY and NARROWLY focus on contamination of radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds.  What else?  The phoswich .  Inclusion of diamonds that you won't let the other side check using radiocarbon dating .



Wuwei said:


> So you think evangelicals are correct and anyone that disbelieves them are not. The global flood is from people who believe the Bible is not metaphor. I know your science is the Bible and is static.



Now, you are mixing religion with science.  Such a hypocrite.  I've been discussing creation science vs. evolution.  Evolution is "faith-based" science.  Thus, in that way evolution is the same as religion.  Get it?  We have creation science because real science backs up the Bible theory.  Why is it that you have no other evidence besides radiometric dating for an old Earth?  Again, you are being hypocritical.



Wuwei said:


> Gravity is constant there is no evidence to the contrary. Real science evolves when new discoveries are made. If real science were static we would still believe in Aristotle's celestial spheres, the sun goes around the earth, and fire is the release of phlogiston. My assumptions are based on observed evidence, yours are based on the Bible. That isn't science.



What gravity is we have found is that it is not one of the four fundamental forces.  It just has properties like that of a force.  One theory is from Einstein's GTOR as matter curving spacetime.  Instead of a flat universe, we have a curves universe in shape.  What you are focusing on is what Newton, a creation scientist, discovered.  Real science backs up the Bible.  At one time, we thought that the universe was flat and fixed.  Today, we think it is flat and curved.  Boy, again you show your idiotic notions of creation science.  I think all of us here do not believe in geocentrism.  It's a stereotype of stupid people who do not understand Bible theory in science.

And fire is the release of phlogiston?  You don't say ?  This and gravity is your evidence for an old Earth?  Please explain.



Wuwei said:


> So you think evangelicals are correct and anyone that disbelieves them are not. The global flood is from people who believe the Bible is not metaphor. I know your science is the Bible and is static.
> 
> Gravity is constant there is no evidence to the contrary. Real science evolves when new discoveries are made. If real science were static we would still believe in Aristotle's celestial spheres, the sun goes around the earth, and fire is the release of phlogiston. My assumptions are based on observed evidence, yours are based on the Bible. That isn't science.



Yes, I did the comparison, but please do not put words in my mouth.  The term "evangelicals" is in religion.  What I said was science backs up the Bible theory and that we have _creation science_ which is real science.  Evolution is fake science.  You believe in fake science for age of the Earth because of its assumptions.  This is "faith based" science based on atheism.  I don't state it is based on atheist religion ministers like Richard Dawkins.  That is another reason I brought up what Peter Higgs believed and fought against.  I'm doing a similar thing here.  I'm acting like your hero.

From talking with you, I get you are science person and have some knowledge about it, but you miss some of the real science and end up believing in fake ones and attribute it to the Christian religion.  You cannot admit to yourself that it's the atheist religion and their beliefs in evolution.  Truth is only one.  I brought up the fine tuning facts which your evolutionist side discovered when investigating the big bang and then promptly ignored.  Why?  It goes against the big bang theory.  Now, the creation side and I use it and stupid people like Fort Fun Indiana think its bullshit.  How can the big bang theory work in 6000 year old universe hmm?  I may use science from the Bible theory, but that is the truth.  My science cannot change while yours changes like the age of the Earth.  luchitociencia brought criticism of you in post #95 and others and you were so narrow in your thinking you could not address it.


----------



## james bond (Nov 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I told you that that the scientists I referenced found areas of earth that are millions to billions of years old. I also told you I wasn't talking about RATE, I was showing you scientific evidence that the earth is much older than evangelicals insist.



What scientists?  All you had was Shirey.  OTOH, I knew who these people were.  I asked what I already knew about Clair Patterson, but you could not expound on it nor answer my questions.  Do you want to go over it now?  An stop saying evangelicals.  That's religion .  Do I have to tell you you are going to hell every other sentence?  _Put your face on the stove.  You feel how painful that is?  That's you in the afterlife. _ Instead, we are creation scientists here, but I can fight fire with fire if that is how you want to play.  I can do the phlogiston theory and brimstone in the science section quite well.  We can talk about gays, abortion, and how Moses saved his people .  Go ahead.  Make my day.



Wuwei said:


> I'm interested in science not Biblical stories.



Shit.  Don't tell me you are gay?  God made being gay its own punishment because ti goes against his command.  Gays cannot be happy.  Their lives are shortened in half because they go deeper and deeper into their sin.  C'mon you can come out of your closet.  Satan will know what to do with you.



Wuwei said:


> Again, this falls outside the realm of science.



No, this is creation science.  It is part of Bible theory.  Are you so thick that you do not understand creation vs evolution?



Wuwei said:


> Both scientists I cited showed that you have no valid reason to think the earth is young.



Who else besides Shirey?



Wuwei said:


> I am not going to start digging into all the other "evidence". I simply don't have time. Radiometric dating using many different isotopes with redundancy and repeatability breaks your case. One failure breaks your whole hypothesis. I have experience with isotopes and detection methods so this topic was easy. Your slant now is turning more to religion and away from physics. I know you have a hatred for atheist scientists, but they have evidenced belief and it goes against faith in a strict interpretation of the Bible. That's the way things are.



No, I can safely assume you have no other evidence besides radiometric dating to explain an old Earth.  You cannot even accept that it was 2 billion years and then changed to 3 billion years.  You can accept that it was at least 65 million years old, but won't share the included diamonds for RATE scientists to use.  Why should we believe you that it is and old Earth, let alone 4.5 B years?  I just explained, it only looks old from the light and your atheist scientists made wrong assumptions.  GIGO.  I also said let's agree to disagree.  I can't help it if you do not understand nor accept what the other side is saying.  How can you sit there and say you are open minded?


----------



## james bond (Nov 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


>



Hey Angelo why is the Earth only 6000 years old?


----------



## james bond (Nov 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > He said science is based on facts.
> ...



Aren't you the stupid shit?  You could not refute his statement when that is your so-called area of _expertise._

Furthermore, you said it was a shadow of the black hole when I tried to point out to you that it was silhouette.  I mean it was only a few months ago that we experience it live.  You were doing most of the talking and I was asking questions.  You thought it was the black hole of the Milky Way.  It was another galaxy, M87.  That must've been very embarrassing for you.


----------



## james bond (Nov 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I'm not a mind reader.  Why don't you pick a couple of things Wuwei and I are discussing that you take exception to and we can talk?  

Do you know how you look to others and me when you interrupt in such a rude manner?  All you do is call people who disagree with youidiots and stupid and we do not know what you are talking about.  IOW, you cannot explain what you are objecting to.  You are so dumb that we just shrug our shoulders and there goes one of the stupidest posters ever in S&T and R&E.  It's true.  Just ask Frannie as an example.


----------



## james bond (Nov 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Again, this falls outside the realm of science.



You cannot discuss theoretical physics and metaphysics like an educated person would?  Here is an example from one of the evolution astrophysicists.  He thinks the universe is a simulation -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation.  This was at a serious panel discussion.  Do you get out much when you aren't being derogatory to a creationist?.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Yes Mr. Bond, if you say so


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> Now you're resorting to word salad and you accused me of it. That is really boring and hypocritical. Actually, you are saying that magic in science happens, i.e. universes pop into existence out of nothing. Some call it the metauniverse . I can't help, but laugh at you. You are revealing yourself to be a so-called science person who believes in magic. By the same token, we can say that the supernatural is theoretical physics, not hypothetical, and I provided life and complexity and beauty in nature as the supernatural. That is observable and right in front of your nose. We've had Professor Michio Kaku find "proof" of God -- Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'. That's also metaphysics and theoretical physics, but used in a positive manner. It goes to show, you do not understand metaphysics nor theoretical physics. It seemed to me you didn't understand RATE and AWS.
> >>Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.<<
> Because religion is the other side of the coin to science. Why do you think we have S&T and R&E forums together? Why is today's one of the main science topics is creation vs. evolution? We also have many religious scientists who founded many of the greatest things in science such as the scientific method and laws of motion. You are a simpleton not knowing about basic matters. All you do is STUBBORNLY and NARROWLY focus on contamination of radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds. What else? The phoswich . Inclusion of diamonds that you won't let the other side check using radiocarbon dating .


I'm not interested in your personal mockery.


james bond said:


> What gravity is we have found is that it is not one of the four fundamental forces. It just has properties like that of a force. One theory is from Einstein's GTOR as matter curving spacetime. Instead of a flat universe, we have a curves universe in shape. What you are focusing on is what Newton, a creation scientist, discovered. Real science backs up the Bible. At one time, we thought that the universe was flat and fixed. Today, we think it is flat and curved. Boy, again you show your idiotic notions of creation science. I think all of us here do not believe in geocentrism. It's a stereotype of stupid people who do not understand Bible theory in science.
> And fire is the release of phlogiston? You don't say ? This and gravity is your evidence for an old Earth? Please explain.


That's right science evolves when new discoveries are made.


james bond said:


> Yes, I did the comparison, but please do not put words in my mouth. The term "evangelicals" is in religion. What I said was science backs up the Bible theory and that we have creation science which is real science. Evolution is fake science. You believe in fake science for age of the Earth because of its assumptions. This is "faith based" science based on atheism. I don't state it is based on atheist religion ministers like Richard Dawkins. That is another reason I brought up what Peter Higgs believed and fought against. I'm doing a similar thing here. I'm acting like your hero.


I disagree that science backs up a strict interpretation of the Bible. My hero?


james bond said:


> My science cannot change while yours changes like the age of the Earth. luchitociencia brought criticism of you in post #95 and others and you were so narrow in your thinking you could not address it.


Science is flexible and as new discoveries are made, theories are expanded and replaced. New lines of investigation are created. Creationism is a static and narrow "science". It has no ability to explain quantum mechanics, relativity, electromagnetism, nor any of the forces of physical nature.
.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Now you're resorting to word salad and you accused me of it. That is really boring and hypocritical. Actually, you are saying that magic in science happens, i.e. universes pop into existence out of nothing. Some call it the metauniverse . I can't help, but laugh at you. You are revealing yourself to be a so-called science person who believes in magic. By the same token, we can say that the supernatural is theoretical physics, not hypothetical, and I provided life and complexity and beauty in nature as the supernatural. That is observable and right in front of your nose. We've had Professor Michio Kaku find "proof" of God -- Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'. That's also metaphysics and theoretical physics, but used in a positive manner. It goes to show, you do not understand metaphysics nor theoretical physics. It seemed to me you didn't understand RATE and AWS.
> ...


But when new discoveries invalidate old science the old science never was science in the first place.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> Now you're resorting to word salad and you accused me of it. That is really boring and hypocritical. Actually, you are saying that magic in science happens, i.e. universes pop into existence out of nothing. Some call it the metauniverse . I can't help, but laugh at you. You are revealing yourself to be a so-called science person who believes in magic. By the same token, we can say that the supernatural is theoretical physics, not hypothetical, and I provided life and complexity and beauty in nature as the supernatural. That is observable and right in front of your nose. We've had Professor Michio Kaku find "proof" of God -- Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'. That's also metaphysics and theoretical physics, but used in a positive manner. It goes to show, you do not understand metaphysics nor theoretical physics. It seemed to me you didn't understand RATE and AWS.
> >>Why are you so concerned with the religion of scientists? It doesn't matter who they are if their science is validated.<<
> Because religion is the other side of the coin to science. Why do you think we have S&T and R&E forums together? Why is today's one of the main science topics is creation vs. evolution? We also have many religious scientists who founded many of the greatest things in science such as the scientific method and laws of motion. You are a simpleton not knowing about basic matters. All you do is STUBBORNLY and NARROWLY focus on contamination of radiocarbon dating of coal and diamonds. What else? The phoswich . Inclusion of diamonds that you won't let the other side check using radiocarbon dating .


I'm not interested in your personal mockery.


james bond said:


> What gravity is we have found is that it is not one of the four fundamental forces. It just has properties like that of a force. One theory is from Einstein's GTOR as matter curving spacetime. Instead of a flat universe, we have a curves universe in shape. What you are focusing on is what Newton, a creation scientist, discovered. Real science backs up the Bible. At one time, we thought that the universe was flat and fixed. Today, we think it is flat and curved. Boy, again you show your idiotic notions of creation science. I think all of us here do not believe in geocentrism. It's a stereotype of stupid people who do not understand Bible theory in science.
> And fire is the release of phlogiston? You don't say ? This and gravity is your evidence for an old Earth? Please explain.


That's right science evolves.


james bond said:


> Yes, I did the comparison, but please do not put words in my mouth. The term "evangelicals" is in religion. What I said was science backs up the Bible theory and that we have creation science which is real science. Evolution is fake science. You believe in fake science for age of the Earth because of its assumptions. This is "faith based" science based on atheism. I don't state it is based on atheist religion ministers like Richard Dawkins. That is another reason I brought up what Peter Higgs believed and fought against. I'm doing a similar thing here. I'm acting like your hero.


I disagree that science backs up a strict interpretation of the Bible. My hero?


james bond said:


> My science cannot change while yours changes like the age of the Earth. luchitociencia brought criticism of you in post #95 and others and you were so narrow in your thinking you could not address it.


Science is flexible and as new discoveries are made, theories are expanded or replaced. New lines of investigation are opened up. 

Creationism is a static and narrow science. It has no ability to explain quantum mechanics, relativity, electromagnetism, or the other forces of physical nature.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> You cannot discuss theoretical physics and metaphysics like an educated person would? Here is an example from one of the evolution astrophysicists. He thinks the universe is a simulation -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation. This was at a serious panel discussion. Do you get out much when you aren't being derogatory to a creationist?.



I have read several books and sites on the metaphysics involved in science. Yes I know all about multiverses and I have a book that covers the deeper physics of Linde's theory. Yes I read about a computer simulated universe. I read original papers on the MOND theory, an alternate to dark matter. Physicists try to cover all bases of the nature of the universe. Yes, some of them seem far fetched, but most of them are largely consistent with physical law, but remain unproven beyond doubt by observation.

However your metaphysics is very alien to mine, and you demeanor is reduced to outright mockery and hate of "atheist scientists". I have no interest in quarreling about Biblically constrained metaphysics.

.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot discuss theoretical physics and metaphysics like an educated person would? Here is an example from one of the evolution astrophysicists. He thinks the universe is a simulation -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation. This was at a serious panel discussion. Do you get out much when you aren't being derogatory to a creationist?.
> ...



Books on multiverse

God you are moronic


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> old science never was science in the first place.


Look up the definition of science.
.


----------



## TomParks (Nov 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > old science never was science in the first place.
> ...



Evolution is junk science


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > old science never was science in the first place.
> ...


No need, if a new discovery proves the old belief wrong then the old belief was an apparition in the minds of fools pretending to know science


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 22, 2019)

TomParks said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


But you know less than nothing about it, so your opinion of it is worth less than nothing.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Now you're resorting to word salad and you accused me of it. That is really boring and hypocritical. Actually, you are saying that magic in science happens, i.e. universes pop into existence out of nothing. Some call it the metauniverse . I can't help, but laugh at you. You are revealing yourself to be a so-called science person who believes in magic. By the same token, we can say that the supernatural is theoretical physics, not hypothetical, and I provided life and complexity and beauty in nature as the supernatural. That is observable and right in front of your nose. We've had Professor Michio Kaku find "proof" of God -- Renowned physicist finds PROOF of God: Universe was created by DESIGN in huge 'matrix'. That's also metaphysics and theoretical physics, but used in a positive manner. It goes to show, you do not understand metaphysics nor theoretical physics. It seemed to me you didn't understand RATE and AWS.
> ...


Well, you've reassured me, but it's doubtful you'll be able to get through to James Bond . You'll have more success teaching a dog how to see in 3 dimensions.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...


Lol now tell us how you know that

Drumroll idiot ahead


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> now tell us how you know that


Because I have read his posts on it. How did you think, ya moron?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> if a new discovery proves the old belief wrong then the old belief was an apparition in the minds of fools pretending to know science


Nah, that's just yet another madeup , crybaby fantasy by a frustrated, angry religious goober.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > now tell us how you know that
> ...


Lol as if I care what you read


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 22, 2019)

Frannie said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Yet you just asked for that info. Frannie, this may be an anonymous message board, but you can't pretend NOT to be a moron, when you are a moron.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > if a new discovery proves the old belief wrong then the old belief was an apparition in the minds of fools pretending to know science
> ...


Dude it used to be accepted science that the earth was the center of the universe.

Was this right or stupidity


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


And you can not pretend not to be schizzo


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 22, 2019)

So, next up for the planet hunters:

Finding planets with water.

Astronomers Find Water on an Exoplanet Twice the Size of Earth


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, next up for the planet hunters:
> 
> Finding planets with water.
> 
> Astronomers Find Water on an Exoplanet Twice the Size of Earth


There is no way to identify water on any planet out of this solar system


----------



## james bond (Nov 22, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Well, you've reassured me, but it's doubtful you'll be able to get through to James Bond . You'll have more success teaching a dog how to see in 3 dimensions.



See Angelo, it's like I said you do not know science.  One does not have to teach a dog how to see in 3D.  We and dogs do not see in 3D, but our brains are created to be able to add depth.


That's okay.  Not all of us can succeed like I do in my movies.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you've reassured me, but it's doubtful you'll be able to get through to James Bond . You'll have more success teaching a dog how to see in 3 dimensions.
> ...


I used to pull my kids that way but using a body board.  Because of the curve it would not go airborne but dive like a trolling lure

Those were the days


----------



## james bond (Nov 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You cannot discuss theoretical physics and metaphysics like an educated person would? Here is an example from one of the evolution astrophysicists. He thinks the universe is a simulation -- Neil deGrasse Tyson thinks there's a 'very high' chance the universe is just a simulation. This was at a serious panel discussion. Do you get out much when you aren't being derogatory to a creationist?.
> ...



Are you sure you read and understood these metaphysics books you read?  Name a few titles.  If you know about multiverses, then you should be able to tell metaphysics from theoretical physics.  I would say cosmology, metaphysics, and religion are all under philosophy.  To me, you are a nerd.  A nerd to the point of not having common sense.  Thus, you have read an impressive list of subjects, but cannot explain to someone who may know much about it.

I know my creation science, which isn't metaphysics, but hard science, is alien to you.  All you can see of the Bible is that it is a religious book.  You have been brainwashed by secular or atheist science since the 1850s.  Secular science wasn't like that before then.  There was a period that creation science ruled science.  That's why I stated you claim to have an open mind, but do not.  You may have the software, but lack the hardware in computer science terms.

Anyway, I tried, but you're just not well rounded enough to learn from others.  Your interests are very narrow.  That's why I asked if you went to college or university.  One would be required to learn subjects they aren't interested in in order to get a well rounded view of the world.  What can I say?

Finally, how do you get outright mockery and hate of "atheist scientists" from what I wrote?

What I was doing was mocking _you_.  It's derogatory to state I was discussing religion when I tried nicely to explain creation science and the Bible theory.  The Bible has its religious side, but I didn't discuss any of it.  God and creation is part of science.  God and creation is the truth, but you are too narrow minded to recognize it as such.

Have a good night, sir.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


What is there to know about multiverses


----------



## james bond (Nov 22, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > old science never was science in the first place.
> ...



We should all know what science is here.  What about its etymology?  Do you know that?  Do you think people here know that?

science | Origin and meaning of science by Online Etymology Dictionary


----------



## Frannie (Nov 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Science has no definition


----------



## the other mike (Nov 22, 2019)

james bond said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Well, you've reassured me, but it's doubtful you'll be able to get through to James Bond . You'll have more success teaching a dog how to see in 3 dimensions.
> ...


Then you should start a thread in the entertainment section where fictional stuff belongs. Your silly debunked creationist myths have no place in the science board.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 23, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Frannie said:
> ...


Science is investigation more than anything.

You have a phenomenon, a body, a particle, anything which exists physically, and you start to investigate about it.

You observe, analyze, make tests, obtain data, compare, and make conclusions. You can also make theories about the selected phenomenon as cause from a former phenomenon.

For this reason, the whole theories which started with "ideas and imaginations" (read mathematical calculations and similar) are nothing but conjectures and or FRAUD.

Solely theories based on real physical phenomena are considered worthy as to be considered accepted in science.The rest are just trash.

Of course, clowns as Einstein, Darwin, Hawking and others have turned science in a circus where MAGIC if the vehicle acting as the explanation of their doctrines.

This is sad, because for generations people's minds have been brainwashed with those good for nothing ideas, which surely still are famous but nothing more than garbage to the square.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 23, 2019)

james bond said:


> None of the following were observed except for #6:
> 1.  Cosmic evolution - big bang makes hydrogen
> 2.  Chemical evolution - higher elements evolve
> 3.  Evolution of stars and planets from gas
> ...



You know the phrase *A half truth is a whole lie*

Modern theories as relativity, black holes, parallel universes, the big bang, etc have not even 50% truth. Those are whole lies.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> > Just look the fake picture of the imaginary black hole.
> ...



 I like your style of replying to others, your words sound so natural. They reveal you are a very happy person.

Please keep such a good work.


----------



## james bond (Nov 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> So, next up for the planet hunters:
> 
> Finding planets with water.
> 
> Astronomers Find Water on an Exoplanet Twice the Size of Earth











I'll buy that they may have found water, but _shadows_ can be tricky.  The above is Mars and sand blowing across it, not water.

I'm not sure what they mean by habitability.  Does it mean that we could colonize it?  Or does it mean that it could have alien life?  Good luck with the latter magic stuff or dreams of evolutionists..


----------



## james bond (Nov 23, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Then you should start a thread in the entertainment section where fictional stuff belongs. Your silly debunked creationist myths have no place in the science board.



I'm trying to show you that it's real science, but you keep thinking it has been debunked when it hasn't.  You've already made up your mind.  Instead, why don't you ask valid questions.  Evolution should not be on a science board because you have no experiments to show it's theses.  I've asked questions such as why is the Earth's surface covered with 3/4 water and gotten no replies.  I probably asked you that already.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 23, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > luchitociencia said:
> ...


Oh, sorry, I will try again:

"You, kind sir, are a fraud and a liar, and, if I may, I would like to point out that your comment is moronic and baseless. With all due respect, you are a laughingstock. "

Better?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2019)

I tried to make this post short, but I got carried away. Sorry.


james bond said:


> Are you sure you read and understood these metaphysics books you read? Name a few titles. If you know about multiverses, then you should be able to tell metaphysics from theoretical physics. I would say cosmology, metaphysics, and religion are all under philosophy. To me, you are a nerd. A nerd to the point of not having common sense. Thus, you have read an impressive list of subjects, but cannot explain to someone who may know much about it.


A nerd? I hardly think so.

I tried to make radiation science as simple as possible.



james bond said:


> I know my creation science, which isn't metaphysics, but hard science, is alien to you. All you can see of the Bible is that it is a religious book. You have been brainwashed by secular or atheist science since the 1850s. Secular science wasn't like that before then. There was a period that creation science ruled science. That's why I stated you claim to have an open mind, but do not. You may have the software, but lack the hardware in computer science terms.


I and many others don't consider creationism a science. Yes, knowledge of the universe was based on religion before the 1850's but that was before the dawn of understanding thermodynamics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity, quantitative astronomy and cosmology. Or as you just called it "secular or atheist science" That reference immediately tells me that you are closed minded.

Science starts with an open mind, tries a hypothesis, that may explain a certain area; and tries to verify the hypothesis with perhaps new experiments. If the hypothesis fails, then new hypotheses come into play. If the hypothesis succeeds then almost obsessive efforts are made by the science community to test it for failure in every way possible. The way I see it is that creationists never try to prove failure; only non-creationists take on that task, and it's an uphill battle of proven science against the closed minded creationist.

Creation science is an antithesis to science. It starts with an unwavering premise that the Bible is fundamental truth and not a metaphor. I'm sorry if you think I'm denigrating you when I think creation science and the Bible are tightly linked. I'm not. When you continuously reference "atheist science" it is easy to see that you don't have respect for the countless experiments that lead to modern science. Creationists want to replace "atheist science" with unobserved ideas that the speed of light was different a few thousand years ago, that time flowed non-uniformly, that virtually all the thousands of radiological dating past 50,000 years is flawed.



james bond said:


> Anyway, I tried, but you're just not well rounded enough to learn from others. Your interests are very narrow. That's why I asked if you went to college or university. One would be required to learn subjects they aren't interested in in order to get a well rounded view of the world. What can I say?


I don't discuss my educational background which is more than you think. However, outside a classroom have you read 35 of Shakespeare's plays? Dozens of poems of T.S Elliot? Robert Frost? Have you read Pierre di Chardin? Bertrand Russel? Have you danced the Tango in competitions? Written over a hundred multipart scores? Formed 2 bands? Composed music? Read books on other religions? This nerd has. My weakness is international history and geography you can disparage me on that if you want.



james bond said:


> Finally, how do you get outright mockery and hate of "atheist scientists" from what I wrote?
> 
> What I was doing was mocking you. It's derogatory to state I was discussing religion when I tried nicely to explain creation science and the Bible theory. The Bible has its religious side, but I didn't discuss any of it. God and creation is part of science. God and creation is the truth, but you are too narrow minded to recognize it as such.


Yes, you were mocking both me and modern science. But it goes nowhere. You can only be hurt by someone you respect. I never heard anyone say God is part of science. If you say God is the truth, you are going to have to explain how that has an effect on modern physics. If you want to label God as the primordial force behind the unknown origin of the universe. Fine. It's a succinct label. But if you want to say that God micromanages the events and people on earth, that is way out of the realm of physics. So there are many facets to what someone means by the word, God.

.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


 What a relief, thanks!

At one point I thought you were insulting me...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 23, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > luchitociencia said:
> ...


Well, insults aside, what you said about the black hole image is baseless and moronic, and you should be embarrassed of yourself.


----------



## Frannie (Nov 23, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



LOL the fact is that science has been observing the universe and declaring random hypothesizes to be factual science, until the new telescope proves that wrong at which time the first science was a bullshit wet dream


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 23, 2019)

Frannie said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


What a bunch of meaningless gibberish...two desperate sock trolls, begging for attention...


----------



## Frannie (Nov 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Frannie said:
> 
> 
> > luchitociencia said:
> ...



You still never provided the proof of abiogenesis that you claim exist in your scrambled egg brain


----------



## the other mike (Nov 23, 2019)

james bond said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Then you should start a thread in the entertainment section where fictional stuff belongs. Your silly debunked creationist myths have no place in the science board.
> ...


Much the same way a tribal medicine man makes you see 'real' rainbows
during the enlightenment ceremony. Nothing to do with the magic powder he made you snort.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Well, insults aside, what you said about the black hole image is baseless and moronic, and you should be embarrassed of yourself.



Sure.

Eddington, the one who committed fraud doing "make ups" to the plaques from 1919 expeditions (_*Einstein's Luck*_, by science historian John Waller) received a punch right on this jaw and was KO when the givers of the Nobel Prize announced that no prize was given to Einstein for his theory of relativity, because relativity was not science but poor philosophy.

In those years, all the other scientists who participated reviewing the plaques, they were in complete disagreement with Eddington, because the plaques validated the prediction of Newton instead.

They never understood a theory based in a_ time_ which dilates when _time_ is not even a physical entity.

It was so pathetic his situation that when Ludwig "SilberStein"  (family of EinStein) told him 

-_Professor Eddington, you must be one of the three persons in the world who understands general relativity". _

Eddington kept silence. So Sliberstein continued

-_Don't be modest Eddington._

And Eddignton replied

-_On the contrary, I am trying to think who the third person is.
_
So, he was completely disappointed. He made a fraud to validate a fake theory and the rest  were even mocking of such "poor philosophy".

But, the prestige of the Astronomer Royal was in play, he was a victim of such a scam. And England is formed of proud people. They won't accept in front of the world they were that wrong.

Eddington waited two decades for the incident with the Nobel Prize denial become forgotten. And he hired an eastern fellow to make relativity valid at all cost.

You see, the idea of black holes was not new.

About three centuries ago, an England dude also calculated the possibility of a body capable to impede the escape of its own light by cause of its own gravity. The calculations of Newton were used to claim that a star 590 times the size of the Sun with proportional density will impede by gravity the escape of its light. The idea was called "black spheres".

Astronomers for decades were looking for such a body, but stars 300 times, 400 times, and more were shinning like the rest and such idea was threw out and became dusted on the shelves of the forgotten.

Then, an eastern dude used the formulas of Einstein, and came with the idea of a new phenomenon. A star shrinking and becoming very dense, at that point that no more motion of  particles but a compressed body with incredible gravity force... whoa! 

Eddington faked to be against the idea, but it was a good plan, he thought he will vindicate the past failure with such new invention. After all, the words of the Swedish Academy about relativity were also in storage, and making good propaganda the new generations will ignore what happened in 1922 and will be easy to sell them the novelty.

So, there they went, with a dark body "to which nobody can see" but that is pulling light, stars, planets, asteroids, space and even time" into it. The spreading of such characteristics was paid by England as well.

Vindicating relativity will save them of the ridiculous made in 1919 validating a good for nothing theory.

The known tactic of causing panic was also used. The scientific releases announced the possibilities of earth to be pulled by a black hole. This was an excellent strategy to brainwash faster the minds of people. People started to be interested in knowing about such a dark and catastrophic future.

Later was pushing the name "Einstein" to be the name of instruments, schools, and more. The idea was to make relativity as most familiar with the daily routine. While poor Albert died after lots of attempts but without jointing relativity with quantum mechanics, by "surprise" later on an error was found in quantum mechanics and after fixing it the two theories started to walk together as good sisters. That was "magic".

Later was to make believe that Einstein also was the author of quantum mechanics. 

The charade continued and from time to time scientific news saying "Relativity proved correct one more time".

Yup. You can check it online.

Look, when a theory is correct, you really don't need to announced it all the time. But the push of it, is to be assure people has been  brainwashed.

England even put a telescope in Chile, lol, in order to obtain the best angle of the view of black holes, gravitational waves coming from black holes and all that crap.

Man, all this fuss just because Eddington was so fanatic that by committing fraud pushed a good for nothing theory as valid.

Today is 2019, 100 years after the fraud, this year were announced as valid much more claims, like "time at different rate on the Ecuador compared to the poles, the view of a black hole, the view of gravitational waves, and more, all of them saying "relativity proved right one more time".

Pure garbage, lots of scientists know such is fraud.

Some scientists have made articles and even videos in YouTube showing how fake the black hole is, but those are in the middle of the thousands of videos made to brainwash people's minds in order to make them believe that black holes are real. Go to YouTube and see it. 

You are just another victim who's legs have been pulled.

Definitively, if there is an idiot between both of us, the idiot is not me.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 23, 2019)

edited


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 23, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Well, insults aside, what you said about the black hole image is baseless and moronic, and you should be embarrassed of yourself.
> ...


Not one word of that imbecilic Gish Gallop supports your claim. You are a moron, and you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 23, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Not one word of that imbecilic Gish Gallop supports your claim. You are a moron, and you are embarrassing yourself.


His post about the history of Einstein was the most hilarious 3rd  grade term paper I have seen in a long time.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 23, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> His post about the history of Einstein was the most hilarious 3rd  grade term paper I have seen in a long time.



Oh, that is nothing.

If you want I can tell you about how Einstein was fired from the Manhattan project after he returned documents with formulas which weren't more than brutalities to the square. That was funny.

Right away he tried working for the Navy making projects doing conventional bombs. Again, his project was found a great fantasy and he was out returning back kicking empty cans on the streets again.

Finally got a job as a "consultant", but his "masters" (Einstein was the puppet) got smarted at this time. They moved him to Princeton. So, from Washington DC an agent was to travel to Princeton providing material to be solved and/or reviewed by him. But in reality poor Albert never did the job, The other scientists over that University, were the ones reviewing the material and told Einstein what to answer. They were careful to keep maintaining the idea that their deluded guy was a genius.

In reality Einstein was just a poor retarded man with the mind of a child. He described himself with the same words I just have described him.

When we talk about Nobel Prize, even the one he won because his photoelectric. Look, the one who reviewed and tested it, he said that yes, the results of the formulas were corroborated with the results of the tests, BUT that the procedure of the formulas was not only confused but contradictory, still the result was satisfactory.

Today, find online the "original" photoelectric documents.. Those are copies, and when you review those, they are ordered and no confusion or contradiction is found, because those are not the originals but those have been EDITED.

There were some comments in the past, of scientists who had the opportunity to check copies of the originals, and they agreed with the opinion given in 1921, that the papers of Einstein weren't a great thing.

The correlation of events indicate that after the validation of Relativity and the disapproval of it by the rest of the scientific community, here is when England pushed the giving of a Nobel Prize for him, to settled him as a strong scientists with lots of credit.

Photoelectric and Relativity were asked for the Nobel Prize and it took two years for being considered for review. The Swedish definitively rejected relativity as science, while the photoelectric was hard to win the prize because the confused procedure shown in the papers. The givers of the Nobel Prize practically were forced to choose one of them.

The members of the Academy knew about the fraud of Eddington and they also knew Eddington was behind of the giving of Nobel Prize for Einstein.

These two (Eddington and Einstein) coupled together to make relativity a success. This is also noticed at his time to talk when he received the Nobel Prize, he never mentioned a single word of photoelectric but he talked a lot solely about relativity. Of course he had the choice and right to do so. But the later words of a member of the same Academy saying that relativity was not science but poor philosophy, that ended the first part of the story of such a relativistic fantasy.

It is all written in historical records by many sources, from the letter firing Einstein out of the Manhattan Project up to his last days.

In reality, knowing about all that mess is really funny.

More funny is seeing you defending a good for nothing theory, but such is your will, so... enjoy it.


----------



## james bond (Nov 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I and many others don't consider creationism a science. Yes, knowledge of the universe was based on religion before the 1850's but that was before the dawn of understanding thermodynamics, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity, quantitative astronomy and cosmology. Or as you just called it "secular or atheist science" That reference immediately tells me that you are closed minded.



Haha.  Who's close minded?  You got James Hutton, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and the schmucks who foisted Evolution upon the masses.  And what do I say?  Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.

Thermodynamics - Rudolf Clausiusin, Lutheran
Electromagnetism - James Clerk Maxwell, Christian
Quantum Mechanics - Max Planck, Christian
Relativity - Albert Einstein, pantheistic God of Baruch Spinoza
Astronomy - Nicholas Copernicus, Catholic
Cosmology - Aristotle, prime mover

I'm not sure what kind of books you read because you could not list your metaphysics books, but you've missed out on our greatest scientists.

Creationist scientist contributions - creation.com



Wuwei said:


> Science starts with an open mind, tries a hypothesis, that may explain a certain area; and tries to verify the hypothesis with perhaps new experiments. If the hypothesis fails, then new hypotheses come into play. If the hypothesis succeeds then almost obsessive efforts are made by the science community to test it for failure in every way possible. The way I see it is that creationists never try to prove failure; only non-creationists take on that task, and it's an uphill battle of proven science against the closed minded creationist.



You are preaching to the choir, but are wrong about closed minded creationist.  We have to discover what secular or atheist scientists are talking about such as the big bang and so on.  We also have to develop our own science like baraminology which is not accepted by most US universities today due to systematic prejudice.

Give me a few examples of creationists never try to prove failure.  Why would someone want to prove failure?  Or atheist scientists taking on the risk?

I think you are greatly mistaken about proven science.  There are no proofs in science, for one; it's best theory.  Proofs are in mathematics.  You got it backwards.  Atheists are usually wrong.  It's an uphill battle for creation scientists because they cannot participate in peer reviews nor get their papers published in science journals.  We have creation scientists today -- Creation Scientists.

Like I said, it does not appear you went to college as your views of the world are narrow.



Wuwei said:


> Creation science is an antithesis to science. It starts with an unwavering premise that the Bible is fundamental truth and not a metaphor. I'm sorry if you think I'm denigrating you when I think creation science and the Bible are tightly linked. I'm not. When you continuously reference "atheist science" it is easy to see that you don't have respect for the countless experiments that lead to modern science. Creationists want to replace "atheist science" with unobserved ideas that the speed of light was different a few thousand years ago, that time flowed non-uniformly, that virtually all the thousands of radiological dating past 50,000 years is flawed.



It's God's or the creator's word.  He was the only witness, so that's why it's true.  We do not take it just upon faith like Evolution.  It's backed up by the scientific method and not just circumstantial evidence like evolution and evolutionary thinking.

Thus, it's the Bible theory.  It explains Genesis (origins), Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel, and the second coming of Jesus as the science parts which I know you haven't read.  I started reading in 2012 after I learned evolution here -- evolution.berkeley.edu.  The other books are mostly the religious parts.



Wuwei said:


> I don't discuss my educational background which is more than you think. However, outside a classroom have you read 35 of Shakespeare's plays? Dozens of poems of T.S Elliot? Robert Frost? Have you read Pierre di Chardin? Bertrand Russel? Have you danced the Tango in competitions? Written over a hundred multipart scores? Formed 2 bands? Composed music? Read books on other religions? This nerd has. My weakness is international history and geography you can disparage me on that if you want.



If you received a degree, then you are rather narrow minded in your views.  My ex-wife has read much of Shakespeare.  I've read some and have attended plays and the Shakespeare festival yearly, but English literature isn't one of my interests.  Yes, I've read all of those authors you listed.  I can tango, but am not a competitive dancer.  I'm an accomplished runner, skier, bowler, semi-pro baseball player, tennis player, and have conquered land, sea, and air.  Music is not my strong suit.  I sing choir in my church.  That's about it.  I've read some on other religions and participate in another religious website where I learn from others.  



Wuwei said:


> Yes, you were mocking both me and modern science. But it goes nowhere. You can only be hurt by someone you respect. I never heard anyone say God is part of science. If you say God is the truth, you are going to have to explain how that has an effect on modern physics. If you want to label God as the primordial force behind the unknown origin of the universe. Fine. It's a succinct label. But if you want to say that God micromanages the events and people on earth, that is way out of the realm of physics. So there are many facets to what someone means by the word, God.



I was only mocking you for continuing to insult creation science.  That is the real science.  You believe in "faith-based" atheist or fake evolution science.  If you actually had real science behind evolution, then you would convince me easily.  I could figure it out.  For example, abiogenesis does not happen.  Multiverses do not just pop up from singularity or wormholes.  Big bang theory is full of holes.  I hate to say it, but your radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions.  If you knew what the ratio of parent-daughter isotopes were at the beginning of your time chronology, then I would believe you.  Remember, I said God said he would keep the age of the Earth and universe to himself?  Science will never be able to know the exact age.  All we can do is find evidence to back up our dating method.  God created a mature Earth and universe.  Thus, we did not start from age zero.  Only Jesus was born as a baby.  That's why I say if you knew what the ratio of isotopes were back , then you'd have something.  The other evidence I presented was the names of the radiometric time periods is based on location and not time.  Creation scientists say that fossils just provide information of the location where the creature died, not time.  I also mentioned bent rock formations which is based on laws of chemistry as part of laws of nature.  One doesn't get that by pressure over millions of years.  The rocks would break.  I have much more evidence to back up a young Earth than just radiocarbon dating.  We've established that all you have is radiometric dating (which is wrong and based on wrong assumptions; GIGO).

If you're good at physics, then we can discuss the big bang, cosmic expansion, or any of the topics you brought up above and I showed creation scientists mostly founded it.


----------



## james bond (Nov 24, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Much the same way a tribal medicine man makes you see 'real' rainbows
> during the enlightenment ceremony. Nothing to do with the magic powder he made you snort.



Angelo, give up now.  You sound like someone incapable of science or religion.  You didn't contribute anything to the climate change discussion.

You see an old Earth of billions of years.  Find something that is that old and show us.


----------



## james bond (Nov 24, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > His post about the history of Einstein was the most hilarious 3rd  grade term paper I have seen in a long time.
> ...



It's true -- The Manhattan Project | AMNH.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 24, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > His post about the history of Einstein was the most hilarious 3rd  grade term paper I have seen in a long time.
> ...



To all:

What do you guys think this foreign troll has against Einstein?


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> It's true -- The Manhattan Project | AMNH.



It's a little more complicated than that.

Reviewing documents, and doing the same than reading president Trump's conversation transcript, the letter of poor Albert started this way:

_*"Sir, Some recent work by E.Fermi and L. Szilard, which has been communicated to me in manuscript, leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. Certain aspects of the situation..."*_

In reality poor Albert ignored from the beginning about the works by Germans with uranium. The same, he ignored or refused to accept the results of the tests made by Bohr.

There are documents saying poor Albert signed not one but three letters, (One to Belgium), however the letter sent to Roosevelt was not written by Einstein but only signed by him. That letter was wrote by Szilard.

In those times poor Albert was famous. So this was the reason why Szilard used him. As written by same Szilard:

_*"As I remember, Einstein dictated a letter in German which Teller took down and I used this German text as a guide in preparing two drafts of a letter to the President, a shorter one and a longer one, and left it up to Einstein to choose which he liked best..."*_ Einstein signed BOTH. So, it was then Szilard's choice which one to be sent to the president.

It was war time and the US was in neutrality still stand situation, reaching the president thru regular channels was almost impossible. The intermediary was Sachs, the one between the president and the scientists. As Sachs himself said about those moments where the letters will pass thru only if the sender was a known person like poor Albert. Otherwise, using another person might not fulfill the proper delivery.

_*"Our system is such of national public figures... I thought there was no point in transmitting material which would be passed on to someone lower down".*_

Poor Albert was skeptical about nuclear reaction. He was even against that possibility in 1939.

There is a book by Robert Youngson "Scientific Blunders" where on the back of the book, at the top, he wrote Einsteins words:_* "There is not the slightest indication that energy will ever been obtained from the atom". Albert Einstein.*_










Face it, that dude wasn't the genius you have been told he was.

And about of why he was kicked out from the Manhattan Project, the reason was his incompetence of giving the proper solutions to theoretical problems with radioactive isotopes. He was given his first assignment for the project and he failed miserably.

There is also plenty documentation about it.

Of course, if they still are in existence online, then they should be found after thousands of pages made to praise poor Albert. As I said before... the brainwashing campaign in progress.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 24, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> 
> Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?


People are good at ignoring evidence and and making up their own, and as you can see from some of the elementary school-level posts on this thread, you can't force-feed knowledge.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> To all:
> 
> What do you guys think this foreign troll has against Einstein?



"foreign troll"

You are hot holding the US flag in this discussion, but you are hiding yourself behind the flag of ignorance.

Science has nothing to do with feelings, religious beliefs, nationalities, sexual orientation, etc.

If you want to discuss science, then first learn some and discuss... otherwise just listen.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 24, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > To all:
> ...


Youre not discussing science, troll. You are vomiting a desperate and factually incorrect idiot's manifesto on Einstein. You are religious nutsack who is trying to derail science threads. Period.


----------



## Vastator (Nov 24, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> ...


So true. You gotta want it...


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Youre not discussing science, troll. You are vomiting a desperate and factually incorrect idiot's manifesto on Einstein. You are religious nutsack who is trying to derail science threads. Period.



Not only him.

Several of the recent giving of Nobel Prizes have been granted to people who really don't deserve it. Poor Albert is just one of those who didn't deserve it.

And this is not only in Science but also in other aspects.

I had a deep discussion once about verifying the data obtained from that observation of those planets in other solar systems.

The method used indeed is valid to a certain point, the detection of a body -even when it can't be seen by optical means- is also without doubt.Something is there, something that moves at regular rate, etc.

In this part, the success of the detection of those other planets does deserve a prize.


----------



## the other mike (Nov 24, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > Youre not discussing science, troll. You are vomiting a desperate and factually incorrect idiot's manifesto on Einstein. You are religious nutsack who is trying to derail science threads. Period.
> ...


On top of everything that has been proven to be factual, all it takes to know there is life on other planets _beyond our tiny solar system_ is common sense and a little imagination.

Sure it would be nice to find evidence, but our sun is just one of billions in the Milky Way galaxy which is only one of billions of other galaxies. C'mon. Even if there is some supernatural-creator or 'God', surely we're not the best he could do, or did we merely forget to read the divine instruction manual..?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 24, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> To all:
> 
> What do you guys think this foreign troll has against Einstein?



Einstein was not respected by some of the elders at the time of his special theory. He was too young and unconventional and had too much hubris, etc. That hurt him to the extent that pressure that the Nobel committee compromised: he would get the second Nobel only for the much lesser important Photoelectric effect. 

There was a very right wing science conspiracy organization with a journal that vilified Einstein. They gave me a copy of their journal in the 1980's at an airport. One article said that Einstein stole his ideas from Bernhard Riemann. I have no idea why the grudge. I wrote a letter to the editor which they published with a comment vilifying me.

I have a first edition (1988) of Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time". There was an appendix which was somewhat negative concerning Isaac Newton, Einstein and Galileo. Hawkings said that Einstein's "efforts toward peace ... won him few friends" Hawkings also said Einstein was an "outspoken supporter of Zionism." ... 
"... when a book was published entitled '100 Authors Against Einstein', he retorted, 'If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"

I have no idea why Hawking felt he had to write unflattering bios on those three. I saw a later edition of his book at a friends house and those appendices had been removed. 

So it seems that some people still have a negative attitude that lingers today. I think your foreign troll is living in the past. 
.


----------



## james bond (Nov 24, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I have a first edition (1988) of Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time". There was an appendix which was somewhat negative concerning Isaac Newton, Einstein and Galileo. Hawkings said that Einstein's "efforts toward peace ... won him few friends" Hawkings also said Einstein was an "outspoken supporter of Zionism." ...
> "... when a book was published entitled '100 Authors Against Einstein', he retorted, 'If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"
> 
> *I have no idea why Hawking felt he had to write unflattering bios on those three.* I saw a later edition of his book at a friends house and those appendices had been removed.
> ...



Hawking was a farking atheist and atheists are usually wrong .


----------



## the other mike (Nov 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hawking was a farking atheist and atheists are usually wrong .


Coming from someone who thinks the Flintstones was a documentary series.


----------



## james bond (Nov 24, 2019)

Einstein was racist and probably would be secular humanist, i.e. communist, today.

"Was Albert Einstein racist? In pondering the disobliging remarks he made about Chinese and Japanese people in the private diaries he kept about his travels to east Asia in 1922-3, just published by Princeton University Press, it’s not a particularly helpful question.





*  Einstein's travel diaries reveal 'shocking' xenophobia  *
Read more
On the one hand, there’s the view that even this famously humane and broadminded scientist was inevitably a man of his time. Accordingly, we can’t expect him, despite his visceral dislike of nazism, to rise above a prevailing culture in which the open expression of prejudice was routine. We might look on it now with dismay, but to label it racism is to indulge a presentism that achieves nothing except making us feel superior. Besides, says the editor of the diaries, Ze’ev Rosenkranz, here we’re seeing the physicist and inventor of the theories of relativity “off guard”, writing things never meant for publication.

On the other hand, it’s rightly said that not everyone in Einstein’s time would have called the Chinese people “filthy and obtuse” or voiced fears that they would “supplant all other races”. Not everyone in the 1920s still adhered to the crude, pseudo-Darwinian ranking of races that led Einstein to suspect the Japanese might be “naturally” intellectually inferior.

Since both of these points of view are true, they don’t help us much to deal with this tarnish on Einstein’s humanitarian image. Perhaps it is better to ask where that image comes from.

Einstein's views seem rightly repugnant by today’s standards. But it’s curious why that should bother us so much

We should first recognize that Einstein barely saw China at all: he only stopped briefly in Shanghai and Hong Kong. And his diaries are a mixture of appreciation – “One has to love and admire this country”, he said of Japan – along with bewilderment and stock stereotypes. It’s the familiar response of a European alienated by cultural, linguistic and emotional difference. That he buys into the common belief of his times in a “national character” is neither surprising nor especially deplorable – but from there it’s only a small step to accepting a hierarchy of races. Einstein clearly did so, though Rosenkranz doubts it amounted to anything like a full-blown and coherent racist ideology.

All the same, such views seem rightly repugnant by today’s standards, and it’s a shame that Einstein – a progressive, tolerant internationalist – wasn’t able to transcend them. But it’s curious that this should bother us so much.

It’s not as if Einstein was previously deemed a paragon. It’s no secret that his treatment of his first wife, Mileva Marić, bordered on the monstrous after their love soured (although I don’t mean, as some have argued, that he stole her ideas). The list of conditions Einstein drew up in 1914 if they were to continue to live together is comically appalling: she was in effect to be his maid and housekeeper but “neither to expect intimacy from me nor to reproach me in any way” and to “desist immediately from addressing me if I request it”. There’s no reason to read this as an expression of generalised misogyny, but neither can we pretend it doesn’t reflect very badly on Einstein’s respect for women."

Einstein was a genius of physics. But he wasn’t a saint | Philip Ball


----------



## james bond (Nov 24, 2019)

Angelo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hawking was a farking atheist and atheists are usually wrong .
> ...



Nobody said that.  It's all in your _delusional_ state Angelo.  Comic books and cartoons make more sense than you do  .

Did you read Hawking's A Brief History of Time?

Perhaps someone who has can explain.  Parts of it do not make sense.  What is imaginary time?  Also, what is singularity and how can the state exist when it violates the laws of physics?  Most of it sounds like hypothetical bullshit.  Hawking does not recognize nor understand the origin of the universe.

Here is a sample for those who did not read his book -- ...

I looked for several minutes.  The original Big Bongo theory paper is gone and it has been replaced with his final theory.  It's just as well -- Taming the multiverse—Stephen Hawking's final theory about the big bang.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> Haha. Who's close minded? You got James Hutton, Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, and the schmucks who foisted Evolution upon the masses. And what do I say? Atheists and their scientists are usually wrong.
> 
> Thermodynamics - Rudolf Clausiusin, Lutheran
> Electromagnetism - James Clerk Maxwell, Christian
> ...


I don't understand your point. Of course some scientists were and are Christian. They come from many religions.

Your link gives some creationists. The first 12 with pictures all died before Darwin's book. Rutherford introduced radiological dating even later. Hubble found the receding galaxies indicated a time in the billions of years,even much later, so obviously creationism was in vogue with those 12 men that lived and died before Rutherford, and Hubble showed the universe was old. Their biblical knowledge of a Genesis earth was replaced by science that followed much later..  



james bond said:


> Give me a few examples of creationists never try to prove failure. Why would someone want to prove failure? Or atheist scientists taking on the risk?


How can I give you examples of something I claimed did not happen.


james bond said:


> I think you are greatly mistaken about proven science. There are no proofs in science, for one; it's best theory. Proofs are in mathematics.


You, my friend, are preaching to the choir. By proven science I mean the hard sciences where the math and experimental results agree within the error margins.



james bond said:


> If you received a degree, then you are rather narrow minded in your views.


Sports. Your exwife's Shakespeare?. No English literature? How about foreign literature? Foreign language? And you think I'm narrow minded? I don't understand why you are dwelling on that.



james bond said:


> I was only mocking you for continuing to insult creation science. That is the real science. You believe in "faith-based" atheist or fake evolution science. If you actually had real science behind evolution, then you would convince me easily. I could figure it out. For example, abiogenesis does not happen. Multiverses do not just pop up from singularity or wormholes. Big bang theory is full of holes. I hate to say it, but your radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions. If you knew what the ratio of parent-daughter isotopes were at the beginning of your time chronology, then I would believe you.


I'm not interested speculating on big bang, singularities, wormholes, and evolution right now and with you. They are digressions. Step 1 is to show hard physics demands the universe and earth are very old. It's for you to show with hard physics it is young.



james bond said:


> If you're good at physics, then we can discuss the big bang, cosmic expansion, or any of the topics you brought up above and I showed creation scientists mostly founded it.


Isotopic ratios have been measured experimentally and agree with theory. Why do you say radiometric dating is based on wrong assumptions.



james bond said:


> If you're good at physics, then we can discuss the big bang, cosmic expansion, or any of the topics you brought up above and I showed creation scientists mostly founded it.


I don't understand why you think the religion is important. The science that was done by anyone should stand by itself.

This is why I think creationism is not science.
First. Creationists do not try to falsify each other's ponderings. Science experiments and theory must be verified by outside parties who are generally inclined to try to find fault in it. For example when cold fusion was claimed to be found, many outside groups tried to duplicate the experiment rigorously and got negative results. Falsifying that was important because it was, well, false.

The introduction to many science journal articles refer to a second group and say their own results are superior or invalidate the other group. Being wary is what keeps science honest.

Secondly, many important concepts in physics are really sloppily treated by creationists.

Your video by Jason Lisle covers reasons he thinks that galaxies are very young here:
Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

These are his points:

*Perhaps god is using an "anisotropic time zone." Similar to earth time zones. So it's not really an issue.*
He should give a mathematical model of what he thinks the anisotropy is and how it shows the furthest galaxies are not old. He does not, and he is a phD in astrophysics!
*Perhaps time flows more slowly in distant galaxies*.
He should posit a formula of time as a function of distance and compare it to Hubbles graphic plots of time versus distance. Is his graph linear? Is it logarithmic? Does it agree with experiment? He does not do anything in that detail, and he is a phD in astrophysics!
*Could be supernatural*.
He doesn't expand on that. What factors are in play and how are they changed? He does not consider that, and he is a phD in astrophysics!
*The cosmic microwave background is so uniform.*
What does he propose a nonuniformity should be, and how does that relate to galactic distance. He does not do that, and he is a phD in astrophysics!
*It's not a problem for an infinite God*. 
That is not science. That is religion.
Dr. Lisle does not do what a scientist should do.

Creationists like to change the speed of light. However light speed appears in other constants in physics, such as the fine structure constant. If the speed changed, that constant would change and totally disrupt the strength of the EM force between charged particles. Distant stars would be totally disrupted. You get big unintended consequences if you fool around with mother nature like that

Creationists are full of what-if ideas, but never follow them through in the way a scientist would and science demands. So creationism is not science.
.


----------



## james bond (Nov 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I don't understand your point. Of course some scientists were and are Christian. They come from many religions.
> 
> Your link gives some creationists. The first 12 with pictures all died before Darwin's book. Rutherford introduced radiological dating even later. Hubble found the receding galaxies indicated a time in the billions of years,even much later, so obviously creationism was in vogue with those 12 men that lived and died before Rutherford, and Hubble showed the universe was old. Their biblical knowledge of a Genesis earth was replaced by science that followed much later..



Oy vey.  My point is you don't get it or can't figure it out _correctly_.  

Actually, it was creation scientists practice real science while evolutionists (whose camp you are in but seem to not admit) usually are wrong and practice historical science with all its circumstantial evidence.  How many times do I have to say science backs up the Bible and creation?  Don't you think I check it out along with the other creation scientists?  Faith in God is one thing, but you have to have scientific method and/or evidence to back up your science theses claims.  Does it matter who came up with the thesis first?  If you're not on either side, then you should be able to gather the information and make a decision.

Now, you've slyly got back into the dating.  Like I said several times now, we aren't going to get anywhere with dating.  That's for when you are interested in a wife haha.  Did you find anything else to show the Earth is old?  Science will not discover it by dating.  That knowledge is out there.  However, it is interesting that one side thinks its thousands of years old, i.e. recorded history, while the other thinks it's billions of years old (mostly not recorded).

I'll get back to your other points when I can.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 25, 2019)

james bond said:


> Oy vey. My point is you don't get it or can't figure it out _correctly_.
> 
> Actually, it was creation scientists practice real science while evolutionists (whose camp you are in but seem to not admit) usually are wrong and practice historical science with all its circumstantial evidence. How many times do I have to say science backs up the Bible and creation? Don't you think I check it out along with the other creation scientists? Faith in God is one thing, but you have to have scientific method and/or evidence to back up your science theses claims. Does it matter who came up with the thesis first? If you're not on either side, then you should be able to gather the information and make a decision.



I do get what you say, but I simply don't believe it. Decades ago I took a literature class where two topics were the Bible as literature, and Greek Mythology. The instructor said that circa 1000 years BC scholars did not have the language sophisticated enough to articulate what they were thinking, and written words were not available to the masses. So the more academic ideas were expressed as stories and metaphor and handed down verbally. It wasn't until 400 BC that more enlightened scholars (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle { I got an A+ for an essay on Socrates}) were able to express their ideas more clearly and not metaphorically.

One interesting aspect that was covered is that Greek mythology also has an "Adam" (forgot his name) and "Eve" (Pandora). Eve was enlightened with the apple, and Pandora with the infamous box. There was also a flood with different details. Seems like a cross connection of ideas

The early chapters of the Bible as metaphor is slightly inaccurate according to current science, but just fine otherwise. In the opening of Geneses the word "day" is just a period of time, etc. I'm sure you know how non-evangelicals think.



james bond said:


> Now, you've slyly got back into the dating. Like I said several times now, we aren't going to get anywhere with dating. That's for when you are interested in a wife haha. Did you find anything else to show the Earth is old? Science will not discover it by dating. That knowledge is out there. However, it is interesting that one side thinks its thousands of years old, i.e. recorded history, while the other thinks it's billions of years old (mostly not recorded).


Slyly back do dating? We never left that extremely important topic.
As far as radiological dating, you are going to have to show me explicitly what creationists have other than vague sentences like contamination. How is it contaminated? For virtually all dating that has ever been done? New physics proposed? If so, what? 
.


----------



## james bond (Nov 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I do get what you say, but I simply don't believe it. Decades ago I took a literature class where two topics were the Bible as literature, and Greek Mythology. The instructor said that circa 1000 years BC scholars did not have the language sophisticated enough to articulate what they were thinking, and written words were not available to the masses. So the more academic ideas were expressed as stories and metaphor and handed down verbally. It wasn't until 400 BC that more enlightened scholars (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle { I got an A+ for an essay on Socrates}) were able to express their ideas more clearly and not metaphorically.
> 
> One interesting aspect that was covered is that Greek mythology also has an "Adam" (forgot his name) and "Eve" (Pandora). Eve was enlightened with the apple, and Pandora with the infamous box. There was also a flood with different details. Seems like a cross connection of ideas
> 
> The early chapters of the Bible as metaphor is slightly inaccurate according to current science, but just fine otherwise. In the opening of Geneses the word "day" is just a period of time, etc. I'm sure you know how non-evangelicals think.



Last point first, there are the faithful who think Genesis is metaphor, but it isn't.  It's just too bad that scholars have come to think of it as such.  I think it's the longevity and the sophistication of humans that they have to get over and the global flood wiping these people out.  The ancient people from Adam and Eve's generation knew how to use tools and farm, play musical instruments, some metallurgy, build boats, write books, and tend to animals.  They weren't any cave people or prehistoric people like the Flintstones.  That is from the evolution story side.  If there were people who had to live in caves, then they were destitute.  After all, these people are supposed to have evolved from monkeys.  There were no people labeled Neanderthals, but there were giant people called Nephilim.  

Anyway, if you look at Greek Mythology, then do you see more resemblance with evolution's story or the Bible theory?  Your instructor saying that circa 1000 years BC scholars did not have the language sophisticated enough to articulate what they were thinking applies to after Tower of Babel where people ended up speaking different languages.


----------



## james bond (Nov 26, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Coming from someone who thinks the Flintstones was a documentary series.



Oh, one more thing.  We haven't got to this yet, but the Flintstones are based on your history of evolution.

*We find throughout history that fiction is made up from true historical events.* Wuwei is going to come back and say that the Bible is made up from Greek mythology tho.

When was The Flintstones and all those other prehistoric tales made up?  It came after evolution and the 1850s.  See how that works?









So, Angelo, you farking idiot, the Flintstones is based on your little fairy tale of _evolution_.  If evolution was true, then we should have heard about it long before when these cartoons were made up.


----------



## james bond (Nov 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Slyly back do dating? We never left that extremely important topic.
> As far as radiological dating, you are going to have to show me explicitly what creationists have other than vague sentences like contamination. How is it contaminated? For virtually all dating that has ever been done? New physics proposed? If so, what?



Now you are being stubborn, Wuwei.  Unless you know what the parent-daughter ratios were, then we cannot really discuss accurate radiometric dating.  If God did create a mature universe, then the light and radiation will be mature, as well.  This is why I keep asking you if you have any other evidence?  I don't think there is or else I would probably know about it.  You are basing old Earth on two things -- evolution and _assumption_ of old Earth and universe from radioisotope dating of meteorites which you did not exactly agree with.  Have you changed your mind and agree with it now?  If what you state is correct, then there would be other evidence to back you up.

Creation scientists have the following -- Radioisotope Dating of Meteorites: IV.  The article is about residual primordial material from the formation of the solar system that was used for the formation of the other parts of the solar system on day 4.

"Snelling (2014a,b,c) then sought to discuss the possible significance of this clustering in terms of various potential creationist models for the history of radioisotopes and their decay. He favored the idea that asteroids and the meteorites derived from them are residual “primordial material” from the formation of the solar system, which is compatible with the Hebrew text of Genesis that could suggest God made “primordial material” on Day One of the Creation Week, from which He made the non-earth portion of the solar system on Day Four. Thus he argued that today’s measured radioisotope compositions of all these chondrites and eucrites may reflect a geochemical signature of that “primordial material,” which included atoms of all elemental isotopes. So if some of the daughter isotopes were already in these chondrites and eucrites when they were formed, then the 4.55–4.57Ga “ages” for them obtained by Pb-Pb and U-Pb isochron and model age dating are likely not their true real-time ages, which according to the biblical paradigm is only about 6000 real-time years. However, Snelling (2014a,b,c) suggested that drawing final conclusions from the radioisotope dating data for just these 16 chondrite and 12 eucrite meteorites was still premature, and recommended further studies of more meteorites from still other classification groups. This present contribution is therefore designed to further document the radioisotope dating data for more meteorites, the primitive achondrites and the other achondrites, the latter encompassing the angrites, aubrites, mesosiderites (stony-irons), and irons, so as to continue the discussion of the potential significance of these data."

The "contamination" is what we were discussing of meteorites comes from that which I mentioned with Gale in 1972.

"In 1972, however, Gale _et al._showed unequivocally that there is by no means sufficient uranium and thorium to account for what could previously have been called radiogenic lead. Since the lead in meteorites can no longer be ascribed to uranium/thorium decay, it may also be taken to represent primordial lead.

Therefore, since the lead isotope ratios for the majority of meteorites are the same as present day common lead ratios and may also be assumed to represent primordial lead, the billion year age chronology disappears.

In case the significance of these results is ignored, a few sentences from the Gale _et al_ should reveal their importance:

“ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established. “This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition. “It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.”

In plain language, the radiometric estimates for the age of the earth are lacking real foundations."

Gale. N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R., _Nature Phys. Science_ *240*:57, 1972

The above has been mothballed by the evolutionists as well as the fine tuning facts during their investigation of big bang.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Now you are being stubborn, Wuwei. Unless you know what the parent-daughter ratios were, then we cannot really discuss accurate radiometric dating. If God did create a mature universe, then the light and radiation will be mature, as well. This is why I keep asking you if you have any other evidence? I don't think there is or else I would probably know about it. You are basing old Earth on two things -- evolution and _assumption_ of old Earth and universe from radioisotope dating of meteorites which you did not exactly agree with. Have you changed your mind and agree with it now? If what you state is correct, then there would be other evidence to back you up.
> ......................


I'm sorry you wasted your time on a tangent that I was not pursuing. I will try to clarify.

I'm not pursuing dating from meteorites. You already know that.
I am not trying to find an estimated age of the earth. You must have forgotten.
I have not pressed for Darwinian evolution in this thread. You don't have to keep bringing it up.
I am demonstrating that the earth age is at least in the millions or billions of years. That forms a lower bound of the earth age, not the age itself.
Therefore only the parent-daughter ratios of the many earth based isotopes need to be considered.
I gave you one example of triple redundant aging that the earth was at least 67 million years old.
I gave you an example that diamonds with inclusions show around 3 billion years.
There are no doubt thousands of other datings that are similarly robust.
That means the earth is much much older than 10 thousand years.
You mentioned that God could have created a mature earth. That would be abandoning "Creation Science" which is the basis here.

You have not given anybody's argument that all the thousands of earthbound radiological datings using dozens of parent-daughter isotopes are flawed. 
.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 26, 2019)

I asked this a few posts back that covers why I think "Creation Science" is not science. I will expand it slightly here. Many important concepts in physics are really sloppily treated by creationists.

You referenced a video by astrophysicist, Dr. Jason Lisle. He covers reasons he thinks that galaxies are very young here:
Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

These are his points:

*Perhaps god is using an "anisotropic time zone." Similar to earth time zones. So it's not really an issue.*
He should give a quantitative mathematical model of what he thinks the anisotropy is and how it shows the furthest galaxies are not old. Changing a basis unit for time simply doesn't change time itself.
*Perhaps time flows more slowly in distant galaxies*.
He should posit a formula of time as a function of distance and compare it to Hubble's graphic plots of time versus distance. Is his graph linear? Is it logarithmic? Does it agree with experiment? Does the velocity of light change? He does not do anything in that detail, and that is what a phD in astrophysics should do.
*Could be supernatural*.
He abandons the idea of science altogether let alone "Creation Science" He doesn't expand on that. What factors are in play and how are they changed? Can there be a mathematical model for the supernatural? That should be the approach for a scientist. 
*The cosmic microwave background is so uniform.*
What does he propose a nonuniformity should be, and how does that relate to galactic distance. Again, if he is proposing a relation between time, or age against uniformity, it should be quantitative, not just left hanging
*It's not a problem for an infinite God*.
That is not science. That is religion.
Dr. Lisle does does have a degree in astrophysics, but as a scientist he is very negligent. He does not do what science demands.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 26, 2019)

james bond said:


> Anyway, if you look at Greek Mythology, then do you see more resemblance with evolution's story or the Bible theory?


The ancient mythology was definitely creationist. My memory was slightly wrong. I looked up Bulfinch's Mythology and saw I was referring to Roman, not Greek mythology. It's interesting how closely it follows the bible. 

It starts with an unknown god who "_raised mountains, scooped out valleys, distributed woods, fields, stony plains ... animals ... fish ... birds, ...._" Later "_Prometheus ...  made man in the image of the gods_". Jupiter was ticked and made Pandora and, as punishment, he sent her to Prometheus. He gave her to Epimetheus (Adam?) who had a box (the apple?) which Pandora (Eve?) opened and brought disease and sins, etc to the world. 
Jupiter was ticked at this and, with the help of Neptune, flooded the earth. Only Deucalion (Noah?) and his wife Pyrrha survived on a mountain top. Jupiter decided to save them because of their "_pious demeanor_."

It's not clear which came first, but the close story lines of Genesis and Roman mythology, seem more than coincidence.  

.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> ......................


I'm sorry you wasted your time on a tangent that I was not pursuing. I will try to clarify.

I'm not pursuing dating from meteorites. You already know that.
I am not trying to find an estimated age of the earth. You must have forgotten.
I have not pressed for Darwinian evolution in this thread. You don't have to keep bringing it up.
I am demonstrating that the earth age is at least in the millions or billions of years. That forms a lower bound of the earth age, not the age itself.
Therefore only the parent-daughter ratios of the many earth based isotopes need to be considered.
I gave you one example of triple redundant aging that the earth was at least 67 million years old.
I gave you an example that diamonds with inclusions show around 3 billion years.
There are no doubt thousands of other datings that are similarly robust.
That means the earth is much much older than 10 thousand years.
You mentioned that God could have created a mature earth. That would be abandoning "Creation Science" which is the basis here.

You have not given anybody's argument that all the thousands of earthbound radiological datings using dozens of parent-daughter isotopes are flawed.
.[/QUOTE]

*Problem* with the dating you lean on* is the invalidity of your results.*

Look. I will give you a clear example *based on reality, in observed reality.*

You will claim that I'm talking about oranges while you are talking about bananas, however, you have no argument whatsover to reject what I'm going to write as valid to be used as a comparison of decay.
*
Astronauts have a huge health degenerate rate when they are for six months at the space station.* So, it was a test to be made about the rate of decay of humans in space.

*The only way to check and verify this decay as "constant" was to send astronauts to stay one year in space.*

You see? the experiment is valid, The experiment is great. What do you think? Am i right? Sure I am.

Then, American and Russian astronauts were sent to the space station for one year.

Did their bodies deteriorated at the same rate after the initial six months?

The answer: *NO.*

The human body continued deteriorating but at a lower rate. It can be by many reasons, like the body getting used to the minimum gravity, and many other reasons.

So, this is a *proven fact*, -you see, science is about facts-  that at certain point, the decay won't continue at the same rate but will increase or will decrease at a certain point. 

You can observe this phenomenon with all things around you, I can mention thousands if no millions of examples, and regardless of the causes, decay suffers of disparate rate.

The problem with your data =from which the instruments used have not been verified as well-, the problem is that you have not a single idea about any increase or decrease of decay rate in matter throughout  its whole existence, and if there is any variation in this decay, you neither know what is the rate of it.

Yes, about this issue you are a complete ignorant. Actually, we, the whole people interested in this issue, we don't have a single idea of such rate.

So, everything you have at hand is received with doubt, and this is a justified doubt, because* your results come without guarantee*, without confidence, but with lots of fanaticism from your part and the ones who have put their trust on those.

Face it, you don't have any trustworthy data, so... forget about it.


----------



## james bond (Nov 26, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> It's not clear which came first, but the close story lines of Genesis and Roman mythology, seem more than coincidence.



Look at the Biblical timeline I posted.  The OT was written by Moses.  It came before both Roman and Greek mythology even though the entire Bible was compiled later.  We were able to falsify Greek mythology through objects not being there or through location.  Location of places mentioned in the Bible are able to be found.  The Bible is considered a historical book and work of non-fiction.  I like to think of it as God's autobiography.  Moreover, I pointed out that myths come out of knowledge that which is considered true and not vice versa.


----------



## james bond (Nov 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I'm sorry you wasted your time on a tangent that I was not pursuing. I will try to clarify.
> 
> I'm not pursuing dating from meteorites. You already know that.
> I am not trying to find an estimated age of the earth. You must have forgotten.
> ...



It wasn't clear what you were going for so I egged you with a few things.  I just wanted to clarify what your positions were since they're not considered evolutionist.

 1.  So, let's skip the meteorites and I'm going to assume that you do not agree with dating those.
 2.  No, I thought you were going for Shirey and his dating of 65 million years or so just to show an older Earth that thousands of years.
 3.  Again, I'm probing since I'm not a mind reader.  Most of the time, it's more accurate to argue creation vs. evolution, but we're just discussing a young Earth or old Earth.
 4.  I think it depends on whether you know the ratios of parent-daughter elements when Earth started.  Creation scientists can explain it better than I can.  There is a little more to it and there needs to be more observers according to Tas Walker's argument:

"This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history."

I mentioned it as "contamination" as we do not know what happened to the meteorite that Patterson used.

One of the assumptions, I think you make is that somehow Shirey or your tester knew and was able to validate the dating over this time period.  You know that isn't true.  He doesn't really know what was there in the beginning.  What he's trying to show is that there was no contamination.  If we had a mature Earth and universe, then the isotopes would be more than just like new.  Otherwise, we would get different readings.  Furthermore, I pointed out the results by Gale in 1972.  Does that also apply to your measurements?

I think the examples you state follow what Walker is referring to.  You provide the flawless methodology, but do not explain what I am asking for nor how things were measured as the radioactive decay went on.  If something changed while the measuring was going on, then the results would be skewed.  We don't know what happened.  For example, if we turned a 24-hr hourglass upside down at midnight and then observed it next morning as four hours elapsed, then we would know that it does not make sense or the results was not right.  What we didn't know was my little sister tipped the hourglass and later she straightened it out again, so it was working again.  IOW, there's a validation step missing, but you're going to say that what was inside the diamond was protected.  What about outside?  I also asked whether the creation scientists could measure those inclused diamonds?  Wouldn't you think the opposition would want to test the results?  I think your explanation shows some room for error.  One of the things I would want to see is you measure something that I know the age of.  We knew approximately how long the hourglass waw running if it continued running and was not altered with.

If your sample was indeed 65 millions years old, then I would want to know where it was.  Next, I would want to know what happened during those years around the area.  If other humans were around, then it certainly could have been disturbed.

Radioactive dating fatal flaw - creation.com


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 27, 2019)

Twenty plus years ago, there were forums of science, like Time and NBC News forums -as examples-  which were very popular between the few forums online in those years.

Like here, I was discussing the failure of the theory of evolution, and I opened two topics, which took the lead in discussions. While other topics reached 20 replies, mine reached about 600 and were increasing higher until the host closed the whole forums. They had to, there was released information they didn't want others to know.

About the cave man.

That was a favorite topic of the evolutionists, and a former finding of a jaw in a cave incited their argument in favor of their good for nothing theory.

I took the information, and compared it with other places were man lived in caves. I returned back to that forum and explained how wrong evolutionists always have been.

When you compare caves where man inhabited for several years, lets say Altamira, -which is estimated man lived there for tens and even hundreds of years-, it is UNACCEPTABLE to think that with such intellect not only of making tools and even were so creative to make such drawings, that man had no capability to live in buildings made with his own hands.






Twenty years ago, I explained that caves were used as temporary shelters after a catastrophe.

Like today, people is sent to stadiums, municipal halls, and etc. after a disaster in their area, and stay over there for days, weeks, even months. The same as well, ancient men found caves as temporary shelter after losing their city for some reason, lets say, the river flooded and destroyed everything around, the beasts also were affected and came out of their former living space and became a new challenge for men, etc.

The game to play is to isolate which cave was the temporary shelter mentioned above, and which one might support the evolutionist idea.

So far, the existence of several caves with drawings and carving of images inside, is what debunks the primeval evolutionist idea about the cave man.

Even the Mayans made drawings inside caves. I have the strong opinion those drawings show they were refugees from a catastrophe, and they pictured some events, like writing what happened, why they are living inside that cave.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 27, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> I took the information, and compared it with other places were man lived in caves. I returned back to that forum and explained how wrong evolutionists always have been.


And everyone laughed at you. They still are.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> 1. So, let's skip the meteorites and I'm going to assume that you do not agree with dating those.
> 2. No, I thought you were going for Shirey and his dating of 65 million years or so just to show an older Earth that thousands of years.
> 3. Again, I'm probing since I'm not a mind reader. Most of the time, it's more accurate to argue creation vs. evolution, but we're just discussing a young Earth or old Earth.
> 4. I think it depends on whether you know the ratios of parent-daughter elements when Earth started. Creation scientists can explain it better than I can. There is a little more to it and there needs to be more observers according to Tas Walker's argument:
> ...



1. I didn't mean to say I disagree with meteorite dating. There are no doubt many different assays for dating meteorites.
2. Yes, I wanted to change the focus to simply showing an old earth, and not the more arguable task of how old.
3. It's more accurate to argue young vs old earth.
4. That's right nobody monitored the the initial elements and the way the elements transformed. 

What follows is the flaw in the rest of the creationist logic you posted.

Parent/daughter radiological dating is used in very old areas where samples are deemed to be millions to billions of years old. If creationists think the earth is from 6 to 50 thousand years old then there would be absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes, and the original elements would be in their original condition because the time is too short to have any decay to daughter isotopes.

Then creationists would have to explain how the observed element ratios got there in the first place. They would have to explain how all the various daughter elements got in all three parent elements in the triple redundancy of Schweitzer's explored area. There should have been no daughter elements. There should also have been no Osmium in Dr. Shirey's inclusions of diamonds; only the original Rhenium. 

Again: 6 to 50 thousand years means zero daughter isotopes for absolutely all the thousands of radiological datings of earth samples. The creationists you cite don't seem to get this.

.


----------



## james bond (Nov 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > 1. So, let's skip the meteorites and I'm going to assume that you do not agree with dating those.
> ...



 1.  Come now, let's not be coy.  It was using meteorites to derive the age of the Earth in 1956.  I suppose your intuition wouldn't let you.
 2.  And we disagreed.  Why not let others date a few of these diamonds?  Obviously, Shirey didn't date the coal, rocks, or meteorites either.
 3.  Yes, I think so, but not using dating techniques.  We found you don't trust creationists (because of their source (?)) and don't trust their radiocarbon dating due to contamination.  I thought Shirey had nothing to do with age of the Earth and it would be comparing apples to oranges.  The YEC would not have thought to ask him to see about examining his diamonds.  The evos dating doesn't explain what was there at the beginning nor what changed while the dating was going on.  We found this in 1972.
 4.  Okay.

However, your logic is flawed with the creationist logic.  They brought up primordial or what was there at the origin.  Thus, we do not know what the ratios were and don't know what their original conditions were.  Isn't this a flaw you state in your logic?

This sounds like apples to oranges again, but creationists do not have access to the data nor the samples.  With the carbon and diamonds, they tested what was claimed to be coal and diamonds found to be billions of years old.  Don't you think both sides have to test the same material and present their findings?

Again, look at what God created in the seven days of creation.  He created adult everything.  An adult universe would not have young isotopes nor early light.  Let's say you were created miraculously at 25 yrs old.  Would you expect to have genetic material similar to a baby's?  You would have adult genetic material.  Time is chronological and is also how long it took as one moved from one point to another.  I think it's a concept, but it affects reality and matter.

I do want to ask you about chronological dating to sedimentary layers.  Do you believe that dating layers is feasible through assuming old layers are on the bottom and newer layers on top?


----------



## james bond (Nov 27, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Twenty plus years ago, there were forums of science, like Time and NBC News forums -as examples-  which were very popular between the few forums online in those years.
> 
> Like here, I was discussing the failure of the theory of evolution, and I opened two topics, which took the lead in discussions. While other topics reached 20 replies, mine reached about 600 and were increasing higher until the host closed the whole forums. They had to, there was released information they didn't want others to know.
> 
> ...



I think you are fine when discussing and sticking to a topic.  It's when you veer from it, then I and others start wondering what is opinion and what is that which you are claiming.  I have heard that prehistoric cave people were evolutionary thinking, but using caves as temporary shelters is something I would agree with, too.  Is there a relationship between the art and writings found to catastrophe or why they were there temporarily?  That would further your argument.  Normally, one does not hear about caves being temporary shelters.  Historically, humans have used caves as tombs, as well, which is more permanent.  Can you think of anything else?  The only other thing I can think of is for travel as in part of a path or used to go further underground and explore.  Some do it as a hobby in spelunking.

ETA:  Here's one opinion of mine.  I think archaeologists have a better grasp of what happened than paleontologists.  Recently, we had paleontologists claim birds evolved from dinosaurs and now they are pictured with feathers.  Are we going to have the fictional Jurassic Park franchise have feathered Raptors and T-Rex's from now on.  More evidence of fiction following what is found to be true or new knowledge.  In this case, wrong knowledge if there is such a thing.  Also, I found founder Joseph Barbera was Christian, so that explains dinosaurs and people living together, but not the prehistoric people.  Shrug.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 27, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The creationists you cite don't seem to get this.


You understand, I hope:

Bond doesnt get this, either. He literally knows less than nothing about any of this material. He has not posted a single thing in this topic that he both did not actually understand and did not plagiarize directly from creation.com.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> I think you are fine when discussing and sticking to a topic.  It's when you veer from it, then I and others start wondering what is opinion and what is that which you are claiming.  I have heard that prehistoric cave people were evolutionary thinking, but using caves as temporary shelters is something I would agree with, too.  Is there a relationship between the art and writings found to catastrophe or why they were there temporarily?  That would further your argument.  Normally, one does not hear about caves being temporary shelters.  Historically, humans have used caves as tombs, as well, which is more permanent.  Can you think of anything else?  The only other thing I can think of is for travel as in part of a path or used to go further underground and explore.  Some do it as a hobby in spelunking.



*I took the idea from the bible. This is why I never tried to take credit of it.*

I have taken credit and copyrights of a law I discovered in those years, establishing we can perceive the entire universe in its present simultaneously with our present. I have other studies of mine as well, to which guys have had hard time to beat with their theories.

The caves' drawings mostly send the message of what happened in those moments. Amazingly similar drawings are found in different parts of the world, indicating that the event was of huge proportions.Like to say, cultures of the same era making the drawing of the same comet. It is understood that the similarity are from drawings and/or carvings inside caves and outside as well. 

Also, you are correct, that those were painted in a cave because are protected from rain, as a probability.

But, they won't show to be made by travelers because for many of the paintings it will take time to prepare the different colors to make the art work. The drawings and carvings are more acceptable to come from residents of the area.



james bond said:


> ETA:  Here's one opinion of mine.  I think archaeologists have a better grasp of what happened than paleontologists.  Recently, we had paleontologists claim birds evolved from dinosaurs and now they are pictured with feathers.  Are we going to have the fictional Jurassic Park franchise have feathered Raptors and T-Rex's from now on.  More evidence of fiction following what is found to be true or new knowledge.  In this case, wrong knowledge if there is such a thing.  Also, I found founder Joseph Barbera was Christian, so that explains dinosaurs and people living together, but not the prehistoric people.  Shrug.



I think in this part the error comes from you.

And this is what it was part of the discussion in those years. Some participants ignored in the 90's the knowledge of dinosaurs as having warm blood. The information came to public knowledge several years later from the year of the discovery. I prepared three theories in those years, The Recycling Process of Life on Earth was one of them. The idea was OK but I declined to continue because the lack of a primeval organism to start observing the assumed steps. But, I discovered something much better, the species solely decay.

That became my flag, and with it I made those guys to eat dirt by lots. Even more, I presented how organisms came to be, something that today was finally observed but is erroneously called as part of evolution. My prediction, based in my studies described the same process with a complete different name and definition, where evolution is not involved at all.

*The bible says that fish and birds were created before man.

The discoveries made are backing up the bible, because for to start, the famous T-Rex was a warm blood animal and a bird.* It was not a reptile or a lizard but a bird. 

And 22 years ago I wrote that the T-Rex lost the big teeth and tail and start to become the current bird. Also, dinosaur eggs showed that those were feathered creatures and gave extraordinary support to my claims. Of course most of the information came before my claims, *but in those years no one connected the dots as I did.*

Today, of course, what I write is taken for granted by everybody, but decades ago, such was a topic that caused great rejection by many. Look at you, without knowing it, you are also rejecting something that supports the bible


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The creationists you cite don't seem to get this.
> ...



Indi, tell me what have you discovered by your own?

I'm not asking about your titles, diplomas, and similar.

But, about something you have discovered thanks to the knowledge you have acquired.

I see you criticizing others like if you know more than they do. Look, that is fine, but in order to enjoy such a luxury you must at least show something you have reach that no other did it before. This is a requisite to see if you really know about something.

Any experiment is valid, anything that by your own initiative you have performed in science. And look, no matter if results were contrary to your prediction, enough is that you found a procedure to make the project. Believe me or not, that means a lot.

I do not respond to your mockeries because I don't know if you are serious or just writing because you have a keyboard in front of you. I will love to hear from you what accomplishment in science you have fulfilled or at least tried without success. Something that tells me you are not a copy and paste person but someone who really feel attraction -if not passion- for science.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 28, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> I see you criticizing others like if you know more than they do.


No. I criticize them for claiming to know more than they do. And the empirical knowledge we have is quite independent of what I know r have discovered. Your silly questions about what i have "discovered" are an older than dirt religious charlatan trick. The predictable end of your overwrought, dishonest line of argument is to say nobody can ever really know anything...

...at which time, you will then proceed to tell us all the answers to everything, haha. Same religious horseshit, different millennium.


----------



## james bond (Nov 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > The creationists you cite don't seem to get this.
> ...



We celebrated Thanksgiving yesterday and I'm cleaning up.  It seems less stressful this way and I get more time off.  What is the material I do not get?  You are not intellectually capable of explaining, let alone have a meaningful opinion on it.  Let's just leave it to someone who can and you can stay on the sidelines and maybe learn something..


----------



## james bond (Nov 28, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are fine when discussing and sticking to a topic.  It's when you veer from it, then I and others start wondering what is opinion and what is that which you are claiming.  I have heard that prehistoric cave people were evolutionary thinking, but using caves as temporary shelters is something I would agree with, too.  Is there a relationship between the art and writings found to catastrophe or why they were there temporarily?  That would further your argument.  Normally, one does not hear about caves being temporary shelters.  Historically, humans have used caves as tombs, as well, which is more permanent.  Can you think of anything else?  The only other thing I can think of is for travel as in part of a path or used to go further underground and explore.  Some do it as a hobby in spelunking.
> ...



Now, you're veering off into several different topics which was my criticism of your posts.  What I brought up was first that evolutionists were the ones who claimed prehistoric cave people.  These came from the macroevolution of monkeys to proto-apes and eventually humans.  Thus animals were supposedly people labeled as australopithecus, ardipithecus, paranthropus and more.  Now, we have a group of people who didn't exist before.  However, before the 1850s and Darwinism, people didn't believe in these people.  The secular scientists believed in creation.  Thus, we have arguments between creationists and evolutionists today.  These are the two main camps, but evolutionists gained power and eliminated their opposition in science, claiming that it was religion, and these creation scientists could not participate in peer reviews anymore.  They could not get published in mainstream science journals when they could before. 

From this changed environment, one of the things atheists and their evolutionist scientists do not believe is prehistoric people lived with dinosaurs.  They also do not know that creation scientists do not believe in prehistoric peoples.  Thus, we have a huge difference of the history of humans whether they were able to use tools, language, write, and communicate with each other.  Obviously, if you believe in monkey people, then you're not going to have these things.

Neanderthals
Fossil Hominids, Human Evolution: Thomas Huxley & Eugene Dubois

Diabetes
The deep roots of diabetes

DNA
Making sense of ancient hominin DNA

Creation
What does the Bible say about cavemen, prehistoric men, neanderthals? | GotQuestions.org

So, what we end up establishing is an evolutionist history and a creation history (treated as "faith based" science or religion) while creationists claim atheists and their scientists use "faith-based" science and that it could be considered religion.

In a nutshell, creation is as follows:




and you are discussing Day 5 and comparing it to Day 6.  It really depends on what one calls birds or flying animals and what one calls land animals.  We also have differences in terminology with dragons and dinosaurs, but I consider those the same.  We could have had flying dinosaurs (not pterosaurs) as well land birds (feathered animals who do not fly).


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> What is the material I do not get?


Carbon dating
Radiation
Radiometric dating
Basic chemistry
Statistical analysis

For starters...


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No. I criticize them for claiming to know more than they do. And the empirical knowledge we have is quite independent of what I know r have discovered.



Sometimes best is just let go when you don't agree with someone. And wait the right opportunity in order to provide your opinion in other different circumstances.

The topic here is about a Nobel Prize given for finding the way to observe indirectly the presence of planets outside the solar system. The method seems trustworthy but in some cases have been manipulated to make it fit with the current theories. I don't see such a manipulation has happened in this case, but the detection of something which distorts the image obtained with the spectograph might be noticed and followed. Indications from the elements detected with the spectograph seems to be plausible.

It seems to be a good method.

However, the article in the first message of this thread, also shows how between the big discovery, those lunatics managed to add their nonsense like big bang, background microwave and other silly stuff filling up the interior of the turkey (the discovery of those planets). That added stuff is not part of the turkey anyway, and the spectograph used is neither part of those good for nothing theories.

Those losers know their theory is crap, and they won't waste any opportunity to preach out their propaganda. In reality, all that added stuff is not needed at all.

Here the vedette is the planets discovered with the spectograph, that is the Nobel Prize. The other scientists added to the same prize with their silly theories are just chimpanzees trying in vain to dance ballet.


----------



## james bond (Nov 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > What is the material I do not get?
> ...



I've taken Chem 1A, 1B, 4A, 4B at UC Berkeley.  What have you taken?

I've studied the dating from:
Be specific in what material I do not get.  I can easily claim you do not get it, too.

C14 dating -- Studying mass extinctions
Radiation - What type of radiation?
Radiometric dating - https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_23; You didn't know who discovered the Earth was 4.5 B yrs old haha.
Statistical analysis - I've programmed using SPSS.  I have SPSS books if you want me to look something up?  What is 96%-tile accuracy?  What is z-score?  You can't explain the most basic questions.  You cannot answer any questions people ask you?  Even if you do, you are wrong.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 28, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > No. I criticize them for claiming to know more than they do. And the empirical knowledge we have is quite independent of what I know r have discovered.
> ...


You know less than nothing about any of this. You couldn't describe their methods, if your life depended on it. You have absolutely not a shred of evidence to support your religion- fueled horseshit, nor are you or anyone else producing any. Ever. You are not unsettling anyone, nor are you presenting any actual challenge to any scientific knowledge or conclusions. You are simply masturbating on an anonymous message board, reaffirming yourself...since nobody else will.


----------



## james bond (Nov 28, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You know less than nothing about any of this. You couldn't describe their methods, if your life depended on it. You have absolutely not a shred of evidence to support your religion- fueled horseshit, nor are you or anyone else producing any. Ever. You are not unsettling anyone, nor are you presenting any actual challenge to any scientific knowledge or conclusions. You are simply masturbating on an anonymous message board, reaffirming yourself...since nobody else will.



Is this your motto?  

It's Thanksgiving.  Thank God.  Get a life. 

We celebrated a day early.  It was easier for relatives to get in, cheaper air fares, and you could go to the store if you forgot or needed something.  They still had food left.  Today, my local supermarket had limited hours.  Speaking of which, over 5% of the people in the US live more than 0.5 mi from the nearest supermarket and do not have a car.  Thus, they do not get enough nutritious food and have more chance for obesity.  

We take a longer holiday weekend, too; Up to a week here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > You know less than nothing about any of this. You couldn't describe their methods, if your life depended on it. You have absolutely not a shred of evidence to support your religion- fueled horseshit, nor are you or anyone else producing any. Ever. You are not unsettling anyone, nor are you presenting any actual challenge to any scientific knowledge or conclusions. You are simply masturbating on an anonymous message board, reaffirming yourself...since nobody else will.
> ...


My mother did all the cooking this year. The kids and I spent all day volunteering at the mission kitchen. They hate having to get up early to do it, but they always are glad they did. I always jist take the friday off for a four day weekend. Now we will just watch holiday movies. Christmas Vacation coming up...


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> You know less than nothing about any of this. You couldn't describe their methods, if your life depended on it. You have absolutely not a shred of evidence to support your religion- fueled horseshit, nor are you or anyone else producing any. Ever. You are not unsettling anyone, nor are you presenting any actual challenge to any scientific knowledge or conclusions. You are simply masturbating on an anonymous message board, reaffirming yourself...since nobody else will.



I will show you my method to review any theory of science, because my expertise is troubleshooting.

I first ask questions about the situation. What happened, events, witness. Later I start doing my own survey of the whole scenario. Believe one thing, for troubleshooting, in many cases, in order to reach a solution you must guess where to start.

But in cases like a theory of science, then the best place, the one I myself recommend to anyone, is starting on *the root.*

Then, no matter what the theory claims, no matter how famous the author of the theory is, all of that becomes secondary.

Like saying, a modern building, with all the current technology applied in it, with the best flooring available, the best insulated windows, with the greatest illumination and extraordinary system for inside and outside communication, an excellent design for comfort and enjoyable view, at the end is permanently closed by the inspectors because has a weak foundation. 

*The root.*

No matter what the big bangers claim, all their microwave background they themselves have not a single clue where is coming from -and in my opinion just comes from former supernovas-, no matter everything they claim,* the root of their theory is peanuts.*

Apparently you have never read the theory itself. It was known by some scientists and for many years as the theory of the "primeval atom".

This theory starts with the assumption of the existence of *a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing.
*
Then*, "no one knows how" this microscopic particle started to expand.
*
Look, there is not a single explanation of the mechanism of how such a microscopic particle started to expand.

So, here is where you must start to explain your theory.

Same as I don't buy the story of the existence of a god because miracles happen and prophecies are fulfilled, same as well your nutty background microwave, your estimate of elements in the universe, and more, can go to hell.

Prove me first, before any other argument, the empirical possibility of a microscopic particle becoming galaxies and stars.

Look, press your index and the thumb very hard in front of you, and there, between those two fingers is located such a "super dense" microscopic particle, and compare it with the whole cosmos you see around.

Do your estimate of how such tiny thing can become such a huge universe.

In your dreams perhaps, only in your dreams.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 29, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> I will show you my method to review any theory of science, because my expertise is troubleshooting.


No thanks. Go try your cheap parlor tricks on someone else. Your "method" is worthless. Nobody cares. I promise.


----------



## james bond (Nov 29, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Yes, I support and help with the food bank and family services when I can.  I don't think they call it kitchen anymore.  They're one of the groups that always are looking and need volunteers.  One of things to do starting at Halloween is go to other churches in the network in the area and try it out.  You're lucky if you can get the Friday off as those are the most popular days off.  My kids are out of the house and at college, so no more holiday movies.  What's a good cheerful movie for adults?  I saw Joker and was wondering what I was watching.  There is The Irishman, but will do that on Netflix.  It seems all I have lined up are violence and bad language movies.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> However, your logic is flawed with the creationist logic. They brought up primordial or what was there at the origin. Thus, we do not know what the ratios were and don't know what their original conditions were. Isn't this a flaw you state in your logic?



A major problem with your post is that creationists don't use science to address what they think is faulty science. Your post and references in your post are full of maybe this or maybe that happened. One of Tas Walker's arguments is that _“This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly.” _If he is supposed to be a scientist he should not have brought the bible into it!

If creation “science” is really science, your creationist friends would look at the ramifications of their “maybes”. They should look at the statistics to give credibility to their maybes. Here are some examples.

Dr. Jason Lisle the astrophysicist was competent enough to give quantitative arguments on the change in light speed, or time, but he didn't; they were all “what-if” or “maybe”. I went into depth here: Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel... I will go into more detail in another post.


Three different methods of dating the area surrounding the Schweitzer's fossils all agree to 65 million years ± 4%? If creationists think that is invalid they should do a statistical analysis to prove the improbability that 3 different methods with three different isotopes all have the correct proportion of daughter products. All they say is maybe.


If creationists think that Shirey's diamond inclusions were contamination, they should look at the probability of *very rare* Osmium daughter elements near the Rhenium parent isotope. But no, they only say “maybe” it's contamination.


Creation science completely ignores the fact that diamonds were not measured to be old using AMS simply because the instrument wasn't capable of that accuracy. It was at the background noise level *which means nothing but an age older than 50000 years*.


_Finally, this is most important: _If creationists think the earth is less than 50 thousand years old then *there would be absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes*, and the original elements would be in their original condition because the time is too short to have any decay to daughter isotopes. Creationists should look at the probabilities that daughter products were in the vicinity by accident.
In short, “Creation science” is not science. They do not use science; just maybe.



james bond said:


> This sounds like apples to oranges again, but creationists do not have access to the data nor the samples. With the carbon and diamonds, they tested what was claimed to be coal and diamonds found to be billions of years old. Don't you think both sides have to test the same material and present their findings?



Both sides did test it and found the background level. That only gives a minimum age, not the age itself. I will get into detail in another post.



james bond said:


> Again, look at what God created in the seven days of creation. He created adult everything. An adult universe would not have young isotopes nor early light. Let's say you were created miraculously at 25 yrs old. Would you expect to have genetic material similar to a baby's? You would have adult genetic material. Time is chronological and is also how long it took as one moved from one point to another. I think it's a concept, but it affects reality and matter.



Now that is not science at all, let alone creation science.

.


----------



## james bond (Nov 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> A major problem with your post is that creationists don't use science to address what they think is faulty science. Your post and references in your post are full of maybe this or maybe that happened. One of Tas Walker's arguments is that _“This timescale deliberately ignores the catastrophic effects of the Biblical Flood, which deposited the rocks very quickly.” _If he is supposed to be a scientist he should not have brought the bible into it!



I've said as much, but what you consider to be true is what you've read mostly in books or science articles.  That's why you're a nerd.  I don't think you've read much of the Bible which is a non-fiction and historical book.  It is still the best selling book in the world.  As I said, the Bible may not be written as a science book, but science backs up the Bible.  Thus, creation scientists have come up with the Bible theory.  All the great creation scientists, which I've listed, from the past believed in it.  They could see that science indeed backs it up.  Today, the Bible is probably more foreign as ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has taken over science (since the 1850s).  That's why evolution is fake science.  You have got it backwards because you have not read what the opposition is saying and compared.

I'll get to the rest later as I digest what you mean.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> I've said as much, but what you consider to be true is what you've read mostly in books or science articles. That's why you're a nerd. I don't think you've read much of the Bible which is a non-fiction and historical book. It is still the best selling book in the world. As I said, the Bible may not be written as a science book, but science backs up the Bible. Thus, creation scientists have come up with the Bible theory. All the great creation scientists, which I've listed, from the past believed in it. They could see that science indeed backs it up. Today, the Bible is probably more foreign as ToE and evolutionary thinking and history has taken over science (since the 1850s). That's why evolution is fake science. You have got it backwards because you have not read what the opposition is saying and compared.
> 
> I'll get to the rest later as I digest what you mean.



Nerd? We already discussed this. I am much more well rounded than you are. If you want to call both of us nerds, that's fine. What I will getting at here is that creationists don't follow proven science principles.

Science has found the earth and universe is billions of years old. It doesn't make sense that the universe is that old with an earth of only 6000 years old. The Hubble telescope found thousands of exoplanets, up to billions of light years away. Are they also 6000 years old?

In order to insist that the universe is 6000 years old creation scientists such as Dr. Jason Lisle cavalierly throw around physical constants: they say things like, “maybe time was different in the past.” “Maybe the speed of light was faster in the past.” They simply should not change these constants without understanding the ramifications in all of physics. Those two constants are intimately tied to other constants of physics which would likewise have to change.

*Constants that involve C*
Fine structure constant ~ 1/c
classical electron radius ~ c²
Stefan-Boltzmann constant ~ 1/c²
Fermi coupling constant ~ 1/c³​
If the velocity of light was different in the past, you would look at the billions of galaxies in the past and find that, due to the change in fine structure constant, the changed electromagnetic forces between fundamental particles would not allow the galaxies to look like anything we see. They may not even exist.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant would change by the inverse square of light velocity. All distant galaxies would be very cold to the extent that they would be invisible to telescopes.

The Fermi coupling constant is proportional to the inverse cube of the speed of light. The weak force would almost vanish.

*Constants that involve time*
Speed of light 1/sec
Planck's constant sec
Gravitational constant 1/s²​
If time were faster in the past the change in Planck's constant would change the entire field of quantum mechanics for distant galaxies. Spectra of stellar plasmas would become invisible. A large change in the gravitational constant would weaken gravity to the extent that galaxies could not keep their stars in orbit. All of known physics would collapse.

Creationists will not get any science if they only read creationists sites. Creation “scientists” never delve into the ramifications of the science of their musings. So creation science does not exist. It is not science.

.


----------



## james bond (Nov 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Nerd? We already discussed this. I am much more well rounded than you are. If you want to call both of us nerds, that's fine. What I will getting at here is that creationists don't follow proven science principles.
> 
> Science has found the earth and universe is billions of years old. It doesn't make sense that the universe is that old with an earth of only 6000 years old. The Hubble telescope found thousands of exoplanets, up to billions of light years away. Are they also 6000 years old?
> 
> In order to insist that the universe is 6000 years old creation scientists such as Dr. Jason Lisle cavalierly throw around physical constants: they say things like, “maybe time was different in the past.” “Maybe the speed of light was faster in the past.” They simply should not change these constants without understanding the ramifications in all of physics. Those two constants are intimately tied to other constants of physics which would likewise have to change.



We may have discussed, but you didn't get it.  I already said the Earth and universe are both the same age of around 6,000 years.  It wasn't until Darwin explained ToE that long-time became necessary.  The evos got that in 1956.  Thus, people were led to believe that it's 4.5 B years old and the universe 13.7 B years old.  Why don't you understand this?  Why don't you understand what creation science is saying versus atheist science?  It was already explained to you several times.

If evolution's science principles are proven, then what evidence fits that?  You didn't know we got the age of the Earth from Clair Patterson.  You already disagreed with doing radioisotope dating on the meteorite.  I think you agreed that one has to make sure what material they are dating is free from contamination.  One also has to know what kind of radiometric dating to use, too.  Prior to the 1850s, scientists believed in creation.  Those who didn't believed in the steady state theory and that the universe was eternal.  There wasn't any _proven_ science principles behind it and was demonstrated to be pseudoscience.

The creationists have the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  The evos have no logical explanation.  Creation scientists also have radiocarbon dating and tree rings and proof that the universe began at some point through the CMB radiation.  They think that big bang is false big bang of the gaps evolutionist argument.  The Bible states God stretches out the heavens like a tent and we found that the universe is expanding and that the shape of the universe is flat.  The Bible states that the universe has a boundary or edge and that it curves as we approach the boundary.  As for the difference in time for the light to reach the Earth, we have three explanations now -- Distant Starlight – Which theory has the bigger problem?.



Wuwei said:


> In order to insist that the universe is 6000 years old creation scientists such as Dr. Jason Lisle cavalierly throw around physical constants: they say things like, “maybe time was different in the past.” “Maybe the speed of light was faster in the past.” They simply should not change these constants without understanding the ramifications in all of physics. Those two constants are intimately tied to other constants of physics which would likewise have to change.



From what I understand of his theories, it has to do with different creation models.  Creation scientists from the get go did not think the past was the same as what it is today.  Because of the catastrophes that happened in the past.  They also do not think gravity was the same strength today as in the past.  This is from studying the giant reptiles that flew.  It sounds like you are thinking that creation contradicts evolution.  It's the other way around.  Evolution came later and thus contradicts creation.

I haven't had time to gather all the things Lisle has said, but here is what John Hartnett has said.  I tend to read his work more that Humphries and Lisle.  Lisle came in through creation.com, I think, and that is a website I'm the least familiar with, but it's based in the US and now I am reading more of it.

Here's what I think Hartnett wrote -- Starlight and time: Is it a brick wall for biblical creation?.


----------



## james bond (Nov 30, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> If creation “science” is really science, your creationist friends would look at the ramifications of their “maybes”. They should look at the statistics to give credibility to their maybes. Here are some examples.
> 
> Dr. Jason Lisle the astrophysicist was competent enough to give quantitative arguments on the change in light speed, or time, but he didn't; they were all “what-if” or “maybe”. I went into depth here: Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel... I will go into more detail in another post.
> 
> ...



With the Schweitzer's fossils, she found soft tissue remaining in them first.  Thus, afterward the creation scientists did radiocarbon dating on them as they discovered it still had C-14 remaining.  That was the key to these testings as the evos did radiometric dating first on all of these materials.  Again, the creation scientists have been left out of the peer reviews of evo scientists, so never had a vehicle nor platform to disagree.

With Shirey, he wasn't dating to find the age of the Earth.   If he wants to provide his diamonds for examinations, then I'd be glad to contact Dr. Jason Lisle or anyone else who would be willing to test them.

I'm not sure what your argument with AMS is.  I don't think you completely understood what RATE did.  If Shirey would provide his diamonds, then RATE would probably get involved and be interested.

Do you have an article on there would be "absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes?"  Then I'll know what elements you are using in your dating.


----------



## toobfreak (Nov 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > You don't understand the limits of Carbon dating. Read this again:
> ...




That's quite a chart there, JB!  I just love it when people create educational material that itself is flawed.  For instance, just on a casual glance:

The "Palaeozaic" Era is actually spelled PALEOZOIC.
The "Merozaic" Era is actually spelled MESOZOIC.
And The Quaternary is but a sliver of time compared to the Neogene, not equal.
Really makes you wonder who produces this stuff that they don't even catch egregious typos visible at a glance that if they are getting the big, easy, obvious stuff wrong, just how flawed are the details in the technical and history books offered school kids these days?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 30, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> Really makes you wonder who produces this stuff


It was someone who does not speak English very well. See the site it came from.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> I've taken Chem 1A, 1B, 4A, 4B at UC Berkeley.


Welp, better go back and take them again.


----------



## luchitociencia (Nov 30, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> No thanks. Go try your cheap parlor tricks on someone else. Your "method" is worthless. Nobody cares. I promise.


You can't promise what you can't understand.

Explain here, with simple words, how the big bang primeval microscopic particle in the middle of nothing expanded to form galaxies and stars.

Again, the Nobel Prize was for the discovery of planets in another solar system, The other dudes with their big bang theory are just dumb people who still believe in fantasies. Dumb people never get it, but they can become smart, you know...

If you can't explain the microscopic particle, then you are like them, just... "smart"?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Nov 30, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> Explain here, with simple words, how the big bang primeval microscopic particle in the middle of nothing expanded to form galaxies and stars.


 I dont know how. And you don't either. What is wrong with you? But one thing is certain: you clearly know less than nothing about any of it.
Furthermore, you fraud, if you actually cared to know the working hypotheses out there right now,you wouldn't be sitting in a foreign troll farm, annoying strangers on a message board. You would be looking it up yourself. Thats enough right there for people to know you are a fraud.


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> We may have discussed, but you didn't get it. I already said the Earth and universe are both the same age of around 6,000 years. It wasn't until Darwin explained ToE that long-time became necessary. The evos got that in 1956. Thus, people were led to believe that it's 4.5 B years old and the universe 13.7 B years old. Why don't you understand this? Why don't you understand what creation science is saying versus atheist science? It was already explained to you several times.


I certainly understand. I read the Genesis some time ago. But it is metaphor and has nothing to do with science.

Sir Charles Lyell was a geologist who first came up with a view that the earth formed over a long period of time and continues to slowly change shape. He did geological field studies before writing a book in 1830-1833. His work was published in _Principles of Geology_. Darwin was strongly influenced by Lyell and started writing about his own theory in the mid 1850's; 25 years later than Lyell. .

I don't know where you got the idea that Darwin first came up with an old earth idea. No wonder you dwell on evolution so much. You should reference Lyell. In dating the age of the earth, scientists don't dwell on evolution, they are more into geology and radiology than evolution. As I said before you keep bringing Darwin up. He has nothing to do with aging of the earth or universe.



james bond said:


> If evolution's science principles are proven, then what evidence fits that? You didn't know we got the age of the Earth from Clair Patterson. You already disagreed with doing radioisotope dating on the meteorite. I think you agreed that one has to make sure what material they are dating is free from contamination. One also has to know what kind of radiometric dating to use, too. Prior to the 1850s, scientists believed in creation. Those who didn't believed in the steady state theory and that the universe was eternal. There wasn't any _proven_ science principles behind it and was demonstrated to be pseudoscience.



No, I didn't disagree on meteorite dating. I simply took your word that the particular meteorite he used was contaminated. However I did look further into it. Patterson continued to work and built a highly secure clean room at Caltech and went to great lengths to keep it from being contaminated by lead. He came up with new more accurate dating that everyone now accepts. Why didn't you know that. The creation sites you frequent seem to be cherry picking the history to serve their own purpose.



james bond said:


> The creationists have the Kalam Cosmological Argument.......As for the difference in time for the light to reach the Earth, we have three explanations now


Kalam covers the time before the big bang. Science involved in the age of the universe extrapolates back using the red shift to a very early time but not to the unknown origin. It shows the universe is billions of years old. Kalam does not cover Hubble's work.

As far as your other three explanations:
Humphrey’s White Hole / Time Dilation Cosmology,
Carmeli’s Cosmological Relativity,
Lisle’s Anisotropic Synchrony Convention Solution;

they all distort space, time, or both. I already told you that when you play games with time or the speed of light you screw up all of physics, and we would not see the galaxies the way they are consistently in distance and time. Hubble's measured constant would not be followed by creationist .



james bond said:


> From what I understand of his theories, it has to do with different creation models. Creation scientists from the get go did not think the past was the same as what it is today. Because of the catastrophes that happened in the past. They also do not think gravity was the same strength today as in the past. This is from studying the giant reptiles that flew. It sounds like you are thinking that creation contradicts evolution. It's the other way around. Evolution came later and thus contradicts creation.


Again, all of physics would be screwed up
*.*


----------



## Flash (Nov 30, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> > .......For a long time many doubted the existence of planets outside our Solar System.
> ...




...and we had a stupid President for eight years that thought the earth's climate was getting hotter  because of man made CO2 and that Muslims were our buddies.


----------



## Stormy Daniels (Nov 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> People think there are multiple dimensions, but we've yet to _prove_ the existence of the fourth dimension.



*facepalm*

Should we tell him, or let him wallow in stupidity?


----------



## Wuwei (Nov 30, 2019)

james bond said:


> With the Schweitzer's fossils, she found soft tissue remaining in them first. Thus, afterward the creation scientists did radiocarbon dating on them as they discovered it still had C-14 remaining. That was the key to these testings as the evos did radiometric dating first on all of these materials. Again, the creation scientists have been left out of the peer reviews of evo scientists, so never had a vehicle nor platform to disagree.


Show me a source that says carbon dating of the collagen tissue had C14.



james bond said:


> With Shirey, he wasn't dating to find the age of the Earth. If he wants to provide his diamonds for examinations, then I'd be glad to contact Dr. Jason Lisle or anyone else who would be willing to test them.
> 
> I'm not sure what your argument with AMS is. I don't think you completely understood what RATE did. If Shirey would provide his diamonds, then RATE would probably get involved and be interested.


So you think Shirey was in error? He wrote many papers tracking the varying age of diamonds. Do you think all of his Rhenium/Osmium dating is wrong?



james bond said:


> Do you have an article on there would be "absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes?" Then I'll know what elements you are using in your dating.


Papers? No need. It's really quite an obvious deduction. If the earth were 6000 years old and the parent half-life was billions of years, there would be little time for daughter isotopes to appear in only 6000 years because of the slow decay rate. They would be below the capability for detection. I covered this before, Don't you understand what radiological dating is?

.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> With the Schweitzer's fossils, she found soft tissue remaining in them first. Thus, afterward the creation scientists did radiocarbon dating on them as they discovered it still had C-14 remaining. That was the key to these testings as the evos did radiometric dating first on all of these materials. Again, the creation scientists have been left out of the peer reviews of evo scientists, so never had a vehicle nor platform to disagree.



You will never find this on a creationists site. This is a revisit of C14 dating of collagen, diamonds or coal. The AMS has a physical limitation that prevents C14 measurement accuracy past 60,000 years. Anything at that date is 100% qustionable. The AMS counts atoms, so lets count them. In spectroscopy the count is in units of *mole*.

1 mole of carbon is 12 g. (6.022×10²³ atoms.)

The sample sizes for an AMS ranges up to 0.1g. So the amount for the largest sample size is 
(0.1 g)x (1 mole/12 g) = moles of C atoms in a 1 mg sample =
*8.3*×*10*⁻³* moles*.

The number of C14 atoms in a fresh sample is one part per trillion. Or
*8.3*×*10*⁻¹⁵* moles*.

A 55,000 year old sample is about 10 half lives and would lose a factor of 1024 C14 atoms. Thus the remaining C14 would be 1024 times less:
*8.1*×*10*⁻¹⁸* moles*

It's convenient to use much smaller units of moles:
*8.1 amoles *(8.1 attomoles) (atto = 10⁻¹⁸) of C14.
*10 amoles* is the limit of precision for an AMS system for detecting C14..

Analytical validation of accelerator mass spectrometry for pharmaceutical development
The AMS sensitivity expressed as *LLOQ* is *10 attomoles* of 14C.

Difference between LOQ and LLOQ - Chromatography Forum
Definition of LLOQ: “Lower limit of quantification (*LLOQ*): The lowest amount of an analyte in a sample that can be quantitatively determined with suitable precision and accuracy. …. a determination of the practical working limits of the method in relation to acceptance criteria.”

Conclusion: This quantitative analysis of readings of very old collagen tissue, diamond or coal using AMS values in the range of 10 amoles shows creationists did not provide any information about age. The creationists who totally ignored the limits of AMS instruments suffered an unconscionable ignorance of the limitations of the instrument. Those creationists sites where you get your information regarding science are duping you and others into thinking science supports a young age of the earth. 

If you want to believe in a young earth, OK do it. But please don't think science supports that belief. 

.


----------



## the other mike (Dec 1, 2019)

Stormy Daniels said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > People think there are multiple dimensions, but we've yet to _prove_ the existence of the fourth dimension.
> ...


Let him wallow...he seems to enjoy it.


----------



## luchitociencia (Dec 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> I dont know how. And you don't either. What is wrong with you? But one thing is certain: you clearly know less than nothing about any of it.



See? And this is the point.

You are taking for granted a phenomenon (the primeval microscopic particle) that never existed.

Plus, you are following a theory based on magic.



Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Furthermore, you fraud, if you actually cared to know the working hypotheses out there right now,you wouldn't be sitting in a foreign troll farm, annoying strangers on a message board. You would be looking it up yourself. Thats enough right there for people to know you are a fraud.



And, who told you I care about a good for nothing theory? You yourself don't know the very genesis story of your big bang religion. 

My work doesn't care about nationality, education, preferred sports, marital status, sexual orientation, and similar; but is about finding if the assumed theory is valid to be considered as scientific.

And the big bang theory fails right there, in its very beginning. The big bang theory is not science.


----------



## luchitociencia (Dec 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Conclusion: This quantitative analysis of readings of very old collagen tissue, diamond or coal using AMS values in the range of 10 amoles shows creationists did not provide any information about age.



Same as you do. 

You must update your knowledge about diamonds same as scientists have updated their knowledge about fossilization.

In the past, it was believed that in order for fossilization to happen, it was necessary a length of millions of years . But, it has been observed already that fossilization can happen in years, not in millions of years.

Fossilization (palaeontology) - encyclopedia article - Citizendium

_*Fossilization is not a process that only occurred millions of years ago. It has also occurred in the recent past, simply because the same geological processes that happened in the past are also taking place now.*_







_Fossilized bird nest from a Cape Town wetland. Because it was only fossilized recently, it is termed a "sub-fossil"._

In this aspect, Christians are ahead of you, you still living in the past with old beliefs. Science already has recognized that fossilization only requires "the right environment". That's all.

Here is how Christians enjoy better knowledge than you do.

Evidence For Rapid Complete or Partial Fossilization

_"In *2004*, five *Japanese scientists* published examples of rapid petrification in Sedimentary Geology...analyzed a small lake in the explosion crater of the Tateyama Volcano in central Japan. A mineral-rich solution springs up from the bottom and fills the 15 m lake with steaming hot acidic water. This mineral-rich water then runs over the edge as a waterfall...They discovered that the *naturally fallen wood in the overflow had been petrified with silica*. What surprised the scientists was the fact that the *wood was less than 36 years old*. As a result, the scientists *conducted an experiment* in which they* fastened pieces of fresh wood in the lake with wire*. Surprisingly, after *only 7 years the wood had turned into stone, petrified with silica..."*_

I myself have found my fossil in process just by digging the ground when I was living in an apartment at ground level decades ago. It was about three feet deep to bury the dead dog of a neighbor. First I thought it was just a weird stone.

_* *_

_* *_

_* *_


The same scenario with diamonds.

The formation of diamonds was thought as well as happening in early stages of the earth, here is the common belief.

Diamond - Wikipedia

_*Most natural diamonds have ages between 1 billion and 3.5 billion years. Most were formed at depths between 150 and 250 kilometres (93 and 155 mi) in the Earth's mantle, although a few have come from as deep as 800 kilometres (500 mi). Under high pressure and temperature, carbon-containing fluids dissolved minerals and replaced them with diamonds. Much more recently (tens to hundreds of million years ago), they were carried to the surface in volcanic eruptions and deposited in igneous rocks known as kimberlites and lamproites.*_

However, regardless of the "era", what is needed is an 

Russian Diamonds vs Real Diamonds: Are They Any Different?

_*environment that reaches above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, with pressure of more than 700,000 pounds per-square-inch. Under this immense heat and pressure, the carbon’s properties and structure change on a molecular level. It begins to morph into a crystalline, prismatic structure that you recognize as a diamond.*_

Synthetic diamonds was the secret weapon hold by the Soviet Union, they were ready to release millions of diamonds at cheap price to kill the diamond industry in the world.

_*Russia was the first country to develop a machine that produced diamonds in an economic fashion. They lowered the overall cost of making the diamonds, but also increased the quality of synthetic diamonds to an amazing level. Today, Russia is still one of the top leaders of synthetic diamond-production and have set the bar for its quality.*_

Your millions of years of age for diamonds is just a belief from your part. 




Wuwei said:


> The creationists who totally ignored the limits of AMS instruments suffered an unconscionable ignorance of the limitations of the instrument. Those creationists sites where you get your information regarding science are duping you and others into thinking science supports a young age of the earth.
> 
> If you want to believe in a young earth, OK do it. But please don't think science supports that belief.





Wuwei said:


> .



No one of the results given by your instruments has been verified.

You have a pile of assumed age over another assumed age for fossils and diamonds.

You can't prove their age using a different reliable method of measure, and this is what make all your data as mere conjectures.

It appears that if you really want to know about science, that you becoming a Christian will help you the most.


----------



## james bond (Dec 1, 2019)

toobfreak said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Wuwei said:
> ...



I didn't want to point out the evolutionist's misspellings.  My point was their layers have nothing to do with time chronology, but location.  Certainly, it makes you wonder who puts out these egregious typos in the evolutionist camp, but I hope you didn't miss that almost all of it is bullsh*t.


----------



## james bond (Dec 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I've taken Chem 1A, 1B, 4A, 4B at UC Berkeley.
> ...



I'm positive I can blow you up before you can blink an eye.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Haha....you freaks seem to have one skill: declaring victory. Yet the scoreboard shows you as losing by about eleventy trillion to zero. I suppose that, when you believe in magical zombie gods and evil sky daddies, this self delusion is a tiny leap for you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 1, 2019)

Well, the religious freaks have once again derailed a science thread. Nice moderation, USMB.


----------



## james bond (Dec 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I certainly understand. I read the Genesis some time ago. But it is metaphor and has nothing to do with science.



No.  Even the theist evolutionists believe that.  They think God made a common ancestor or he started the big bang.  From natural selection which is true science, they were led to believe in macroevolution or fake science.  We got prehistoric humans and creatures from that.  If you aren't listening to God and his word, then who's are you listening to?

I think people like William Lane Craig, who I think is the best Christian apologist speaker I've heard, is influenced wrongly by the academic establishment.  They do not want "philosophy" to interfere with what they consider hard science.  Just compare that with the soft sciences.  They consider themselves rationalists or empiricists, but end up losing their way.  The creation scientists base it not only on empiricism, but facts, reasoning, and historical truths.

Thus, it comes down to _comparing_ the two theories and choosing which one has the better science.  Which one has the science to back it up?  Evolution has nothing.  So, it's the opponent side of creation that has nothing to do with science.  Otherwise, the metaphor would have been exposed, you would have hundreds, if not thousands of examples or real science backing up evolution, and we would not be discussing it anymore.



Wuwei said:


> Sir Charles Lyell was a geologist who first came up with a view that the earth formed over a long period of time and continues to slowly change shape. He did geological field studies before writing a book in 1830-1833. His work was published in _Principles of Geology_. Darwin was strongly influenced by Lyell and started writing about his own theory in the mid 1850's; 25 years later than Lyell. .
> 
> I don't know where you got the idea that Darwin first came up with an old earth idea. No wonder you dwell on evolution so much. You should reference Lyell. In dating the age of the earth, scientists don't dwell on evolution, they are more into geology and radiology than evolution. As I said before you keep bringing Darwin up. He has nothing to do with aging of the earth or universe.



Before Lyell was Scottish farmer turned geologist James Hutton.  He's the one who influenced Lyell and was an atheist.  All of the geology came from atheistic thinking to challenge the established Christian geologic thinking at the time.  Hutton and Darwin both became atheists.  What is important that came out of Hutton is uniformitarianism or the idea that the present is the key to the past.  That is a lie.

I didn't say Darwin came up with the old earth idea.  His explanation of ToE, Darwin did not create ToE, is what required long time.  Thus, it wasn't until 1956 that gave him the long time:

Uniformitarianism
Uniformitarianism: Charles Lyell

Natural selection
Natural Selection: Charles Darwin & Alfred Russel Wallace 

Long time through radiometric dating
Radiometric Dating: Clair Patterson

I couldn't find the article on Darwin needing long time; It could be under Clair Patterson, but here's another article.  C'mon evolutionists know this.
Darwin’s Theory of Evolution in 5 Easy Points You'll Understand


----------



## james bond (Dec 1, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> In short, “Creation science” is not science. They do not use science; just maybe.



Where's your evidence to backup no daughter isotopes claim?

Of course, it is science.  Creation scientists were the greatest contributors to science and came up with the scientific method.  You aren't much of a scientist on your own.  Evolution scientists are usually wrong, so you may as well be in that camp.



Wuwei said:


> No, I didn't disagree on meteorite dating. I simply took your word that the particular meteorite he used was contaminated. However I did look further into it. Patterson continued to work and built a highly secure clean room at Caltech and went to great lengths to keep it from being contaminated by lead. He came up with new more accurate dating that everyone now accepts. Why didn't you know that. The creation sites you frequent seem to be cherry picking the history to serve their own purpose.



.  Why should I help my opponent or someone who does not agree with me?  You were so ignorant, I had to tell you about Clair Patterson and how the age of the Earth was derived.  Isn't that what we were discussing ?  Why don't you work your lazy, ignorant ass?  I did my work learning about evolution, teach you, and then have to kick you in the ass.  It's simpler to just kick you in the ass in front of everybody here.


----------



## james bond (Dec 1, 2019)

Stormy Daniels said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > People think there are multiple dimensions, but we've yet to _prove_ the existence of the fourth dimension.
> ...



You still need to learn how to read and comprehend, Stormy Daniels .


----------



## james bond (Dec 1, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...





 

How can I discuss anything regarding evolution or creation science with a moron and someone who cannot explain how to tie a shoelace?


----------



## luchitociencia (Dec 1, 2019)

No need to be a religious person to ask* how* it comes a microscopic particle in the middle of nothing "expanded" by itself to form galaxies and stars.

The sole idea of such an expansion is lunacies.

Unfortunately still not born who can give the answer.

Until then, the Nobel Prize is exclusive solely for the discovery of "something orbiting" in other solar systems, which by preliminary data -from one sole method used- is strongly pointing to be planets.

Good discovery, worthy of a Nobel Prize!


----------



## james bond (Dec 1, 2019)

Angelo said:


> Stormy Daniels said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



I don't wallow.  I'm sure your family brought you up well in it.


----------



## james bond (Dec 1, 2019)

Speaking of diamonds, we know that there are plenty of synthetic diamonds now.  Don't try to fool your lady friend with it.  They'll know.  And try to get the best, like a Tiffany's, if you can afford it.  It will hold its resale value better.  I think it's worse than cars once you take it out of the store .


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 1, 2019)

james bond said:


> With the Schweitzer's fossils, she found soft tissue remaining in them first. Thus, afterward the* creation scientists did radiocarbon dating on them as they discovered it still had C-14 remaining*.


Did you just make that up? I asked for a reference, but you did not give one. Where is it?



james bond said:


> Where's your evidence to backup no daughter isotopes claim?


I told you twice already. Here is the third time. Anyone with a little science should be able to figure it out. U 238 has a half life of 4.468 billion years. An end product of the decay is lead. If the earth were only 10,000 years old the Uranium would have negligible decay in such a short time. There would be no lead.

Any other long lived isotope would also have negligible daughter products if the earth were only 10,000 years old.



james bond said:


> Of course, it is science. Creation scientists were the greatest contributors to science and came up with the scientific method.


You referenced a lot of scientists in the early 1800's or before that were creationists. Everyone was! That is no surprise because the earth age of billions years wasn't known until the early 1900's.

I am talking about modern creationists of the last few decades. They are not scientists. They want to dismiss current science because they are young earthers, but the science that they speculate about violates well proven properties of the speed of light or fiddling with a nonlinear time. They have no theory that passes muster; just naive speculation.

The modern creationists you referenced don't understand the limit of AMS for carbon14 dating. Their error is like trying to measure the weight of a marshmellow with a bathroom scale. They will get zero and think it's weightless because they don't understand it's limitation.

In the rest of your post you are back to personal attacks. 

So the story so far is that AMS can't be used to date diamonds.
Rhenium inclusions in diamonds lead to billions of years age of diamonds.
Patterson clearly showed primordial earth is 4.5 billion years.
Distant galaxies show the universe is around 13.7 billion years. Any attempt by creationists that try to deny that end up denying well established basic physics and lead themselves into self contradiction.

Getting science from creationist sites will only lead you astray.
.


----------



## james bond (Dec 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > With the Schweitzer's fossils, she found soft tissue remaining in them first. Thus, afterward the creation scientists did radiocarbon dating on them as they discovered it still had C-14 remaining. That was the key to these testings as the evos did radiometric dating first on all of these materials. Again, the creation scientists have been left out of the peer reviews of evo scientists, so never had a vehicle nor platform to disagree.
> ...



Oompah.  You haven't provided anything I asked for.  Weak .


----------



## james bond (Dec 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I told you twice already. Here is the third time. Anyone with a little science should be able to figure it out. U 238 has a half life of 4.468 billion years. An end product of the decay is lead. If the earth were only 10,000 years old the Uranium would have negligible decay in such a short time. There would be no lead.
> 
> Any other long lived isotope would also have negligible daughter products if the earth were only 10,000 years old.



Let's not quibble.  As I mentioned before, you describe the method, but not the actual material it has been used on and what was done.  You do not  provide a link to what has been tested.  What you are stating is disingenuous.  Moreover, the process has been to provide whatever has been tested and given to RATE.  That way, they can verify your findings, check for contamination, and also check for radiocarbon dating.  Let's not forget, it's young Earth vs. old Earth since you did not believe in using meteorites.

OTOH, I provided the links for Clair Patterson, long time, Darwin, uniformitarianism, et al.  You haven't provided any hard evidence.



Wuwei said:


> You referenced a lot of scientists in the early 1800's or before that were creationists. Everyone was! That is no surprise because the earth age of billions years wasn't known until the early 1900's.
> 
> I am talking about modern creationists of the last few decades. They are not scientists. They want to dismiss current science because they are young earthers, but the science that they speculate about violates well proven properties of the speed of light or fiddling with a nonlinear time. They have no theory that passes muster; just naive speculation.
> 
> ...



No, Earth age became important because of ToE was explained.  Nobody on the creationist side wants to dismiss atheist science.  In fact, we have to learn the atheist science or what they have found and are stating, such as the recent birds are dinosaurs, thesis.  That way, we can agree or not agree with the findings.  Usually, the atheist or evolution side contradicts what was written in the Bible and the fun begins.

You are wrong again.  Today, creationists are scientists, as well.  This is a weakness in your part because I don't think you have any college degree.  You would know that they all have credentials.  I can post the new creation scientists credentials if you want.  OTOH, you have nothing to support your background, but claiming to some work related to AMS.

Furthermore, we still have RATE which can do the AMS testing and see if what the evolution side claims as millions or billions of years old can be tested with radiocarbon dating.  You yourself claim that one can't do this after 60,000 years.

The rest of you ad hominem claims by me are ridiculous.  I'm starting to doubt you know much about what we have been discussing.  It's not just me who thinks you're wrong or disingenuous.


----------



## luchitociencia (Dec 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I told you twice already. Here is the third time. Anyone with a little science should be able to figure it out. U 238 has a half life of 4.468 billion years. An end product of the decay is lead. If the earth were only 10,000 years old the Uranium would have negligible decay in such a short time. There would be no lead.
> 
> Any other long lived isotope would also have negligible daughter products if the earth were only 10,000 years old.
> .



*Luchito: You don't know physics.*

*Scientist:* No, you are the ignorant. I told four times the earth is not 10,000 years old because the measurement made with half life of U 238 as 4.468 billion years, and having at the same time U 235 half life as a secondary "clock" to check the measurement is correct.

*Luchito:* How do you know that age?

*Scientist: *Because the application of the radiometric system.

*Luchito: *How the radiometric system gave you such amount of 4.468 billion years? Did the U 238 showed you that age? How?

*Scientist: *After computer calculations.

*Luchito: *After computer calculations of what?

*Scientist: *After computer calculations of their decay.

*Luchito: *Did the computer actually measured until such amount of billions of years or this is about calculations made in base of an observed rate of decay?

*Scientist: *The computer has been programmed in accord to an observed rate of decay.

*Luchito: *Up to how old in age it has been observed such a rate of decay without calculations?

*Scientist:* Tests with U 238 and its decay in lab showed different but approximated results in different tests.

*Luchito: *But you use it in a lab test which lasted how long?

*Scientist:* That depends of the method used.

*Luchito: *Then, you tested an element for a period of time, like, lets say a year. And you measure the decay of it in such a lapse

*Scientist: *Yes, that is mostly how is done.

*Luchito: *I have for example Nitrogen, you say will decay -0.693 a year.

*Scientist: *Well, yes.

*Luchito: *Then. you have observed a rate of decay of U 238 in a year and from here you have made your calculations.

*Scientist: *Exactly.

*Luchito:* Is the decay of U 238 standard or can be manipulated to decay faster or slower?

*Scientist: *It can be manipulated. For example, low frequency magnetic fields can do the job.

*Luchito: *So, you just observe the physical decay of U 238 in a lapse of a year, and from here the rest is just calculations made in a programed computer.

*Scientist: *Yes, we use the best technology.

*Luchito: *Then, physically you have never measured those 4.468 billion years.

*Scientist: *No.

*Luchito: *However, you think that such an age is acceptable and reliable after making such a calculation of yours.

*Scientist: *Yes indeed.

*Luchito: *And even when you know that such decay can have a different rate of decay when you observe it in outer space, you still insisting that your calculations are correct.

*Scientist: *If any difference, such will be minimum

*Luchito: *But will be different, and giving a greater difference when you consider going into "billions of years". You know, in mathematics you miss a unit at the very beginning and the complete result is false.

*Scientist: *I stand with what we have unless you come with a better method of measure for the age of the universe.

*Luchito: *I don't think such is necessary, because our lives won't change at all by knowing the exact age of the universe. Such fanaticism comes from your part.

*Scientist: *It's in the name of science

*Luchito: *In the name of science you are using an invalidated method.

*Scientist: *Is what we have and we stick with it.

*Luchito: *Even knowing that the rate of decay of U 238 you are using applies solely if earth has an environment same of the whole universe?

*Scientist: *We can't lean on results of samples sent to outer space because they can be exposed to extreme changes just by difference of gravity as one example.

*Luchito: *That is the point. You lean on results made on earth only, but your rate of decay can't apply for decay of U 238 somewhere else in the universe.

*Scientist: *I can't answer that.

*Luchito: *Of course you can't

*Scientist: *And who are you anyway? You think you know more than a scientist in this matter?

*Luchito: *I just proved I know more than you.


----------



## Stormy Daniels (Dec 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> Stormy Daniels said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Just as soon as you learn basic high school physics.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> Let's not quibble. As I mentioned before, you describe the method, but not the actual material it has been used on and what was done. You do not provide a link to what has been tested. What you are stating is disingenuous. Moreover, the process has been to provide whatever has been tested and given to RATE. That way, they can verify your findings, check for contamination, and also check for radiocarbon dating.


I stated a general principle that isotopes with a half life of many millions to billions of years have immeasurably few daughter products in only 6000 years. Why is that disingenuous? Where do you disagree?



james bond said:


> No, Earth age became important because of ToE was explained. Nobody on the creationist side wants to dismiss atheist science. In fact, we have to learn the atheist science or what they have found and are stating, such as the recent birds are dinosaurs, thesis. That way, we can agree or not agree with the findings. Usually, the atheist or evolution side contradicts what was written in the Bible and the fun begins.


_Dr. Jason Lisle_ dismissed current accepted science in a big way when he tried to rationalize a young universe. I already gave a list of his grave misunderstandings involving the physical constants. He should really know better than that. Being an astrophysicist, he no doubt had courses in relativity and quantum mechanics. 



james bond said:


> You are wrong again. Today, creationists are scientists, as well. This is a weakness in your part because I don't think you have any college degree. You would know that they all have credentials. I can post the new creation scientists credentials if you want. OTOH, you have nothing to support your background, but claiming to some work related to AMS.


Yes, some have an advanced science education and are scientists, but when they promote a brand of creation science that dismisses the findings of modern science, like Lisle, they are not acting in the name of science. In that sense, “creation science” is a misnomer and is not science, in the same way that the sect Christian Science is not science. I don't care or judge anyone by their educational background. That should be obvious by now. I judge people on their ability to think rationally and navigate physical concepts correctly. I haven't seen a young earth creationist here or anywhere that can do that.



james bond said:


> Furthermore, we still have RATE which can do the AMS testing and see if what the evolution side claims as millions or billions of years old can be tested with radiocarbon dating. You yourself claim that one can't do this after 60,000 years.


I don't understand what you are trying to say. RATE scientists already did their own testing with diamonds and coal and got a meaningless result. They still called it valid.

Radiocarbon is not a viable method for objects older than 60,000 years. But still that is an order of magnitude older than 6000 years. However many other much longer lived isotopes are viable for dating older samples. Some RATE scientists have dug up samples and had labs test them (Not using C14). The labs found the samples were many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years.

So far I have not seen you or any site give any scientifically valid reason the earth is 6000 years old.



.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 2, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> *Luchito: *Then, you tested an element for a period of time, like, lets say a year. And you measure the decay of it in such a lapse
> *Scientist: *Yes, that is mostly how is done.





luchitociencia said:


> *Luchito:* Is the decay of U 238 standard or can be manipulated to decay faster or slower?
> *Scientist: *It can be manipulated. For example, low frequency magnetic fields can do the job.





luchitociencia said:


> *Luchito: *And even when you know that such decay can have a different rate of decay when you observe it in outer space, you still insisting that your calculations are correct.





luchitociencia said:


> *Scientist: *We can't lean on results of samples sent to outer space because they can be exposed to extreme changes just by difference of gravity as one example.


I am answering you just this once because you have seemed to put some time into this. All the questions and responses you post here are particularly false. Absolutely no scientist would make those replies.

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 2, 2019)

Stormy Daniels said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Stormy Daniels said:
> ...



How did high school physics_ prove_ the existence of the fourth dimension?


----------



## james bond (Dec 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I stated a general principle that isotopes with a half life of many millions to billions of years have immeasurably few daughter products in only 6000 years. Why is that disingenuous? Where do you disagree?



Because it has nothing to do with measuring the age of the Earth.  We are discussing young Earth vs. old Earth.  What you are doing is trying to explain away my complaint.  If you do not know what the daughter products are, then you cannot do your radiometric dating.  Where is what you measured?  Since you want to just discuss methodology and nothing concrete, you have not provided 

The initial conditions of the rock sample or material to be dated are accurately known.
The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock or material was formed.
I provided both measurements instead of stating how RATE used radiocarbon dating to show coal and diamonds were thousands of years old.  Here is the radiocarbon dating of other materials by RATE:

"Dr. Steven Austin of ICR led off the conference with a paper entitled, "Continuing Research on Isochron Dating Methods Applied to Grand Canyon Rocks." He presented plots of the ratios of various radionuclides usually interpreted as "isochron ages" from over 40 rock samples collected from Grand Canyon Pleistocene and Precambrian layers. These samples were analyzed using Pb-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and K-Ar methods. Attention was focused on daughter products of lead, neodymium, strontium, and argon for whole-rock and mineral concentrates. The various linear array plots could be interpreted as "isochrons" from the different dating methods. However, discordant "ages" resulted, even for mineral concentrates from the same rock. Although the discordant isochron "ages" are the normal pattern, the discordance seems to differ in a predictable fashion. Alpha daughter products give older apparent "ages" than beta daughter products. More measurements and analyses, especially mineral isochrons, may help identify the cause of the observed trends.

Dr. Andrew Snelling of AIG continued the geological emphasis with a paper entitled, "Solving the Long-Age Isotope Dating Problem: Geology and Geochemistry." He reported on the K-Ar analyses of recent (less than 50 years old) lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, which produced model ages as high as 3.5 million years. The large age is due to excessive concentrations of primordial argon in the samples which renders problematic the use of K-Ar and Ar-Ar as methods for dating rocks. It is not possible to distinguish the primordial argon incorporated as a rock formed from that produced later by nuclear decay. Dr. Snelling demonstrated that argon is infiltrating the crust of the earth from reservoirs in the mantle over various space and time scales. Additionally, the Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and U-Th-Pb dating methods also rely on assumptions about the initial starting conditions in the earth's mantle. Various hypothetical models for different compositional domains in the mantle are utilized by geochemists to explain the measured isotope ratios in crustal rocks, in some instances without resorting to age interpretations. Dr. Snelling intends to pursue this explanation as an alternative to accelerated decay."

Thus, your explanations of methods of radiometric dating being used for a young Earth has little to do with what we are discussing.  It only addresses part of the problems that need to be overcome in the measuring of various materials. 

This is at least the third time you have failed .

Why don't we just use radiocarbon dating if the Earth is young?

You're also disingenuous because you use your own theories instead of evolution and provide no credentials.  I've already asked for this at least three times.  Three strikes and you're out.  Did you graduate from high school?  Where was it from?



Wuwei said:


> _Dr. Jason Lisle_ dismissed current accepted science in a big way when he tried to rationalize a young universe. I already gave a list of his grave misunderstandings involving the physical constants. He should really know better than that. Being an astrophysicist, he no doubt had courses in relativity and quantum mechanics.



Of course not.  He used hard science and we have more evidence besides dating to back up a young Earth.  We have established all you have is dating.  Does that mean evolution just has radiometric dating?



Wuwei said:


> I don't understand what you are trying to say. RATE scientists already did their own testing with diamonds and coal and got a meaningless result. They still called it valid.
> 
> Radiocarbon is not a viable method for objects older than 60,000 years. But still that is an order of magnitude older than 6000 years. However many other much longer lived isotopes are viable for dating older samples. Some RATE scientists have dug up samples and had labs test them (Not using C14). The labs found the samples were many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years.
> 
> So far I have not seen you or any site give any scientifically valid reason the earth is 6000 years old.



Again, radiocarbon dating is invalid if there is no C14 left.  However, we haven't hit 60,000 years yet, so it remains.  Radiocarbon dating is perfectly valid.  There is no need to use radiometric dating.  You just do not get it.


----------



## james bond (Dec 2, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I am answering you just this once because you have seemed to put some time into this. All the questions and responses you post here are particularly false. Absolutely no scientist would make those replies.



How do you know that?  Why should we believe someone who just graduated from high school?


----------



## james bond (Dec 2, 2019)

Here is something else that was discovered by creation scientists about radiometric dating, but has been ignored.  Diffusion.  Just like Wuwei has ignored much of my complaints to him about his explanations and assumptions for radiometric dating.  He has completely ignored Gale and his findings in 1972, as well.

"Here’s where Dr. Hayes’s paper comes in. He says that there is one process that has been overlooked in all these isochron analyses: diffusion. Atoms and molecules naturally move around, and they do so in such as way as to even out their concentrations. A helium balloon, for example, will deflate over time, because the helium atoms diffuse through the balloon and into the surrounding air. Well, diffusion depends on the mass of the thing that is diffusing. Sr-86 diffuses more quickly than Sr-87, and that has never been taken into account when isochrons are analyzed.

No problem. Now that Dr. Hayes has brought it up, we can take it into account, right? Perhaps, but it’s rather tricky, because the rate of diffusion depends on the specific chemical and physical environment of each individual rock. If the effects of diffusion can be taken into account, it will require an elaborate model that will most certainly require elaborate assumptions. Dr. Hayes suggests a couple of other approaches that might work, but its not clear how well.

So what does this mean? If you believe the earth is very old, then most likely, all of the radioactive dates based on isochrons are probably overestimates. How bad are the overestimates? I have no idea, and I don’t think anyone else does, either. Dr. Hayes’s model indicates it could add as much as 29 billion years to ages determined with rubidium and strontium, although his model is rather simplistic. Most likely, the effect will be dependent on the age. I would think that the older the sample, the larger the overestimate. However, it’s important to note that some radioactive dates (like those that come from carbon-14) don’t use the isochron method, so they aren’t affected by this particular flaw."

Scientist Realizes Important Flaw in Radioactive Dating – Proslogion

So, we can discuss just the methodology instead of providing actual cases and show that radiometric dating is done incorrectly and makes wrong assumptions.


----------



## Stormy Daniels (Dec 2, 2019)

james bond said:


> How did high school physics_ prove_ the existence of the fourth dimension?



For example, did you take high school physics, or are you taking it now?


----------



## james bond (Dec 3, 2019)

Stormy Daniels said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > How did high school physics_ prove_ the existence of the fourth dimension?
> ...



You're too dumb to figure it out.  I don't think you graduated high school.  Failed in reading comprehension.  You can't even answer how the 4th dimension was proven since that is your claim.

CERN is trying to do it now with showing how a gravitron could escape into the 4th dimension.  That would demonstrate there is a 4th dimension.  It's one of the thesis of how gravity works.

Here's a more interesting question for others here.  It's been asked before, but what is time?  It's a concept that we use as measurement such as length, width, and height.  We have shown 3D exists, but does spacetime physically exist?  We can show it exists in theory because we can show how an 3D object exists in 4D via computer simulation.  Some people think the universe is a computer simulation and this lends some credence to that theory.  Stuff like dark matter and dark energy lends credence to it, too.  What about the universe being a hologram?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> The initial conditions of the rock sample or material to be dated are accurately known.
> The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
> The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock or material was formed.


Your third point never happens unless you want to change all the laws of physics.

The second two of your points don't happen in many cases, like with very rare daughter isotopes. For example, osmium daughter isotopes would very rarely be contaminated by preexisting osmium or infiltrating osmium. More on this further down.



james bond said:


> "Dr. Steven Austin of ICR led off the conference with a paper entitled, "Continuing Research on Isochron Dating Methods Applied to Grand Canyon Rocks." He presented plots of the ratios of various radionuclides usually interpreted as "isochron ages" from over 40 rock samples collected from Grand Canyon Pleistocene and Precambrian layers. These samples were analyzed using Pb-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and K-Ar methods. Attention was focused on daughter products of lead, neodymium, strontium, and argon for whole-rock and mineral concentrates. The various linear array plots could be interpreted as "isochrons" from the different dating methods. However, discordant "ages" resulted, even for mineral concentrates from the same rock. Although the discordant isochron "ages" are the normal pattern, the discordance seems to differ in a predictable fashion. Alpha daughter products give older apparent "ages" than beta daughter products. More measurements and analyses, especially mineral isochrons, may help identify the cause of the observed trends.
> 
> Dr. Andrew Snelling of AIG continued the geological emphasis with a paper entitled, "Solving the Long-Age Isotope Dating Problem: Geology and Geochemistry." He reported on the K-Ar analyses of recent (less than 50 years old) lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, which produced model ages as high as 3.5 million years. The large age is due to excessive concentrations of primordial argon in the samples which renders problematic the use of K-Ar and Ar-Ar as methods for dating rocks. It is not possible to distinguish the primordial argon incorporated as a rock formed from that produced later by nuclear decay. Dr. Snelling demonstrated that argon is infiltrating the crust of the earth from reservoirs in the mantle over various space and time scales. Additionally, the Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr, and U-Th-Pb dating methods also rely on assumptions about the initial starting conditions in the earth's mantle. Various hypothetical models for different compositional domains in the mantle are utilized by geochemists to explain the measured isotope ratios in crustal rocks, in some instances without resorting to age interpretations. Dr. Snelling intends to pursue this explanation as an alternative to accelerated decay."
> 
> Thus, your explanations of methods of radiometric dating being used for a young Earth has little to do with what we are discussing. It only addresses part of the problems that need to be overcome in the measuring of various materials.


Argon contamination in K40-Ar40 dating can be found and compensated by looking at other isotopes of Ar. If there is contamination by air, the isotopes Ar36 and Ar38 ratios are known and used to determine the contamination of Ar40 and subtracted out.

Another way to insure contamination is not a problem is to use three different radioactive elements with three different daughter isotopes for dating the sample. If they agree on the age, the probability that all three are contaminated identically is significantly reduced.

Here is the bottom line. Even if all the different daughter isotopes of several different decaying elements were rather contaminated in the same sample and erroneously gave an age of a billion years, the resulting assay could be, say three half lives off. That would reduce the age from a billion to 100 million years. That still pokes holes in a 6000 year old universe although dating for archaeological purposes is quite compromised.



james bond said:


> This is at least the third time you have failed
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now you are being juvenile.

I don't use my own theories. I use verified physics. You won't see any of that if you keep copying and pasting only from creationist sites.



james bond said:


> Of course not. He used hard science and we have more evidence besides dating to back up a young Earth. We have established all you have is dating. Does that mean evolution just has radiometric dating?


Not in the site you referenced. Dr. Lisle  used "perhaps" and "maybe" too many times and he changed the laws of verified physics on every one of his points.



james bond said:


> Again, radiocarbon dating is invalid if there is no C14 left. However, we haven't hit 60,000 years yet, so it remains. Radiocarbon dating is perfectly valid. There is no need to use radiometric dating. You just do not get it.


Really, you don't get it. If the carbon sample has only 1 amole of C14, then there is no valid age. Period. Remember a marshmellow on a bathroom scale gives no valid weight. It is a fundamental instrument limitation. I showed you the complete arithmetic on the limitation of AMS, and I gave references, where do you disagree with it?

.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I am answering you just this once because you have seemed to put some time into this. All the questions and responses you post here are particularly false. Absolutely no scientist would make those replies.
> ...


You don't have to believe me! Just try thinking for a change and not depend on creationist sites for all your science. You have no understanding of nuclear physics. You are quite ignorant of the most basic aspects of the subject.. But OMG you have no analytical skills either. Some of this is really just logic with a minimal amount of physics.

Here is a recap and a bit of explanation that you should really already know. If you had any physics in college..



luchitociencia said:


> *Luchito*: Then, you tested an element for a period of time, like, lets say a year. And you measure the decay of it in such a lapse
> *Scientis*t: Yes, that is mostly how is done.


You should know it can't be done that way. The decay rate for an isotope with a million year half life would not have changed in any perceptible way in only one year. Long half lifes have to be measured by first quantifying the number of atoms in a sample, and then measuring the decay rate. The quantification or purification takes the longest time. Measurement of the decay rate can be done in minutes, not years.


luchitociencia said:


> *Luchito*: Is the decay of U 238 standard or can be manipulated to decay faster or slower?
> *Scientist*:It can be manipulated. For example, low frequency magnetic fields can do the job.


NO NO! If you had an entry level course in nuclear physics you would know that is not true at all. Are you confusing that with the Zeeman effect?


luchitociencia said:


> *Luchito*: And even when you know that such decay can have a different rate of decay when you observe it in outer space, you still insisting that your calculations are correct.
> *Scientist*: We can't lean on results of samples sent to outer space because they can be exposed to extreme changes just by difference of gravity as one example.


For gods sake! The gravitational time dilation deviation is around 10⁻¹⁰ different from earth to outer space!! That would change a four billion year half life by just a few hours.

You can use just guessing if you want to snow creationists on a forum, but that will not work on me. The creation sites you use don't tell you the whole truth. They do a lot of guessing too.

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Your third point never happens unless you want to change all the laws of physics.
> 
> The second two of your points don't happen in many cases, like with very rare daughter isotopes. For example, osmium daughter isotopes would very rarely be contaminated by preexisting osmium or infiltrating osmium. More on this further down.



More taking what I said out of context to avoid the hard questions.

Because it has nothing to do with measuring the age of the Earth. We are discussing young Earth vs. old Earth. What you are doing is trying to explain away my complaint. * If you do not know what the daughter products are, then you cannot do your radiometric dating. Where is what you measured? Since you want to just discuss methodology and nothing concrete, you have not provided *

*The initial conditions of the rock sample or material to be dated are accurately known.*
*The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.*
*The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock or material was formed.*
It goes to show why you just want to discuss methodology.  It's your methodology for an old Earth.  How can one apply it when the Earth is young?  One uses C14 dating instead.  There you go.

Furthermore, you do not understand what the creation scientists are saying.  In the past, the gravity was less and the radioactive decay rate has varied.  It should have been in the links I provided.  As for the amount of parent or daughter elements, we had what Gael reported in 1972.  It goes to show the assumptions of atheist scientists have been worse than they thought.

I'll have to continue when I get more time.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> Here is something else that was discovered by creation scientists about radiometric dating, but has been ignored. Diffusion. Et cetera.


Diffusion in air and fluids. Yes and yes. Diffusion in solids: Not so much. 

Contaminating molecules would have a hard time diffusing in crystals.  Hydrogen or helium can slowly diffuse over the millennia. But they aren't a contaminant that would upset dating. Elements and daughter products are much larger. 

If diffusion is a problem, an area in the center of a large rock or mass will be in a diffusive equilibrium. Diffusion  of daughter isotopes into the area is the same as diffusion out of the area. The ratios will not change even though the molecules might. A very small sample with an exposed perimeter may have a bigger problem because diffusion out would be greater than diffusion in. Large molecules in a solid will not diffuse especially if the outer shell valences are different than the predominant mass. (I took two classes in solid state physics.)

On the whole it doesn't look like the creationists analysed the problem in detail.

.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 3, 2019)

james bond said:


> More taking what I said out of context to avoid the hard questions.
> 
> Because it has nothing to do with measuring the age of the Earth. We are discussing young Earth vs. old Earth. What you are doing is trying to explain away my complaint. * If you do not know what the daughter products are, then you cannot do your radiometric dating. Where is what you measured? Since you want to just discuss methodology and nothing concrete, you have not provided *


I was talking about a general principle. When you focus on a specific example, you certainly do know what the daughter products are.

There is a definite miscommunication. You aren't reading my words the way I meant them and I don't seem to be reading your words the way you mean them because your responses just don't make sense to me.



james bond said:


> It goes to show why you just want to discuss methodology. It's your methodology for an old Earth. How can one apply it when the Earth is young? One uses C14 dating instead. There you go.


Of course my methodology is for an old earth. It's billions of years old. You must use long half-life isotopes and they show very old ages.

Carbon 14 is just fine when you think the event is less than 50,000 years, like a middle age relic. But you can't use it on old rocks or diamonds. It simply gives you no information at all.



james bond said:


> Furthermore, you do not understand what the creation scientists are saying. In the past, the gravity was less and the radioactive decay rate has varied. It should have been in the links I provided. As for the amount of parent or daughter elements, we had what Gael reported in 1972. It goes to show the assumptions of atheist scientists have been worse than they thought.


No, gravity didn't change and radioactive decay has been constant.

If they want to say that then they are denying the laws of physics and have no replacement. Do you want to abandon quantum mechanics and relativity too??

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 3, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Diffusion in air and fluids. Yes and yes. Diffusion in solids: Not so much.



You have no credibility anymore as you provide no science links to back up your statements.  Moreover, it does not appear you have a degree.  Not only that you have made wrong assumptions and have been shown to be wrong.  You were wrong about contamination and RATE and AMS testing.  You were wrong about creationists not using science when they invented science.  Today's creation scientists make mincemeat out of the secular science theories of long time.  You were wrong about creation scientists not using science to address what they think is wrong with secular science.  You do not recognize what has been demonstrated to be true of a global flood and catastrophe.  We have 3/4 of Earth's surface covered by water.  We have marine fossils as being the most plentiful fossils in the fossil record.  They were found on the peaks of the highest mountains.  We even have an entire whale fossil in the Himalayas.  Not only that, it has been demonstrated that Noah's Ark can be build and float in the water.  We have the Ark Adventure and Creation Museum now.  

Why don't you write your criticisms of Dr. Jason Lisle and we can send it to him?  Why don't you give him your credentials?  You can use a pseudonym since you have no credentials and credibility.  

OTOH, we have the RATE scientists:
*"The RATE Group Findings*
In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:


Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
Steven Austin, PhD Geology
Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies"
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?

It really is silly to continue when radiocarbon dating was able to be completed and it showed a young Earth.  There was no need to do radiometric dating as that would give false results as test have showed this.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Diffusion in air and fluids. Yes and yes. Diffusion in solids: Not so much.
> ...


Linking to Flat Earth clowns really dismisses your attempt at argument

https://www.icr.org/rate/


----------



## luchitociencia (Dec 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> CERN is trying to do it now with showing how a gravitron could escape into the 4th dimension.  That would demonstrate there is a 4th dimension.  It's one of the thesis of how gravity works.


There is not any graviton. 

The CERN is trying hard to keep the current good for nothing theories of sciences as valid. They were looking for the "particle of God", they finally say they discovered a new particle, but every attempt to make such a new particle start "gluing"  the other particles to form mass, they failed. They still trying to glue other particles using the discovered one, but such is not how the universe was formed, not with "a the miracle particle". They are nuts. (Higgs Boson particle)



james bond said:


> Here's a more interesting question for others here.  It's been asked before, but what is time?  It's a concept that we use as measurement such as length, width, and height.  We have shown 3D exists, but does spacetime physically exist?



Time is just a concept, never a dimension or a physical entity which can be flexible and affected by the behavior of bodies. Those ideas are pure imaginations.



james bond said:


> We can show it exists in theory because we can show how an 3D object exists in 4D via computer simulation.



No, you don't show time exists theoretically, you just use computer simulation to make scenarios similar as making video games. Because in video games a crocodile can talk and use a sword and can fly, you won't take seriously such images. What pushes you to take seriously those computers simulations in 3D or 4D? 



james bond said:


> Some people think the universe is a computer simulation and this lends some credence to that theory.  Stuff like dark matter and dark energy lends credence to it, too.  What about the universe being a hologram?



The idea of the universe being a hologram is the way relativists want to deviate the attention of people saying "nothing is real", and doing so they avoid responding the question about the existence of time.

If the universe is a hologram, then God must have used a gigantic set of laser beans to make it, because hologram is made solely with laser rays.

Come on, all those ideas are just fantasies.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> You have no credibility anymore as you provide no science links to back up your statements. Moreover, it does not appear you have a degree.


I gave you lots of links but you don't believe the science. All the links you gave me are biased creationist sites. My degrees in physics can run rings around your degree, I simply don't want to publicize it here. I don't understand your obsession with my background.



james bond said:


> Not only that you have made wrong assumptions and have been shown to be wrong. You were wrong about contamination and RATE and AMS testing. You were wrong about creationists not using science when they invented science. Today's creation scientists make mincemeat out of the secular science theories of long time. You were wrong about creation scientists not using science to address what they think is wrong with secular science. You do not recognize what has been demonstrated to be true of a global flood and catastrophe. We have 3/4 of Earth's surface covered by water. We have marine fossils as being the most plentiful fossils in the fossil record. They were found on the peaks of the highest mountains. We even have an entire whale fossil in the Himalayas. Not only that, it has been demonstrated that Noah's Ark can be build and float in the water. We have the Ark Adventure and Creation Museum now.


As usual you are using the bible to try to prove the bible. You were wrong about AMS limitations. Many science sites refer to the limits but you and your creationist friends totally ignore it because it doesn't agree with their preordained creationism. You didn't understand my point about in situ contamination. I know there can be in situ contamination. I was trying to explain what the ramifications are but you didn't understand it and got bent out of shape.

You had no rational reason to believe contamination when Dr. Schweitzer's three different assays all agree to 65 million years ± 4%, or that Dr. Shirey's diamond inclusions could possibly have Osmium contamination. Yes, some sites are contaminated but most published ones are not; especially the two I cited. Apparently creationists think they all are contaminated. 

The real hypocrisy of creationists is that they vigorously claim contamination in long decay isotopes, but vigorously claim no contamination in C14. Bias, yes?

Much of your “science” is focused on Noah's flood. That did not happen, certainly within the last 6000 years. There are lots of on-line criticisms about how phony the flood is. I don't want to cover it because it is not science. It's religion. Today's scientists make mincemeat out of all the creationists who think the earth age is only thousands of years. 



james bond said:


> Why don't you write your criticisms of Dr. Jason Lisle and we can send it to him? Why don't you give him your credentials? You can use a pseudonym since you have no credentials and credibility.


I already wrote my criticisms a few pages back. Be sure and tell him it's shameful the way he posits ideas that violate current physics without any theoretical support. The universe is billions of years old and nobody has any substantial new physics model of a 6000 yr universe.



james bond said:


> "The RATE Group Findings
> Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
> et cetera.


The first half of your link is textbook physics that any physics student knows. The second half of the link gets down to what the creationists think of C14 and has some surprising statements that are quite amusing.

_“Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.“_​
They want us to hold Libby to what he said 70 years ago?! Now, 70 years later we know exactly how it is not constant, Here is a curve. It's almost linear, but the variation is known and is small, and is a calibration! Why do your disingenuous creationist scientists ignore that??? Don't they keep up with modern science? Here is one calibration graph: 





Notice the dotted line at the bottom of the graph is _“approximate limit of C-14 detection.”_

And that's at 50,000 years. The detection limit for better machines is higher, but still limited. The authors at your link completely ignore that. It is unconscionable for a scientist to do that. Remember my example of a marshmallow on a bathroom scale. They are as stupid as that.

_“What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.”_​
They were assuming a young earth to prove that the earth is young! Circular! If they assume the earth is billions of years old, that 30,000 years for equilibrium is meaningless.

_“The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, *but lower levels of 14C.* “_​
What they should say is “...*but lower levels of AMS background*.” There are many sites that say this is balderdash because it's at the detectable limit of AMS. I said the same. Most sites are in blogs and forums. You will not find a formal journal article calling it balderdash because the science community already knows it is.



james bond said:


> It really is silly to continue when radiocarbon dating was able to be completed and it showed a young Earth. There was no need to do radiometric dating as that would give false results as test have showed this.


If that isn't science bias, I don't know what is. A real scientist would look at all possible observations before coming to any conclusions. Creationists decided an AMS machine limitation did not exist and decided to ignore every other dating concept! That is not science.

Also, the universe is billions of years old with billions of galaxies that are billions of light years away. Creation “science” hasn't come close to proving otherwise. Creationists have no choice but weak rationalizations of maybe this or maybe that. They assume the bible is true then base their suppositions on that. That is not science.

The earth was in turmoil throughout the millennia. Low areas were elevated. High areas were eroded. It's no surprise to find a whale bone on the Himalayas. Noah's flood is biblical. That is not science

This exercise has certainly been interesting so far. I always wondered how creationists could justify a 6000 year old earth using science. The answer is that they don't. They stick to the bible and they corrupt well verified science, and refuse to understand scientific instruments. Like the marshmallow on a bathroom scale proves the weight is zero.

.


----------



## luchitociencia (Dec 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> You should know it can't be done that way. The decay rate for an isotope with a million year half life would not have changed in any perceptible way in only one year. Long half lifes have to be measured by first quantifying the number of atoms in a sample, and then measuring the decay rate. The quantification or purification takes the longest time. Measurement of the decay rate can be done in minutes, not years.



Of course decay and degeneration means losing of characteristics. And decay of U 238 means is losing atoms/particles/elements.

You can manipulate the decay of the sample to make it decay faster and slower.

However, the only way, no other chance, to know what is the decay of the sample "per year" is by counting the atoms today, and doing the same in a year and check the difference.

After this process, you obtain a rate of decay, and then you can make tests manipulating the decay and calculating the results with the rate obtained of the decay observed without manipulation.



Wuwei said:


> NO NO! If you had an entry level course in nuclear physics you would know that is not true at all. Are you confusing that with the Zeeman effect?



The decay of the U 238 can be performed, it has been made several times. Just adding  neutrons to a sample to make it U-239 and will decay faster. It will become Plutonium 239 with half life 24,110 years.

Lets go to the point right below.




Wuwei said:


> For gods sake! The gravitational time dilation deviation is around 10⁻¹⁰ different from earth to outer space!! That would change a four billion year half life by just a few hours.



Time dilatation? What the heck is that?

Show here how time dilates. Show the mechanism of such a phenomenon.

Are you trying to be funny here?

Look, we are discussing science, OK? so if you come here with stupid arguments, then whatever you say is considered as lunacies.

You can talk about different gravity level, but "dilatation of time"? ha ha ha ha

Nice try, but you should talk about that imagination of "dilatation of time" in Conspiracy Theories topics. Not here.

Let go to the topic as it should be.

*A different environment will cause U 238 to have a different rate of decay.*

Then, the current measures of U 238 decay are based solely on our current earth status, with our current atmosphere and etc. But, when earth didn't have atmosphere, when earth was located at a different orbit or just traveling as a rogue planet, with a past earth with different conditions, the decay of U 238 was different.

The change of behavior of ALL matter has been proved hundreds, thousands of times at the space station. And U 238 is not the exclusive one which will be exempt of those changes.

Your billions of years of age for earth have been DEBUNKED right here and right now. Your measurements are not valid.

You can go and cry somewhere else, but the fact I am giving you right here, nobody, read clearly, nobody can proved it false.

 Troubleshooting is my expertise.

I,  Luchito.


----------



## james bond (Dec 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I gave you lots of links but you don't believe the science. All the links you gave me are biased creationist sites. My degrees in physics can run rings around your degree, I simply don't want to publicize it here. I don't understand your obsession with my background.



What degrees in physics?  Nobody knows who you are.  Name your highest degree.  Besides, you don't sound credible not knowing who Clair Patterson was .  Who found AMS?  Who found radiometric dating?  I would think the last question most people know.  It matches the people here like Fort Fun Indiana.  I think I'm the only one who pointed Patterson out earlier.  It goes to show I did my homework on evolution and used a good website to learn it.  In their survey, I told them I took computer science courses there and that people use other devices today to read websites, especially the cell phone.  It means change the website to make it mobile friendly , but they're doing their due diligence.  I'll give them much credit for that.

The science of what exactly?  Radiometric dating?  We find that it's not accurate because of the assumptions it makes.  You won't believe Gale and his 1972 report.  I tried to point that out to you, but you won't believe it.  Instead, you criticized RATE who has shown their credentials while you have none.  RATE did their due diligence.  What seems to be happening is RATE is being cast aside just like Gale and his partners.  Long time is so important for the Darwinism theory.  The only creation science we have today is creationists' websites, conservapedia, and some Britannica.  Wikipedia is firmly atheist and pro-evolution and founded by a porn entrepreneur.

Moreover radiocarbon dating is valid if much C14 is left.  Why does secular science not write articles on this?  It's valid radiometric dating.

"Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly—with a half-life of only 5,730 years—that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils—supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old—ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating.1

1 Robert L. Whitelaw, “Time, Life, and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates,” _Creation Research Society Quarterly_ 7, no. 1 (1970): 56–71.

#7 Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

Much of what you provided was Shirey and my answer for that was to give RATE a chance at those included diamonds.  RATE took those diamonds that secular scientists had already tested as comparison.  The same with the fossils that there were found soft tissue.  So, do you not believe the long time needed for evolution of 4.5 B years old Earth?  Are you buying into evolution?

Look at the radiometric dating of the moon rocks.  They only accepted the readings that fell into the long time they estimated as.  If one batch was contaminated, then don't you think the readings from the whole batch should've been tossed out?

With long Earth you still have to explain the water on the surface of the Earth, the recession of the moon, bent rocks, mixed sedimentary layers, layer names that match location and not time (etymology), very little sediment on the seafloor, rapidly decaying magnetic field, and more.

What we find is you have no other evidence.  That is strange if the Earth is indeed 4.5 B years old.  What about soft tissue in dinosaur bones if not C14 remaining?


9. Soft Tissue in Dinosaurs - Is Genesis History?



Wuwei said:


> On the whole it doesn't look like the creationists analysed the problem in detail.



Here is more against diffusion in my previous post #277.  It's by Dr. Andrew Snelling.  He provides his name and credentials.  OTOH, you took two classes in solid state physics from where?  High school?  Online?  Did you receive college credits?

https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v12/u-pb_radioisotope_dating.pdf


----------



## james bond (Dec 4, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I was talking about a general principle. When you focus on a specific example, you certainly do know what the daughter products are.
> 
> There is a definite miscommunication. You aren't reading my words the way I meant them and I don't seem to be reading your words the way you mean them because your responses just don't make sense to me.



Isn't what you argue just backing up what I stated is wrong with using radiometric dating except for radiocarbon dating?  I don't think there is any miscommunication because you do not provide any examples to discuss.  All you are doing is discussing methodology and still have not provided whatever credentials you have.  So far, it's two physics classes.  What were the titles and names of these classes?



Wuwei said:


> Of course my methodology is for an old earth. It's billions of years old. You must use long half-life isotopes and they show very old ages.
> 
> Carbon 14 is just fine when you think the event is less than 50,000 years, like a middle age relic. But you can't use it on old rocks or diamonds. It simply gives you no information at all.



Why shouldn't we think it is less than 50,000 years.  We should both be using radiocarbon dating as C14 remains.  Instead, the radiometric dating and long time advocates continue to use radiometric dating.  Didn't you just admit they do not know what the parent-daughter ratios were or the daughter ratios would be nil?

You must be really thick because RATE just proved it using radiocarbon dating with "billions" years old rocks or diamonds.  They have their papers.  It goes to show one of us is really, really, really wrong.



Wuwei said:


> As usual you are using the bible to try to prove the bible. You were wrong about AMS limitations. Many science sites refer to the limits but you and your creationist friends totally ignore it because it doesn't agree with their preordained creationism. You didn't understand my point about in situ contamination. I know there can be in situ contamination. I was trying to explain what the ramifications are but you didn't understand it and got bent out of shape.
> 
> You had no rational reason to believe contamination when Dr. Schweitzer's three different assays all agree to 65 million years ± 4%, or that Dr. Shirey's diamond inclusions could possibly have Osmium contamination. Yes, some sites are contaminated but most published ones are not; especially the two I cited. Apparently creationists think they all are contaminated.
> 
> ...



No, creation scientists and I use the Bible as an autobiography and the testimony of the only person who was there during creation.  It is the Bible theory.  The only supernatural is in the Book of Genesis.  The rest is the Bible is not a science book.  How can a book written in ancient time be a science book?  No on would understand it.  Instead, we treat it as an autobiography and use it as we find science backs up the Bible.  For example, the eternal universe and steady state theory was wrong.  Today, we have the universe had a beginning with the discovery of the CMB and its radiation.

So, you are wrong in saying I am "using the bible to try to prove the bible."  I am using science to back up the Bible.  Atheist and evo thinkers are usually wrong.

It wasn't RATE who did the AMS, but one of the top AMS labs.  Why can't you get this through your thick head haha?  A secular or atheist group of scientists could use them for AMS testing.  Do you think any of these scientists will put up the money to buy AMS equipment for one or few tests?

Thus, how could creationists and I ignore what you claim.

Again, you present topics that were dismissed already with soft tissue remaining and C14 remaining.  With Dr. Shirey, you have not given his samples to RATE.  It's like comparing apples to oranges.  Instead, I suggested doing the apples vs apples testing of those included diamonds by giving the samples to RATE.

Again, you do not understand the creation scientists complaints with radiometric dating.  It's not just contamination, but not knowing what the original ratios of parent-daughter elements were, what the atmosphere was like in the past, not acknowledging how a global flood would affect the results, how decay rate has changed; it isn't as constant as assumed, and more.

* If you do not know what the daughter products are, then you cannot do your radiometric dating. Where is what you measured? Since you want to just discuss methodology and nothing concrete, you have not provided *

*The initial conditions of the rock sample or material to be dated are accurately known.*
*The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.*
*The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock or material was formed.*


----------



## james bond (Dec 4, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> There is not any graviton.



Much of what you state are assertions.  What do you have to back up no graviton or no fourth dimension?  The graviton is one thesis for why gravity is the weakest force on Earth.  Show us your facts, historical truths, and reasoning.


----------



## luchitociencia (Dec 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> luchitociencia said:
> 
> 
> > There is not any graviton.
> ...


Simple.

In science you don't need to prove a negative.

It is from your side proving it.

You see, the idea of graviton was born in order to justify two failed theories: Theory of relativity and String theory.

Those theories can't work without such imaginary existence of graviton. Of course, the characteristics of graviton will be imperceptible, with "no mass", and with a propagation of speed same as light. Such are "their conditions", they want the assumed graviton to have such characteristics. This is what they want, but it is not what it is.

The universe is what it is.

You see, all that fantasy is invented because they try to reinforce the validity of theories made in base of imaginations.

Gravity is nothing but motion in action. That's all. The rest is garbage.

With simple home made experiments I can prove more than the several experiments with unnecessary complicated instruments to see "gravitational waves formed by an imaginary black hole"... and this to happen at the end of the cosmos, so no one can "prove them wrong". Lol

Can't you see it? they pull the legs of people with discoveries made solely at far away distances. I demand from them to show gravitational waves right here in our solar system, right here on earth. yes, do it here, "I'm from Missouri, you'll have to show me".

No excuses accepted.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> What degrees in physics? Nobody knows who you are. Name your highest degree. Besides, you don't sound credible not knowing who Clair Patterson was . Who found AMS? Who found radiometric dating? I would think the last question most people know.
> 
> The science of what exactly? Radiometric dating? We find that it's not accurate because of the assumptions it makes. You won't believe Gale and his 1972 report. I tried to point that out to you, but you won't believe it. Instead, you criticized RATE who has shown their credentials while you have none.


I was largely into fundamental particle physics. I never took a course on geology so I had no idea of the names behind radiological dating. You will have to remind me what Gale did. I don't have enough key words for a search.

A large part of your post covers properties of C14. You can assume I know everything about that.


james bond said:


> What we find is you have no other evidence. That is strange if the Earth is indeed 4.5 B years old. What about soft tissue in dinosaur bones if not C14 remaining?


Don't be thrown by the phrase “soft tissue”. There was just one type, collagen. All the other cells deteriorated. Here are some facts about collagen:
Collagen: What is it and what are its uses?

_Collagen is a hard, insoluble, and fibrous protein that makes up one-third of the protein in the human body._
_In most collagens, the molecules are packed together to form long, thin fibrils._
_These act as supporting structures and anchor cells to each other. They give the skin strength and elasticity._
_There are at least 16 different types of collagen, but 80 to 90 percent of them belong to types 1, 2, and 3. These different types have different structures and functions._
_The collagens in the human body are strong and flexible._
_Type 1 collagen fibrils are particularly capable of being stretched. Gram-for-gram, they are stronger than steel._
Collagen is pretty sturdy stuff. Switzer was as surprised as anyone that the collagen survived and was flexible and elastic. They looked at it highly magnified and found that what was ordinarily unlocked fibrils became cross connected. That blocked deterioration. They found that the cross connections were formed with iron as a sort of catalyst. I gave you a reference to that a few pages back.


james bond said:


> Much of what you provided was Shirey and my answer for that was to give RATE a chance at those included diamonds. RATE took those diamonds that secular scientists had already tested as comparison. The same with the fossils that there were found soft tissue.


Sure. I have no objection as long as they do it fairly.


james bond said:


> Here is more against diffusion in my previous post #277. It's by Dr. Andrew Snelling. He provides his name and credentials.


The paper is more about Mass Fractionation did you read it?
https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v12/u-pb_radioisotope_dating.pdf
Paper by Dr. Andrew Snelling. 38 pages
This is from that link under the title 
*Defining Errors and Uncertainties *
_“However, it could be argued that measurement precision ... reflects the sensitivity of the measuring apparatus used. In a sense precision is a function of current instrument technology.” 

“International Vocabulary of Metrology guidelines ... defined “measurement error” as a “measured quantity value minus a reference quantity value”. This definition depends on the accuracy of the reference quantity value and automatically introduces bias into the whole process because the reference value also must be previously measured with its own measurement error.” 
_
*Conclusions*
_“However, all these uncertainties are overshadowed by the underlying unprovable assumptions on which the radioisotope dating methods are based, known starting conditions, no contamination, and especially the assumption of time-invariant decay rates, built on the foundation of an assumed deep time history.” 
_​Snelling's paper is a criticism of U/Pb dating using AMS. The first quote says that the precision is a function of technology. The second paragraph gives a measure of the efficacy of that technology. It refers to subtracting a reference quantity value. the third paragraph runs through a number of problems, such as starting conditions, contamination, and he questions decay rates.

Doesn't that sound familiar. Those arguments about AMS machine accuracy also must apply to all elements used on an AMS machine including C14. It is really biased to criticize a U/Pb process they don't like, but not use the same criteria on C14. 

I have been essentially saying all along the second paragraph applies to C14, therefore dates over 50,000 years are meaningless. I was surprised to see my objection of the limitation of C14 assays were verified by a creationist site! Snelling just shot his own creation science in the foot. 

In short, Snelling refers to a reference value that should be subtracted from the measured value. But nobody has said that a reference value should be applied to C14. That way they end up with what they wanted - “proof” of a young earth. That sort of science is intellectually bankrupt. 

.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 4, 2019)

james bond said:


> *If you do not know what the daughter products are, then you cannot do your radiometric dating. Where is what you measured? Since you want to just discuss methodology and nothing concrete, you have not provided *
> 
> *The initial conditions of the rock sample or material to be dated are accurately known.*
> *The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.*
> *The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock or material was formed.*


My last post already covered most of this post. I referenced your last paragraphs as a summary showing that Snelling's criteria for U/Pb, should also apply to C14 since the same AMS technology should be applied to both.

I forgot to reply to your previous post that solid state physics is not taught in high school. Not online for me. I took the courses 20 years before the internet was accessible to the public. 

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 5, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> In science you don't need to prove a negative.
> 
> It is from your side proving it.



You can sit on your arse, do nothing, and say that.  Your negative is weak.

That's what CERN is doing.  Again, your negative is weak.

Einstein's ToR has been demonstrated so far as the best theory.  Your negative is weakest here.

As for the rest, it's all simpleton stuff.

>>Gravity is nothing but motion in action. That's all. The rest is garbage.<<

What do you have to back this claim up?  Show us how this motion works.  Einstein did.


----------



## james bond (Dec 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I was largely into fundamental particle physics. I never took a course on geology so I had no idea of the names behind radiological dating. You will have to remind me what Gale did. I don't have enough key words for a search.
> 
> A large part of your post covers properties of C14. You can assume I know everything about that.



And yet you have no degree.  No credentials.  Maybe all you did was read papers on it and are going from it like ding.  He can't provide his sources and has made up stuff of his own on religion and ethics.  He read cathechism papers, but not much of the Bible.  He, too, thinks Genesis is metaphor.  He mixes cathechism with Chinese philosophy (doesn't know much about Catholicism).  Are you from China, as well?

Here is Gale and 1972:
"This is accepted in spite of the 1972 research by a scientist named Gale,2 showing that Patterson’s beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from, was provably wrong. Gale showed that there was simply too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. Much of the lead had originally been in the meteorite. Therefore, despite the claims in school books, university lectures, and in the media, meteorites and the earth are not “proven” to be 4.5 billion years old."

In Brief—Summary of Technical Article for the Layman

Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. Nature Phys. Science 240 57 (1972)
Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites

Uranium-Lead Chronology of Chrondritic Meteorites



Wuwei said:


> Don't be thrown by the phrase “soft tissue”. There was just one type, collagen. All the other cells deteriorated. Here are some facts about collagen:
> Collagen: What is it and what are its uses?
> 
> _Collagen is a hard, insoluble, and fibrous protein that makes up one-third of the protein in the human body._
> ...



It's Mary _Schweitzer_.  There is Jack Horner, paleontologist, in the video below, too.  Today's paleontologists rely so much on evolutionary theory that I consider them nutballers.  Anthropologists are more reliable.


Look around 9:00

First thing other atheist scientists claimed to debunk was contamination.  They are just wrong haha.  Then the excavation people had to wear gloves.


Your screed just goes to show your bias towards evolution.


Look at this nutgoober today.  He reflects the science of people like Fort Fun Indiana.



Wuwei said:


> Sure. I have no objection as long as they do it fairly.



So, do you have any pull to get Shirey to provide the sample included diamonds or included diamonds he knows are old?  I can talk with RATE if Shirey is willing to provide it; I got some weight.



Wuwei said:


> The paper is more about Mass Fractionation did you read it?
> https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v12/u-pb_radioisotope_dating.pdf
> Paper by Dr. Andrew Snelling. 38 pages
> This is from that link under the title
> ...



Snelling states in his abstract that "It is then documented from the conventional literature that both U and Pb isotopes naturally mass fractionate due to the nuclear-field shift effect and differential mass diffusion."

You conveniently leave out Snelling's, "accurate radioisotopic age determinations require that the decay constants or half-lives of the respective parent radionuclides be accurately known and constant in time."

...

"From a creationist perspective, the 1997–2005 RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) project successfully made progress in documenting some of the pitfalls in the radioisotope dating methods, and especially in demonstrating that radioisotope decay rates may not have always been constant at today’s measured rates (Vardiman, Snelling, and Chaffin 2000, 2005). Yet much research effort remains to be done to make further in-roads into not only uncovering the flaws intrinsic to these long-age dating methods, but towards a thorough understanding of radioisotopes and their decay during the earth’s history within a biblical creationist framework."

As for you complaints about Snelling and AMS, he is referring to the diffusion.  GIGO.  He discusses the accuracy of AMS.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> "This is accepted in spite of the 1972 research by a scientist named Gale … etc.


Ah, yes. I remember. He criticized Patterson, but Patterson got rid of lab contamination and got consistent results that are now accepted.



james bond said:


> It's Mary _Schweitzer_. There is Jack Horner, paleontologist, in the video below, too. Today's paleontologists rely so much on evolutionary theory that I consider them nutballers. Anthropologists are more reliable.


The first video was short but agonizingly slow with music accompanying long dramatic animations of blood cells. That was very deceptive because _Schweitzer's team_ discovered that what looked like cells were not. Only collagen was found intact.

I didn't watch the other two longer videos. I prefer written word so I can skim over the parts that I know.



james bond said:


> So, do you have any pull to get Shirey to provide the sample included diamonds or included diamonds he knows are old? I can talk with RATE if Shirey is willing to provide it; I got some weight.


I am not a geologist in the field. I would have no pull with him.



james bond said:


> Snelling states in his abstract that "It is then documented from the conventional literature that both U and Pb isotopes naturally mass fractionate due to the nuclear-field shift effect and differential mass diffusion.


I skipped it because both are just conjectures. No quantitative analyses were made nor offered. I largely agree with his paper in principle, but in practice the effects would be small. If Snelling thinks it is important, he should arrange a test.

If you don't understand what fractionation is, you won't understand this: A fractionation test would be very easy, There are four stable isotopes of Pb with natural occurrences of 1.4%, 24.1%, 22.1%, and 52.4%. All you have to do is run a pure natural lead sample and measure the percentages on the AMS. They should be the percentages given above. If so, then no calibration is needed. If they are not, then the resulting measured data can be used as a calibration for runs with unknown percentages.

Diffusion would be harder to measure because it is so slow in solids if it is at all possible. I already told you that in situ, diffusion out of a sample is the same as diffusion in. With such huge molecules as uranium, a solid case would have to be made by Snelling for diffusion. He did not have any quantitative numbers.

A paper based on speculation about a technical problem very seldom makes it into professional journals.



james bond said:


> demonstrating that radioisotope decay rates may not have always been constant at today’s measured rates


If that were to happen, it would affect the entire body of well validated basic physics. That level of speculation does not hold water at all. He justifies it only by referring to the bible, and that is not science, nor creation science.



Wuwei said:


> Snelling's paper is a criticism of U/Pb dating using AMS. The first quote says that the precision is a function of technology. The second paragraph gives a measure of the efficacy of that technology. It refers to subtracting a reference quantity value. the third paragraph runs through a number of problems, such as starting conditions, contamination, and he questions decay rates.


Do you understand the ramifications of subtracting a reference quantity? It means that no sample has statistical validity for C14 if the age is around 50 or 60 thousand years.

I designed a series of four detectors for an accelerated particle beam and a magnet acting to bend the beam to find the momentum of the particles in the beam. With such a strong ionized beam, stray particles are all over the place. I was told to compute how much data should be used in the reference (very much like the reference value mentioned by Snelling.) I was surprised that valid statistics for the reference, required about 60% experiment time compared to the actual measurements.

I can't emphasize enough that Snelling is correct that the reference value must be found and found accurately. Then unfortunately to him, the diamonds would be forever, so to speak, or maybe just a few billion years.

Edit:
*09.16.2004 - Uranium/lead dating provides most accurate date yet for Earth's largest extinction*
"The beauty of this new technique is that we now can analyze samples we previously could not get an accurate date for," Mundil said. "This will have a big impact on radio-isotopic dating in general."

“Berkeley, used this improved U/Pb technique to establish a more accurate date for the end of the Permian period and the beginning of the Triassic period - 252.6 million years ago, plus or minus 200,000 years.”​
That is about 1% accuracy in U/Pb dating.

“Whereas the U/Pb method yields ages which are more accurate, "Ar/Ar is still king in dating rocks younger than 100 million years and is about as precise as U/Pb methods"​

.

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 6, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Ah, yes. I remember. He criticized Patterson, but Patterson got rid of lab contamination and got consistent results that are now accepted.



Gale's paper has nothing to do with contamination lol.

'Most meteorites have lead isotope ratios similar to those of present day common lead. Up until 1972 these could be explained as being contaminated with radiogenic lead from uranium and thorium decay. In 1972, however, Gale _et al._Nature Phys. Science *240*:57, 1972.&nbsp;Return to text.">22 showed unequivocally that there is by no means sufficient uranium and thorium to account for what could previously have been called radiogenic lead. Since the lead in meteorites can no longer be ascribed to uranium/thorium decay, it may also be taken to represent primordial lead.

Therefore, since the lead isotope ratios for the majority of meteorites are the same as present day common lead ratios and may also be assumed to represent primordial lead, the billion year age chronology disappears.

In case the significance of these results is ignored, a few sentences from the Gale _et al._Nature Phys. Science *240*:57, 1972.&nbsp;Return to text.">22 should reveal their importance:

“ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established. “This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition. “It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.”'

Radiometric dating age of earth - creation.com



Wuwei said:


> The first video was short but agonizingly slow with music accompanying long dramatic animations of blood cells. That was very deceptive because _Schweitzer's team_ discovered that what looked like cells were not. Only collagen was found intact.
> 
> I didn't watch the other two longer videos. I prefer written word so I can skim over the parts that I know.



No, it was not just collagen and I just showed you.  What do you have to back up your claim?



Wuwei said:


> I am not a geologist in the field. I would have no pull with him.



I didn't think so.  You have no credentials and have lost credibility with me.



Wuwei said:


> I skipped it because both are just conjectures. No quantitative analyses were made nor offered. I largely agree with his paper in principle, but in practice the effects would be small. If Snelling thinks it is important, he should arrange a test.
> 
> If you don't understand what fractionation is, you won't understand this: A fractionation test would be very easy, There are four stable isotopes of Pb with natural occurrences of 1.4%, 24.1%, 22.1%, and 52.4%. All you have to do is run a pure natural lead sample and measure the percentages on the AMS. They should be the percentages given above. If so, then no calibration is needed. If they are not, then the resulting measured data can be used as a calibration for runs with unknown percentages.
> 
> ...



Again, what do you have to back up your opinion?

I am the only one backing up my statements.



Wuwei said:


> Do you understand the ramifications of subtracting a reference quantity? It means that no sample has statistical validity for C14 if the age is around 50 or 60 thousand years.
> 
> I designed a series of four detectors for an accelerated particle beam and a magnet acting to bend the beam to find the momentum of the particles in the beam. With such a strong ionized beam, stray particles are all over the place. I was told to compute how much data should be used in the reference (very much like the reference value mentioned by Snelling.) I was surprised that valid statistics for the reference, required about 60% experiment time compared to the actual measurements.
> 
> ...



"For Uranium-Lead dating to work, scientists have to make three assumptions. These assumptions are that the system being dated is a closed system; at the beginning of the time period, there are no daughter isotopes present; and the rate of radioactive decay stays the same through the whole time period. Once all these assumptions are taken, the equation above simplifies to 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			



[4]."

I've already gone over why it doesn't work such as not a closed system, daughter isotopes are present, and the rate of decay changed over time.  You even went to included diamonds.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 6, 2019)

james bond said:


> Gale's paper has nothing to do with contamination lol.


I know that he was concerned that the ratios of isotopes were the ones found in nature. I already told you that the problem was contamination and gave a reference a few pages back. You must have forgotten. I'm to lazy to find that same reference, so here is another. According to this site the real problem was contamination

Clair Cameron Patterson and the exact Age of the Earth
*Contaminated Samples*
_Patterson quickly became aware that his lead samples were being contaminated. After six years together with his colleague George Tilton he did publish a paper on methods of determining the ages of zircon crystals and Patterson did achieve his Ph.D., but they did not succeed to determine the age of the Earth._

*Correctly Dating the Earth*
_With a grant from the United States Atomic Energy Commission Brown was able to continue work on dating the Earth as well as to commission a new mass spectrometer at Caltech. In 1953, Patterson joined Brown at Caltech, where he was able to build his own lab from scratch. In it he secured all points of entry for air and other contaminants. Patterson also acid cleaned all apparatuses and even distilled all of his chemicals shipped to him. In essence, he created one of the first clean rooms ever, in order to prevent lead contamination of his data. He then was able to finish his work with the Canyon Diablo meteorite and collected data of the contained lead isotopes, which in 1956 resulted in “Age of Meteorites and the Earth”, the first paper containing the true age of the solar system’s accretion, which was 4,550 million years (give or take 70 million years). At the time of this writing, this number still stands._​


james bond said:


> No, it was not just collagen and I just showed you. What do you have to back up your claim?


I already gave you a link pages ago. You must have forgotten. Here is another reference. My other reference did not mention skin cells, which are now being looked at among other speculations on preservation.
https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
_Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen
_
_The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron._

_After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging._

_"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."_

_Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay._​
That's what I told you; iron causes cross-linking. Read the site there is other information.



james bond said:


> I didn't think so. You have no credentials and have lost credibility with me.


I already told you I'm in physics not geology. You must have forgotten. Are you a geologist with credentials?




james bond said:


> Again, what do you have to back up your opinion?
> I am the only one backing up my statements.


Read Snelling's paper again. His statements on fractionation and diffusion are opinion. He did not back up his opinion. He suggests that experiments should be done, to back up his opinion, and I agree. I even suggested one on fractionation.

Diffusion in a homogeneous system doesn't change the homogeneity. (No I'm not going to find a reference on that. It's just common sense.)

I'm sorry. You are weak on physics and I should back up every statement that can otherwise be inferred from common physics knowledge. Much of the sites you reference are conjecture that is not backed up. For example your reference to Dr. Jason Lisle was full of weird ideas prefaced by "maybe" and "perhaps". All creationist opinion. I didn't give references to back up my critique of Lisle, I said how they they are self contradictory with the rest of physics, and Lisle, a physicist, did not provide any justification for his ponderings.




james bond said:


> "For Uranium-Lead dating to work, scientists have to make three assumptions. These assumptions are that the system being dated is a closed system; at the beginning of the time period, there are no daughter isotopes present; and the rate of radioactive decay stays the same through the whole time period."...
> .... I've already gone over why it doesn't work such as not a closed system, daughter isotopes are present, and the rate of decay changed over time. You even went to included diamonds.


I agree that all systems U/Pb, Ar/Ar, Rh/Os, etc should be examined to make sure they are closed and uncontaminated. That is obvious. They try. You keep on harping on it. But creationists drop those criteria that we all agree on when it comes to diamonds and coal dating using C14. Why? It's obvious why. I have said that several times. They are biased and dearly want C14 dating to prove a young earth.

The one thing I really object to is their supposition that the decay rate of any isotope may change over time. There is absolutely no physical reason for the half life to change. No reason was given by any creationist. A real creation “scientist” would form a hypothesis or theory of exactly how the rate changes over time. They would have the mathematics to show what their presumed decay rate was 6000 years ago and how it gradually or suddenly changed to today's value of millions of years. They didn't; so it's not science. You keep getting your ideas from creationist sites. Try to branch out. I have read practically all the creation sites you referenced and I'm not impressed with how they work their bias. 

If there are other statements I made that you think need references, let me know.  

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I know that he was concerned that the ratios of isotopes were the ones found in nature. I already told you that the problem was contamination and gave a reference a few pages back. You must have forgotten. I'm to lazy to find that same reference, so here is another. According to this site the real problem was contamination



No, I didn't forget.  I just don't believe you as you are not credible.  Don't forget, it's I who have the post-grad degree and BS in computer science.  I can read and understand science papers just fine except for Hawking's scientific jargon gibberish A Brief History in Time.  It's not contamination, and Gale proved it.  He stated there was too much lead in the Patterson's meteorites to claim that it came from uranium.  The lead was already there as primordial lead.



Wuwei said:


> I already gave you a link pages ago. You must have forgotten. Here is another reference. My other reference did not mention skin cells, which are now being looked at among other speculations on preservation.



More of the same.  All of it to preserve the hundreds of millions of years.  Look, you won't be able to tell a fossil that is hundreds of millions of years old because you admitted that there wouldn't be any daughter isotopes formed in a 6000 year old Earth.  Isn't that what we are arguing about with the meteorite?  Conveniently, you ignore the radiocarbon dating that was able to be done.  We know that can be done on fossils only thousands of years old.

Again, you lack credibility.  First, you admitted you didn't trust the meteorite as it does not relate to age of the Earth.  You didn't have qualms with contamination, but did state there would be no daugther isotopes present with a young Earth.  However, we are finding there was primordial daughter isotopes present and this is provable because of the great amount of daughter isotopes found.  That would give an inaccurate reading.  OTOH, I presented RATE scientists.  They found C14 still remaining as it would with a young Earth.  You know very well that they would not have been able to do their testing without the C14. 

It's similar with the radiocarbon dating of the dinosaur fossils.  It follows there would be soft tissue remaining with 6000 year old fossils.  The creation scientists also showed that fossilization can happen rapidly.  It does not take millions of years for it to happen.  It does not take millions of years to form a diamond either.

To summarize, we are looking at the same facts, but coming to different conclusions from the assumptions we make.  If one thinks the Earth is young and changes to the Earth happened by catastrophism and rapid changes, then the scientific evidence backs it up.  We are able to show fossilization and diamonds and coal can be created in short time.  OTOH, you cannot show fossilization and diamonds and coal takes millions of years for it to form.  There are no experiments that one can do over millions of years.  Thus, the scientific method favors creation science and never atheist science.



Wuwei said:


> I already told you I'm in physics not geology.



It doesn't matter anymore.  You are not forthright person, so I'm assuming you didn't go to college and have maybe a HS diploma.  Who cares if you took physics when you do not back your credentials or claims when asked.  I already said you might be like ding who makes up his own religious philosophy.  What you make up is your own physics philosophy.  I said several times that we are not going to be able to find the exact age of the Earth and universe using science.  I think I got closer than you did and can back up what I stated using the scientific method by creating diamonds and coal in short time.  I can also show fossilization happens in short time.  We also have the soft tissue in dinosaur fossils which you do not believe or have convinced yourself that there is an explanation for it even if they are hundreds of millions of years old.  You are way off and have no experiment which you can do for millions of years.  Even a million years.  100,000 years is not possible either haha.  Thus, what other evidence do you have besides radiometric dating?  I suppose radiometric dating including radiocarbon dating relates to physics.

As for the other evidence, shouldn't you be able to explain the Earth being 3/4 water?  What about bent rock?  That's chemistry, but I can explain it.  Or too little sediment on the seafloor for long time?  That's geology, but I can explain it.  So aside from anything to do with physics, you do not have any other evidence to show your old Earth theory?  I'm assuming you do not believe in evolution completely, but do agree some of it is true. 



Wuwei said:


> I agree that all systems U/Pb, Ar/Ar, Rh/Os, etc should be examined to make sure they are closed and uncontaminated. That is obvious. They try. You keep on harping on it. But creationists drop those criteria that we all agree on when it comes to diamonds and coal dating using C14. Why? It's obvious why. I have said that several times. They are biased and dearly want C14 dating to prove a young earth.
> 
> The one thing I really object to is their supposition that the decay rate of any isotope may change over time. There is absolutely no physical reason for the half life to change. No reason was given by any creationist. A real creation “scientist” would form a hypothesis or theory of exactly how the rate changes over time. They would have the mathematics to show what their presumed decay rate was 6000 years ago and how it gradually or suddenly changed to today's value of millions of years. They didn't; so it's not science. You keep getting your ideas from creationist sites. Try to branch out. I have read practically all the creation sites you referenced and I'm not impressed with how they work their bias.
> 
> If there are other statements I made that you think need references, let me know.



Listen, creationist sites are science sites.  We do not have other resources because of being excluded from peer reviews and secular science.  Otherwise, I would have articles from the science publications.  

Isn't it convenient so the atheist scientists can finally practice evolution without anyone contradicting them?  What I have found is evolutionists and secular/atheist scientists have created fake science since the 1850s.  If it was true, then the scientific method would back it up.  However, the scientific method can be applied to little except for natural selection.  That was discovered by the creation scientists first and not Darwin.

You have some really bizarre thinking in order to consider that your radiometric dating is accurate when my radiocarbon dating is more accurate.  It's like day and night.  Thus, only one of us can be right as I stated from the beginning.  I think creation scientists and I are right because we have other evidence besides radiometric dating and C14 dating while you don't.  I would think you end up on the evolutionist side even though you may not believe all of it.  From my viewpoint, nothing about evolution is true and I tried to show you, but you just won't believe.

It's like verifying the Bible.  We find there did exist those places mentioned in it.  We do find the warnings about what foods to eat and what to avoid are understandable by ancient peoples as well as various peoples today.  We find the Bible is still the best selling book every year and of all time as historical and non-fiction book.  Thus, you are wrong to state that it is just a religious book.  I didn't discuss religion at all except God being the witness and I am going by God's word and the supernatural part of creation science is just in Genesis.  I even said life itself is supernatural.  Once we die, then we cannot resurrect ourselves.  We also cannot create life outside the cell which is different from procreation.  In physics terms, we can create at the molecular level, but not the atomic level.


----------



## james bond (Dec 7, 2019)

I just thought of something we can discuss further dealing with what a physicist wrote -- A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking.  You said you have the first edition and I assume you real it all.  I'll start since I have the pdf version and can copy and paste parts of it.  Sorry, if the formatting and spacing may be off or words missing a space, but the copy and paste doesn't keep its formatting from the pdf page.  I just want to get your views on it.  My questions and comments will be italicized.

"Chapter 1

...

"Most people would find the picture of our universe as an infinite tower of tortoises rather ridiculous, but why do we think we know better? What do we know about the universe, and how do we know it? Where did the universe come from, and where is it going? Did the universe have a beginning, and if so, what happened before then? What is the nature of time? Will it ever come to an end? Can we go back in time? Recent breakthroughs in physics, made possible in part by fantastic new technologies, suggest answers to some of these long standing questions. Someday these answers may seem as obvious to us as the earth orbiting the sun – or perhaps as ridiculous as a tower of tortoises. Only time (whatever that may be) will tell."

_Where is the universe going?  What happened before the universe's beginning?  What is the nature of time?  Will time come to an end?  Can we go back in time?   _





"The planets themselves moved on smaller circles attached to their respective spheres in order to account for their rather complicated observed paths in the sky. The outermost sphere carried the so-called fixed stars,which always stay in the same positions relative to each other but which rotate together across the sky. What lay beyond the last sphere was never made very clear, but it certainly was not part of mankind’s observable universe.Ptolemy’s model provided a reasonably accurate system for predicting the positions of heavenly bodies in the sky. But in order to predict these positions correctly, Ptolemy had to make an assumption that the moon followed a path that sometimes brought it twice as close to the earth as at other times. And that meant that the moon ought sometimes to appear twice as big as at other times! Ptolemy recognized this flaw, but nevertheless his model was generally, although not universally, accepted. It was adopted by the Christian church as the picture of the universe that was in accordance with Scripture, for it had the great advantage that it left lots of room outside the sphere of fixed stars for heaven and hell."

_I'm skipping some paragraphs, but the above paragraph is wrong.  It's based on Aristotle and Ptolemy's thinking in their day.  However, it was the Catholic church that may have adopted it.  It's not what the Bible states._

_What I'm getting at is what Hawking wrote isn't very clear nor correct as with science and not just with Christians, Catholics, and the Bible.  However, the general public accepted it I suppose because it was Stephen Hawking._


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 7, 2019)

james bond said:


> ... I just don't believe you as you are not credible. Don't forget, it's I who have the post-grad degree and BS in computer science.  . …..
> 
> It's not contamination, and Gale proved it. He stated there was too much lead in the Patterson's meteorites to claim that it came from uranium. The lead was already there as primordial lead.


Why does my background which is somewhere between elementary school drop out to Nobel Prize winner have any effect on the credibility of a passage I quoted? The two paragraphs cited are:
_*Contaminated Samples
Correctly Dating the Earth*_
Yes, we agree on the first paragraph. But why do you dismiss the second paragraph? Do you deny that around 4 years later Patterson made a clean room and finally got good results simply because you don't know my credentials? Why don't you believe the article on Patterson?



james bond said:


> More of the same. All of it to preserve the hundreds of millions of years. Look, you won't be able to tell a fossil that is hundreds of millions of years old because you admitted that there wouldn't be any daughter isotopes formed in a 6000 year old Earth. Isn't that what we are arguing about with the meteorite? Etc.


You misunderstood. Again, my credentials are totally irrelevant. To clarify my point, this is a specific example of radiological dating with a simple parent daughter sample. Let's assume nuclear decay rates are constant and there is no contamination in a rock with a billion year half life.

Next assume a 4.7 billion year earth. 
Suppose the parent/daughter isotopes are 50 : 50. The age of the sample would be 1 billion yrs.


Now assume 6,000 years is the maximum age of anything.
For a billion year half life, there would be very little decay and the parent/daughter ratio would be 0.99999584 : 0.00000416. (Decay Time of Radioactive Isotope Calculator)
That means in your world any long lived isotope should have infinitesimal daughter products compared to the parent. In your world the issue is NOT contamination, Your issue is why isn't there a lack of both daughter products and contaminants when field samples show they abound. Yes initial conditions are important, but in a young earth how do you explain that all the initial conditions would have to coincidentally include the specific daughter products for every isotope. That is an outlandish coincidence. If you disagree, don't criticize me, answer the point.

The only way left for creationists to explain why the daughter products exist when they shouldn't is to say the half life is time dependent in a big way. That is radically changing the laws of physics and creating contradictions. For example the weak interaction in the very successful Standard Model would have to be trashed. Don't take my word for it if you don't trust me. Read about it.



james bond said:


> They found C14 still remaining as it would with a young Earth. You know very well that they would not have been able to do their testing without the C14.


They found either contamination or the limits of the machine. The disingenuous thing is that you don't believe contamination in C14 but do believe it in about everything else. Also you don't believe an instrument has limitations. That is quite outlandish and self serving.

As far as soft tissue, it is compatible with an old earth. Don't take my word for it. My references went over that.



james bond said:


> You have some really bizarre thinking in order to consider that your radiometric dating is accurate when my radiocarbon dating is more accurate. It's like day and night. Thus, only on


They are not my ideas. I gave references. I asked you why you deny that an AMS machine has a limitation. I gave a solid reference from a creationist publication about AMS needing a quantitative reference value. I asked you many times about carbon but you always repeat the same thing -- that it is accurate without any further comment. Your own reference and creationists say that radiological dating has a limitation in AMS measurement, but you both gloss over the fact that it should also occur with carbon.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 7, 2019)

The formatting is about the same as the book.


james bond said:


> Where is the universe going? What happened before the universe's beginning? What is the nature of time? Will time come to an end? Can we go back in time?


Are these rhetorical questions? Hawking has his answers in a paragraph starting at the bottom of page 8. If you don't have page numbers, search for "Hubble's observations...."



james bond said:


> _I'm skipping some paragraphs, but the above paragraph is wrong. It's based on Aristotle and Ptolemy's thinking in their day. However, it was the Catholic church that may have adopted it. It's not what the Bible states._
> 
> _What I'm getting at is what Hawking wrote isn't very clear nor correct as with science and not just with Christians, Catholics, and the Bible. However, the general public accepted it I suppose because it was Stephen Hawking._


You are saying the Catholic church disagrees with the Bible? You would be better at answering that than I. 

It seems that the public elevates Hawking to among history's  greatest -- at the same level as Newton and Einstein. Physicists think he certainly is great, but there are many more contemporaries that are better. I remember hearing about one lecture a number of years ago that had some of the audience (all top physicists) rolling their eyes.

If you want to continue this it should be on a new thread. OTOH this thread is already hijacked and I doubt if anyone is still following it. 

. 


.


----------



## james bond (Dec 7, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Why does my background which is somewhere between elementary school drop out to Nobel Prize winner have any effect on the credibility of a passage I quoted? The two paragraphs cited are:
> _*Contaminated Samples
> Correctly Dating the Earth*_
> Yes, we agree on the first paragraph. But why do you dismiss the second paragraph? Do you deny that around 4 years later Patterson made a clean room and finally got good results simply because you don't know my credentials? Why don't you believe the article on Patterson?



I knew Patterson created the clean room, but he did not know about the primordial lead.  The lead that was already present in the meteorite.  It was shown by Gale that one cannot do U-Pb testing on the meteorites because of too much daughter elements.  How did it get there?  The Pb was already part of the meteorite.  Thus, one would get ages that are wrong or too old.  Gale's work was not publicized.  I'm glad he got it published in Science.  OTOH, you and the evos can easily find a Scientific American or other article to back up your point.  I also pointed this out with the fine tuning facts which the evo scientists discovered.  To hide findings is not real science.

For example, here is a good slice of life story of Patterson and what lead to his work.  I do not have similar papers and documents to describe Gale's work and what happened.  It's only in the creation science websites AFAIK.

Personally, if I had pursued a chemistry, science, or engineering career, I would've gone to CalTech.  It was only after my junior year that I found out about CalTech.  Originally, I wanted to be a math teacher and found out that wasn't what I really wanted to do.

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3906/1/DuckSoup.pdf



Wuwei said:


> You misunderstood. Again, my credentials are totally irrelevant. To clarify my point, this is a specific example of radiological dating with a simple parent daughter sample. Let's assume nuclear decay rates are constant and there is no contamination in a rock with a billion year half life.
> 
> Next assume a 4.7 billion year earth.
> Suppose the parent/daughter isotopes are 50 : 50. The age of the sample would be 1 billion yrs.
> ...



Not if there were too many daughter isotopes from the beginning as the composition of the meteorites.  Sorry, but I cannot find any papers besides the ones I linked already from Snelling, Baumgardner (RATE), and Gael.  However, I did find an article that backs up what I came up with such as* the age of the Earth cannot be scientifically measured *-- God science age - creation.com. 

"The age of the earth is also vital to the biblical worldview. Yes, a supernatural god could have taken billions of years to create the universe. But this is not the God of the Bible. The Bible tells us that God created the world and all that is in it in six days about 6,000 years ago. To accept an earth that is billions of years old is to undermine virtually every major Christian doctrine.

To start with, it undermines the authority of the Bible. The 6,000 years (repeatedly quoted on the DVD) come from a plain reading of the Bible.Genesis 5 and 11. There is general agreement that this approach leads to creation taking place about 6,000 years ago (see  Appendix B-The Forgotten Archbishop).">2 If the Bible can’t be trusted on this issue why should it be trusted in other places?

It undermines the authority of the Bible
Billions of years destroy the connection between sin and death. The Bible says that death came into the world as a consequence of man’s sin, which is why Jesus Christ physically died on our behalf. But in a world billions of years old we have fossils, disease and death stretching millions of years before Adam and Eve’s sin.

Further, it reflects badly on the nature of God. In a world where disease, suffering and death have been around for millions of years these evils become the fault of the Maker. Skeptics like to mock that death, extinction and disease mean that God is incompetent or weak or malevolent.Contact, Pocket Books (Simon &amp; Schuster, Inc.), New York, 1985.">3 Not so, the God of the Bible.

An old earth undermines the uniqueness of man. Evolution over millions of years has man emerging from a population of ape-like ancestors a million (or so) years ago. We are just modified animals without any intrinsic reason to protect the weak and vulnerable. But the Bible says we have no genetic connection with the animals; we are a separate creation made in the image of God.

Without Genesis we cannot say what marriage is. In the beginning God made a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a man and a harem. If there is no factual basis for “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife” then marriage is just a subjective opinion.

We could go on. Genesis explains the nature of sin, our need for salvation, the origin of the seven-day week, man’s relationship with the environment, the relationship between people all over the world, the holiness of God, the reason for death, who should be evangelized,Darwin’s quisling (Charles Kingsley)).">4 the warning of judgment, etc. Those who relegate Genesis to the rank of metaphor or human invention have effectively undermined the whole of the Christian faith."

_*When I read the Bible to compare what it said and Darwinism, ToE, and evolutionary thinking and history as linked from UC Berkeley, I did not know of such undermining of God's word.  I compared what each side said and then used what science I knew, including the scientific method, to find which side was more credible.  The religion parts just confused me such as longevity of ancient peoples and what Jesus taught.  Thus, I read Genesis.  That was the meat and potatoes of the science in the Bible.  Other parts of the Bible many people read are the Psalms.  Those are easy and less controversial to read the religious part of the Bible..*_

"John Shelby Spong describes how the Christian view is undermined:

“Charles Darwin … destroyed the primary myth by which we had told the Jesus story for centuries … That myth suggested that there was a finished creation from which we human beings had fallen into sin, and therefore needed a rescuing divine presence to lift us back to what God had originally created us to be. But Charles Darwin says that there was no perfect creation because it is not yet finished. … there was rather a single cell that emerged slowly over 4½ to 5 billion years, into increasing complexity, into increasing consciousness. And so the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the Fall becomes a nonsensical story. So how can we tell the Jesus story with integrity and with power, against the background of a humanity that is not fallen but is simply unfinished?”5
My fellow evangelicals sometimes act offended when I use that Spong quote, “How dare you put us in the same category as Bishop Spong.” I’m not saying they don’t have a love for the Gospel or Scripture. I’m simply showing the logical consequences of accepting evolution and billions of years. No matter how my friends may try to uphold the Gospel they cannot avoid Spong’s conclusion. Once we accept the earth is billions of years old, “the story of Jesus who comes to rescue us from the Fall becomes a nonsensical story”."

The age of the Earth is important to secular atheist science as well because without long time, then the ToE and how evolution works theory falls apart.  Thus, after removing God, creation, and the supernatural in Genesis, there can only be age of the Earth and universe and how life originated and evolved based on long time.  Fossilization, mountain ranges being formed, great waterways being dug, and so on can only happen by nature and long time.  However, no evidence or observation can back this up.  No one can observe a glacier cut through a canyon and create it.  This is what I learned in school, but it's wrong.



Wuwei said:


> That means in your world any long lived isotope should have infinitesimal daughter products compared to the parent. In your world the issue is NOT contamination, Your issue is why isn't there a lack of both daughter products and contaminants when field samples show they abound. Yes initial conditions are important, but in a young earth how do you explain that all the initial conditions would have to coincidentally include the specific daughter products for every isotope. That is an outlandish coincidence. If you disagree, don't criticize me, answer the point.



*For your point 2, I keep saying we use a different radiometric dating using C14 because we find C14 is still present in the sample.  If the sample was billions of years old, then the C14 would have all escaped.  Thus, using radiometric dating is the wrong method when nothing is more than 6000 years old.  *

*Again, read what the article I linked above says about science cannot show the age of the Earth.*

* "The age of the earth cannot be scientifically measured*
wikipedia.org  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Mass spectrometers used for radio-isotope dating do not measure age. They measure isotope concentrations in the present. An ‘age’ can only be calculated after making a host of unprovable assumptions.
If the young age for the earth is so a vital for the Christian worldview, what evidence did David Cohen give for accepting billions of years? John Dickson asked him that, “How do we _know_ that it is that old?”

Cohen replied that the age of the earth is not a matter of opinion. “What we rely on are objective age dating methods mostly using radioactive isotopes for which there are a series of independent radioactive clocks which are sitting there ticking away in the rocks that we date.”

But the dating methods are not objective. Sure the _measurements_ are objective but they are not measuring age. They are measuring the present composition of rock samples. David Cohen describes the equipment as “fairly-expensive bits of scientific devices”, which is true. With this equipment we are able to make highly precise measurements of isotopic abundances. But that is not an age. Before an age can be calculated the scientist must make a number of assumptions about the past—assumptions that cannot be checked.

John Dickson and David Cohen discussed one of these and dismissed it—the assumption that the radioactive decay rate has remained constant. Yet, there is evidence that the decay rate may have been different in the past.Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth, Volume 2, ICR and CRS, 2009.">6

However, there are lots of _other assumptions_ that need to be made before a date can be calculated, and these have proven to be far more problematical. We have to assume further 1) the condition when the sample became a closed system, 2) the concentration of isotopes in the sample at that time, and 3) the sample has not gained or lost any daughter or parent isotope in all that time. How, for example, can we know the isotopic composition of a rock sample in the past?

No one can ever know if all those assumptions are valid
So, dating a rock is not straightforward as David Cohen implies. He says, “We go and collect a sample and we measure the amount of parent and daughter material” and “with a series of fairly simple calculations determine the age date of the rock.” The only problem is that no one can ever know if all those assumptions are valid for that sample.

What really happens is that when a geologist collects the sample of rock, he is very careful to record the exact place he collected it from. He maps the location of all the other rocks in the area as well as details such as faults, intrusions, folding, metamorphism, etc. He does this so he can place his sample in context, that is, so he can understand the geological history of the area and where his sample fits into that history.

He is also careful to collect a sample that is fresh, without sign of alteration or disturbance at some later time. He also checks the condition of his sample later under the microscope to try to ensure that his sample has not been affected by later geological events. If all is OK he has the sample analyzed.

Then, after he receives the analysis from the radio-isotope laboratory he will calculate the age with the “series of fairly simple calculations” (although these are not so simple for many methods).

But there is one problem that won’t go away. How can he be sure that the assumptions he used for his calculations are correct? So the process does not stop there. He moves onto what is called the interpretation phase. He must interpret his result, which means changing his assumptions about the past to make his result consistent with other information.

In the interpretation phase he compares the age he calculated with the ages of the other rocks in the area. There are a number of standard explanations that he can use to explain his result. So, no matter what the calculated age turns out to be, he can invent a story that explains it within the big picture worldview of evolution over billions of years. (See How dating methods work and  The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating.) In other words, radioactive dating is not objective but subjective—subject to the secular long-age worldview. Radioactive dates always fit into what is _already believed_.

It turns out that discrepancies are common and dating methods are not self checking. Geologists often disagree on which dates are ‘good’. Advancements in the technology used for measuring radio-isotopes have not improved the accuracy of the dates but expanded the list of rationalizations for unwelcome dates. See The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods for an incisive critique of the dating enterprise, or Once upon a time … for a review.

The only way that we can reliably know the age of anything is by the historical method. I know my age to the nearest day by this method. My birth certificate has my date of birth as recorded by eyewitnesses. We know when Napoleon lived by the same method. And the Bible uses the historical method too. The genealogies, such as in Genesis 5 and 11 and believed by New Testament writers, record the ages of people in history such as Abraham, Terah, Noah, Seth and Adam. From these we can derive the true age of the earth.

* A billion-year earth comes from non-biblical assumptions*
The idea of an old earth was not a discovery of radioactive dating. An old earth was popular in the early 1800s, long before the phenomenon of radioactivity was even known. The need for billions of years is a _consequence_ of assuming that past geological processes were always similar to what is happening today—the assumption of uniformitarianism. It’s an assumption that denies the global Flood recorded in the Bible. With this assumption we need an earth billions-of-years old, one that has no vestige of a beginning, no sign of an end. In other words, a non biblical assumption leads to a non-biblical conclusion. All the radio-isotope dates have been interpreted such that they are consistent with this philosophy.

It is worth clarifying that the secular age for the earth of 4.6 billion years was not determined by radioactive dating earth rocks, as viewers may have imagined from watching the interview. The age of 4.55 billion years was first published by Clair Patterson in the mid 1950s after analyzing the isotopes in certain _meteorites_. Meteorites! What have meteorites to do with the age of the earth?

Patterson _assumed_ that the meteorites he selected were left-over fragments from the solar nebula that condensed to form the sun, the earth and the planets. How did he know that? He didn’t. That is the standard secular creation story and he just assumed it to be true. So the age he published was not an objective measurement but required a host of assumptions, none of which can be independently verified, including the nebula hypothesis for the formation of the solar system which has insurmountable problems (see  Another puzzle in the evolutionary story for the origin of the solar system).

A.A. Holmes, one of the pioneers of radio-isotope dating methods, was not enthusiastic about Patterson’s method:

“ … to use the isotopic composition of lead from iron meteorites as part of the basic data for calculating the age of the earth or its crust, is unsound in principle … the correct procedure is to use terrestrial materials.”The Dating Game: One Man’s Search for the Age of the Earth, Cambridge University Press, p. 227, 2000.">7
The problem that Holmes had with the method was obvious, as spelled out by a biographer:

“If there was no genetic relationship and the Earth and meteorites had not formed at the same time from the same material, then the primeval lead of meteorites would not be that of the Earth; thus there would be no point of trying to determine the age of Earth from meteorites, and everyone would be back to square one.”8
So, although the 4.6-billion-year age for the earth is widely quoted it is not an objective measurement. Furthermore, there is no unequivocal support for the age as John Woodmorappe shows in  The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods, pp. 24–26.

Another evidence David Cohen gave for the age of the earth was the movement of the continents—plate tectonics. He said that the rate at which continents are moving can be measured precisely today. That may be so, but have the continents always moved at these rates? What did Noah’s Flood, as described in the Bible (Genesis 6–9), do to the movement of the earth’s crust? The strength properties of the rock comprising the earth’s mantle have characteristics that could, under certain conditions, lead to a runaway subduction of the oceanic crust.Probing Earth’s deep places.">9 This means the earth’s plates would have moved very quickly. The rates measured today are the left-over movement from the much faster event in the past.

* Many scientists believe the earth is young*
Before Christians accept that the earth is billions of years old instead of the biblical 6,000 they would need to be confident the scientists are correct. That might have been why John Dickson asked David Cohen whether there was any dispute in the peer-reviewed literature. Dickson asked, “Are people still arguing that the earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old?”

David Cohen’s replied, “I would say there are no professional scientists now for whom that is an issue which is being debated. Many of the people I speak to, Christian, non-Christian, atheist, agnostic or don’t-care-anyway. There is 100% agreement on things like the plate tectonic model, rates of movement, and the use of these age dating techniques indicative of an earth that is 6 billion [sic] rather than 6,000 years old.”

This statement is wrong. There are many scientists who do not agree with the billion-year age of the earth. Perhaps Cohen has not spoken to any or read any of their work. It could be that his experience has been confined to the secular-university environment and the mainstream scientific journals, and that he is not aware of them.

However, many professional scientists reject evolution over millions of years. The book _ In Six Days_ features fifty Ph.D. scientists who each wrote a chapter, without collaboration, telling why they hold to literal creation.In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, Master Books, Green Forest, AZ, 2001. (Available on-line: _In Six Days_)">10 Every issue of  _Creation_ magazine (four every year) features an interview with a professional Ph.D. scientist who believes the earth is young.The Genesis Files, Master Books, Green Forest, AZ, 2004.">11 Many creationist scientists are researching the biblical worldview and publishing in creationist peer-reviewed literature such as _Journal of Creation_ (published since 1984), the  _Creation Research Society Quarterly_ (published since 1964) and the _International Conference on Creationism_ (meeting every 4 years since 1986).

Some may object that these do not count because they are creationist publications. So, do any scientists who believe in a young earth ever publish in the mainstream scientific literature? Yes, lots. But they are not free to discuss their findings from a biblical perspective or make mention of the fact that they are creationist. This is because of strident censorship and discrimination within secular circles. The DVD  Expelled reveals something of this alarming situation in the west where the theistic worldview has been forcibly shut down.  Slaughter of the Dissidents by Jerry Bergman presents case histories of scientists whose careers were terminated because of their belief in creation. These are just the tip of the iceberg.

* The theological cost of accepting long ages is too great*
Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world, states the issue plainly in a  blog entry of 1 February 2011.

“The debate over Darwinism rages on, with almost every week bringing a new salvo in the Great Controversy. The reason for this is simple and straightforward—naturalistic evolution is the great intellectual rival to Christianity in the Western world. It is the creation myth of the secular elites and their intellectual weapon of choice in public debate.”
What is most lacking in the evangelical movement today is a consideration of the theological cost of holding to an old-earth position.
Rather than seeing evolution over millions of years as a scientific fact that the church needs to embrace, Mohler sees it for what it is: a philosophy opposed to the biblical creator God and the Gospel (2 Corinthians 10:5). And he sees that the church is yet to mount an adequate response to the challenge, saying that what is most lacking in the evangelical movement today is a consideration of the theological cost of holding to an old-earth position. He rightly recognizes that position is on an insoluble collision with the redemptive historical narrative of the Gospel.

Mohler issued a warning: “The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high. The cost of confronting this question is also costly … because it can create intensity and conflict and controversy, but I would suggest that the avoidance of this will be at the cost of our own credibility.”

The producers of _God Science_ have made an impressive DVD with an array of world-class interviews. But why tell Christians that we must surrender to evolution and millions of years? Why tell people that when the Bible speaks of six-days 6,000 years ago it does not really mean what it plainly says? To accept the words of scientists when they so plainly contradict Scripture is an approach that will bring disaster upon the church. Where do you suggest we should stand when we depart from our biblical foundation? It is time to question the ‘science’. Let’s talk about this issue.

* Transcript from ‘God Science’*
* Interview with Dr David Cohen: The Age of the Earth*
[John Dickson] Dr David Cohen is the Head of the School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of New South Wales in Sydney. He’s a geochemist with years of experience working in Australia, Asia and North America. He knows a lot about rocks and soil and the makeup of the planet generally, so I began by asking him, “How old is the earth?”

[David Cohen] The earth is about 6 [sic] billion years old and in Australia we’ve got some of the oldest rocks, just over 4 billion years.

[John Dickson] These are big numbers now. How do we _know_ that it is that old?

[David Cohen] Let’s just say, looking at it, it is hard to get a feel but we don’t have to rely on that. What we rely on are objective age dating methods mostly using radioactive isotopes for which there are a series of independent radioactive clocks which are sitting there ticking away in the rocks that we date.

[John Dickson] Can you explain that for me?

[David Cohen] Yes.

[John Dickson] Are there actually little clocks that I can find if I look close enough?

[David Cohen] If you’ve got certain fairly-expensive bits of scientific device to make the measurements. There are some elements which are radioactive. Some of the more famous ones, uranium, which we know from the rise of the nuclear issues in the middle part of the last century. Every now and then these atoms undergo a spontaneous decay and the rate at which they decay as a group follows a very predictable mathematical form. So the parent radioactive isotope is decaying and producing stable daughters. So we go and collect a sample and we measure the amount of parent and daughter material. We can go back with a series of fairly simple calculations and determine the age date of the rock.

[John Dickson] Yes, but some of my friends who would insist on a much younger earth would say, “That assumes that the rate of decay is the same and we don’t know that because we have only been here for a little blip of that time.” How does a scientist respond to that?

[David Cohen] Yes, I agree that this is one of the assumptions that we make with observations in the modern era that things like radioactive decay have not changed significantly over time. And that goes for a number of other physical constants, things like the speed of light. So we use that assumption and there is no evidence that there has been any change in decay rates. So we might look at packages of rocks going from the bottom to the top. You get a fairly constant change in age date which would indicate that the rates have not changed significantly.

[John Dickson] Does the movement of the continents help us to understand the age of the earth as well, the rate at which they are moving?

[David Cohen] Oh, very much so. And if we look at some of that data such as the rate at which Australia has been moving away from Antarctica, the rate at which India has been moving north, the rate at which South America and Africa have been pulling apart from each other. If we look at those rates, and they can be determined very accurately with things like imagery from space or surveying places where the continents are coming together, pulling apart or sliding past each other. Of course at places like San Andreas they are quite interested to know the rate at which bits of crust are going past each other because of the danger which that poses for people living there. If we look at those rates; we compare the modern era of measurement; it would indicate that we are moving away from the Antarctic at the rate of about 7cm per year. If we then go and join Australia back up with the Antarctic it would indicate that the breakup occurred about 56 million years ago. If you look at the age of the oceanic crust which is created using the various age dating techniques you get roughly the same number so you’ve got two independent bits of information which agree on roughly the same date within the normal bounds of scientific estimation and uncertainty.

[John Dickson] Is there any dispute about this in the literature, in the peer-reviewed literature? I mean some people are still arguing that the earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

[David Cohen] I would say there are no professional scientists now for whom that is an issue which is being debated. Many of the people I speak to, Christian, non-Christian, atheist, agnostic or don’t-care-anyway. There is 100% agreement on things like the plate tectonic model, rates of movement, and the use of these age dating techniques indicative of an earth that is 6 billion [sic] rather than 6,000 years old.

[John Dickson] So do you see any connection between the rigorous science and your Christian faith at all?

[David Cohen] Yes. In the development of scientific models and you can look at the evolutionary models based on observations that Darwin kicked off and have now been progressed with modern DNA techniques, genomics and the like, or in geology the plate tectonic model which underpins just about all our understanding of the evolution of the earth. These models are complicated but they are beautifully interlinked. The mass of evidence from both of these models is overwhelming. There are some linkages in these models that are not so well developed or on which we are not happy with the explanation.

[John Dickson] There are gaps in the theory then?

[David Cohen] There are gaps as well. And as a scientist that is good otherwise we would be unemployed. I look at Christianity and by similar argument I see a way of thinking a series of events interpretation closely interlinked with a very coherent structure for which there are still gaps in the model. We are still trying to understand aspects of what the Bible is trying to say to us or how we should respond to it. There are certain gaps in our understanding that we are still trying to fill. Trying to understand the nature of the Trinity is a very complicated thing for Christians. However these models hang together. It would be very difficult at this stage to say, “Oh, by removing one little link in the theory of evolution or in our understanding of the Christian gospels that the entire model of the Gospel collapses.” That is not the case.

[John Dickson] Thank you very much.

*Related Articles*

God Science reading Genesis 1 ‘properly’?"> Is _God Science_ reading Genesis 1 ‘properly’?
Vintage Journal: Literary theory and Genesis 1: Part 1">_Vintage Journal_: Literary theory and Genesis 1: Part 1
Vintage Journal: Literary theory and Genesis 1: Part 2">_Vintage Journal_: Literary theory and Genesis 1: Part 2
Refuting Evolution—Chapter 8">_Refuting Evolution_—Chapter 8
*Further Reading*

The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
How dating methods work
Framework Hypothesis
Famous evangelical apologist changes his mind
Some questions for theistic evolutionists
Age of the earth
* References*

Letter to James Croll, 31 January 1869, The correspondence of Charles Darwin, volume* 17*: 1869, edited by Frederick Burkhardt, James A. Secord, Sheila Ann Dean, Samantha Evans, Shelley Innes, Alison M. Pearn, Paul White, Cambridge University Press, 2009, http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/correspondence-volume-17. Return to text.
The Bible does not state the age of the earth in a single verse but it is a simple matter to calculate it from the genealogies detailed in places like Genesis 5 and 11. There is general agreement that this approach leads to creation taking place about 6,000 years ago (see  Appendix B-The Forgotten Archbishop). Return to text.
Carl Sagan, _Contact_, Pocket Books (Simon & Schuster, Inc.), New York, 1985. Return to text.
Rev Charles Kingsley, Anglican clergyman and supporter of Darwin wrote: ‘The Black People of Australia, exactly the same race as the African Negro, cannot take in the Gospel … All attempts to bring them to a knowledge of the true God have as yet failed utterly … Poor brutes in human shape … they must perish off the face of the earth like brute beasts.’ (Darwin’s quisling (Charles Kingsley)). Return to text.
ABC TV Compass interview with Bishop John Shelby Spong, by Geraldine Doogue, in front of a live audience at the Eugene Groosen Hall, ABC Studios, Ultimo, Sydney, Australia, 8 July 2000. Copied from transcript at <www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/spong2001.htm>, 6 August 2001. Return to text.
Snelling, A.A.(ed), _Radioactivity and the Age of the Earth_, Volume 2, ICR and CRS, 2009. Return to text.
Lewis, C., _The Dating Game: One Man’s Search for the Age of the Earth_, Cambridge University Press, p. 227, 2000.  Return to text.
Lewis, ref. 5, p. 225. Return to text.
Baumgardner, J., Runaway subduction, ICC, 1994. See also: Probing Earth’s deep places. Return to text.
Ashton, J.F., _In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation_, Master Books, Green Forest, AZ, 2001. (Available on-line: _In Six Days_) Return to text.
22 of these interviews have been reproduced in, Wieland, C., _The Genesis Files_, Master Books, Green Forest, AZ, 2004.  Return to text."
Again, I was not aware of the above article until now.  It makes me feel good that what I have been saying is acknowledged somewhere in the creation science world.  These are statements I came to realize after comparing the two sides.  Thus, I can say with 100% certainty that we will not find any aliens, not even a microbe because evolution does not happen, did not happen, and that its science is wrong.  I'm 66% certain that we will not become multi-planetary.  We will not be able to live anywhere else besides Earth.  This is why I wanted to discuss with you Stephen Hawking's book A Brief History of Time.  He says things that are just wrong from what the Bible theory states such as being able to go back in time.  That is impossible.  He discusses things like infinite density and infinite temperature like it can exist.  It can't.  Mathematics will not allow it.  Creation scientists know this, so why this book is able to get published as a science book is a mystery.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 8, 2019)

james bond , well you had your say. A lot of it is biblical based which is not creation science. It seems that this discussion has stagnated and is now replete with repetition. I will summarize my position here. I focus on radiological dating and astronomical observations because they are more quantitative than most things YEC likes to focus on. Some of these points you have already attempted to counter. Some you have completely ignored.

*Radiocarbon dating of the earth*​RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?
The measurements were affected by contamination in situ, contamination in chemistry prep, and instrument background.
_Unanswered questions: why do some anthracite and diamonds have no measurable radiocarbon?
Why is C14 presence so variable than other materials?
Why is C14 found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone?
Why does unprocessed diamond have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?
The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C_​
*Long half life isotopes*​*U/Pb*
Source: wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium–lead_dating
This shows why lead contamination is a non issue.
_The method is usually applied to __zircon__. This mineral incorporates __uranium_ _and __thorium_ _atoms_ _into its __crystal structure__, but strongly rejects __lead_ _when forming. As a result, newly-formed zircon deposits will contain no lead, meaning that any lead found in the mineral is __radiogenic__._​
*Rh/Os*
Source: Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution | Research & News
Dr. Steven Shirey tested diamonds world wide. All diamonds had dates in the millions to billions of years. There is little chance that there is contamination of the very rare Osmium daughter in all diamond inclusions for every diamond at every one of the widespread sites.

*Meteorites*​Patterson found the age of a meteorite using uranium embedded in zircon crystals. There was controversy that at first there was too much lead. Patterson realized that and built a clean room and was successful. There is controversy that the age, 4.54±0.05 billion years, is the age of the earth, but at least it is the age at some time during the formation of the solar system. Creationists neglect referring to the revised meteor dating.

*YEC means no daughter products*​If the age of the earth were 6000 years old, there would be absolutely no measurable daughter products in any of the long life time isotopes.

This site gives 33 reasons against a young earth.
Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki
_There are many different variations of the radiometric dating technique such as radiocarbon, argon-argon, iodine-xenon, lanthanum-barium, lead-lead, lutetium-hafnium, neon-neon, potassium-argon, rhenium-osmium, rubidium-strontium, samarium-neodymium, uranium-lead, uranium-lead-helium, uranium-thorium, and uranium-uranium, of which every single one will date objects *far older than 10,000 years*._​
*Age of universe*​The red shift of galaxies indicates an expanding universe. The speeds along with the distance can be combined and result in the Hubble constant. The Hubble constant can be extrapolated and results in the age of the universe to be many billions of years old.

The distance of the galaxies alone are measured in millions to billions of light years and indicates an old universe. There is no creationist theory that can squeeze this to 6000 years.

To attempt to justify a 6000 year life, creationists want to change things like the speed of light or theorize a nonlinear concept of time itself. This creates contradictions with observations and destroys all basic physics as it stands. Creationists have offered no replacement for the physics.

*Bottom line*​If people want to believe YEC so be it. But it simply can't be justified by well validated basic physics. Creationists have yet to develop their alternate science. At this point creation science is not science.

.


----------



## Frannie (Dec 8, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Gale's paper has nothing to do with contamination lol.
> ...



super triggered


----------



## luchitociencia (Dec 9, 2019)

Too much babbling and no one of these guys can even respond *why the age of a meteor is different than the age of earth using their good for nothing radiometric toy.*

So many "experts" in copy and paste but unfortunately these experts can't think.

It was a TV show where participants were to sing, make magic tricks, and etc in order to wing a prize. In one of these shows, a little 8 years old boy was capable to respond any question taken from any encyclopedia, books at the level of household owners, of course.

The boy was winning the contests every week. His name started to appear in the local news. It was exactly the same than the pages used in this thread talking of isotopes which no one here have ever observed in their miserable lives, but that were the center of attraction in here.

But one day, a smart guy rose up his hand to ask a question to the boy.

What it could happen if the river XXXXX comes out of its course and floods the southern area of the city?

A question just to give some probabilities or estimate of the damage.

The boy stop smiling and stayed quiet for more than a minute. After that his face turned into sadness and he started to cry like a three years old boy after his balloon went lose to the air. The program passed to commercials and no one knew about that boy anymore.

Same as well, giving me the right answer *to my question in bold letters* from above will make you to threw by yourselves all of your former pages full of nonsense to the trash.

Because if you were to think before writing, actually your messages should be empty.

The Nobel Prize was rightly given to the one who managed to perceive assumed planets in other solar systems. The whole rest is just garbage.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond , well you had your say. A lot of it is biblical based which is not creation science. It seems that this discussion has stagnated and is now replete with repetition. I will summarize my position here. I focus on radiological dating and astronomical observations because they are more quantitative than most things YEC likes to focus on. Some of these points you have already attempted to counter. Some you have completely ignored.



No, I didn't ignore it.  I refuted it.  What RATE did and does today refutes your position for contamination in situ.  I pointed out what they did and even the lead refuted it.  Not only that, you have no credentials to compare to the scientists there.

When you say "A lot of it is biblical based which is not creation science," what are you referring to?  You said "a lot," so name ten things.  Instead, I pointed out your science is wrong using primordial Pb for U-Pb of meteorites by Patterson.  One cannot get an accurate measurement due to that due to too much Pb.  You also stated that if it was a young Earth, then there would not be enough daughter elements.  

Next, the assumption by Patterson was incorrect.  His methodology was not in question.  Also, I was the who found that "Patterson _assumed_ that the meteorites he selected were left-over fragments from the solar nebula that condensed to form the sun, the earth and the planets."  Either you didn't buy that when we started this discussion with Patterson or you didn't know how Patterson selected these meteorites.  

Anyway, it was what gave long time to Darwin.  He came out and said he needed billions of years.  These two theories, if you can call them that, are the foundations of evolution today.  It's "bible" for the evolution or atheist scientists.  Secular scientists weren't all atheist scientists before the 1850s, but they are today if you _believe_ evolution.  I also said that all of evolution is wrong.  That's why I asked what else you have.  You didn't have any, so I thought about Hawking's book.  One of the things he believed in was the theory of everything.  That does not exist using real science.  It's why I hope we can pivot to his book.  A lot of it, I understood what he meant, but isn't real science.  However, people bought the book, read it, and think they understand it.

It's hard to believe he wrote it in 1988.  Time flies.  He also added a chapter 10 on wormholes and time travel.  Do you believe in wormholes?    I suppose many people do, but it's like the multiverse, there is no evidence for them.  He didn't even get time travel correct.



Wuwei said:


> _Unanswered questions: why do some anthracite and diamonds have no measurable radiocarbon?
> Why is C14 presence so variable than other materials?
> Why is C14 found in bone carbonates but not in collagen from the same bone?
> Why does unprocessed diamond have less intrinsic radiocarbon than processed diamond?
> The evidence falsifies the RATE claim that “all carbon in the earth contains a detectable and reproducible ... level of 14C_



I pointed out RATE used coal and diamonds which were tested with radiometric dating already.  Which anthracite and diamonds are you referring to?  I'm not a mind reader, so you'll have to provide your sources.  I already asked for the included diamonds from Shirey and you admitted you have no access.



Wuwei said:


> *Long half life isotopesU/Pb*
> Source: wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium–lead_dating
> This shows why lead contamination is a non issue.
> _The method is usually applied to __zircon__. This mineral incorporates __uranium_ _and __thorium_ _atoms_ _into its __crystal structure__, but strongly rejects __lead_ _when forming. As a result, newly-formed zircon deposits will contain no lead, meaning that any lead found in the mineral is __radiogenic__._



It's not lead contamination.  It already had too much lead from the beginning when the meteorite was formed.  Gale could experimentally disprove it.



Wuwei said:


> *Rh/Os*
> Source: Tiny Inclusions Reveal Diamond Age and Earth’s History: Research at the Carnegie Institution | Research & News
> Dr. Steven Shirey tested diamonds world wide. All diamonds had dates in the millions to billions of years. There is little chance that there is contamination of the very rare Osmium daughter in all diamond inclusions for every diamond at every one of the widespread sites.



See my comments above.  He has show that diamonds are millions to billions of years old or else they are not natural or synthetic.  He's already bought into the evolution clap trap.  Thus, give RATE a chance examining them.

Are those fossils that were created in short time not natural?  I don't think so.



Wuwei said:


> *Meteorites*Patterson found the age of a meteorite using uranium embedded in zircon crystals. There was controversy that at first there was too much lead. Patterson realized that and built a clean room and was successful. There is controversy that the age, 4.54±0.05 billion years, is the age of the earth, but at least it is the age at some time during the formation of the solar system. Creationists neglect referring to the revised meteor dating.



Gale's work came in 1972.  He knew about Patterson's methodology.  That wasn't in question.  His assumptions were.  One was U-Pb dating would be accurate.  It wasn't.

As for the rest, it's areas we already covered.  I think you agreed that we discussed the above at least three times now and still have not come to an agreement.  The only takeaway for me is if the Earth is young, then the daughter elements would be short.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2019)

luchitociencia said:


> *why the age of a meteor is different than the age of earth using their good for nothing radiometric toy.*



It was explained in post #297.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Are these rhetorical questions? Hawking has his answers in a paragraph starting at the bottom of page 8. If you don't have page numbers, search for "Hubble's observations...."



Here are my answers: 

Where is the universe going?  What we see of the universe is like a hologram.  It isn't there anymore, but moved.  All we are seeing is their light that has reached us.  The Bible theory tells us that the universe has a border and creation science thinks the Milky Way galaxy is at the center, i.e. galactocentric.  Eventually, the Earth and universe will be destroyed and a new Earth and universe put in its place by the Creator. 

What happened before the universe's beginning?  God (Jesus) took the void and created spacetime so that light (EMS) could be formed and the dark separated from the light.  He was under instruction from God the Father.

What is the nature of time?  Time is a measurement.  We know that it is intertwined with space since space is expanding, but have not been able to discover it physically.  We know this through CMB radiation and observation of red shifts.

Will time come to an end?  Yes.  This physical time will come to an end or what we are using to measure time on the current Earth and universe will come to an end.

Can we go back in time?  No.  There is no physical spacetime to go back to.  It is only historical light.  Think of it like a movie with frames per second.  In real life, we have life per second.  That is represented by light when it happens.  The actual physical presence has moved.  See my hologram example above.

Much different from what Hawking claims.  Hawking is wrong.  I don't think you are a firm believer in evolution, but I think you do base your physics on some of its foundation.  So do you agree or disagree with me or Hawking's answers.

My other point is Hawking made some errors or isn't clear.  I think I can bring that out if we continue.  For example, he provides a "Foreward" instead of a "Foreword."  It's even there in my copy (which has a new chapter on wormholes and travel your book does not).  Where are his criticisms of Einstein?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> No, I didn't ignore it. I refuted it. What RATE did and does today refutes your position for contamination in situ. I pointed out what they did and even the lead refuted it. Not only that, you have no credentials to compare to the scientists there.


Carbon dating of diamonds hits the AMS background limitation. There is no contamination or background limitation in the included Rh/Os dating of diamonds or the included uranium in Zircon.



james bond said:


> When you say "A lot of it is biblical based which is not creation science," what are you referring to? You said "a lot," so *name ten things*.


These are 10 examples where you bring the Bible into this science thread:

The age of the earth is also vital to the biblical worldview.
To start with, it undermines the authority of the Bible
Further, it reflects badly on the nature of God.
But the Bible says we have no genetic connection with the animals; we are a separate creation made in the image of God.
In the beginning God made a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a man and a harem.
We could go on. Genesis explains the nature of sin
Thus, I read Genesis. That was the meat and potatoes of the science in the Bible.
My fellow evangelicals sometimes act offended when I use that Spong quote, “How dare you put us in the same category as Bishop Spong.”
The theological cost of accepting long ages is too great
The cost to the Christian church, in terms of ignoring this question or abandoning the discussion, is just too high



james bond said:


> Next, the assumption by Patterson was incorrect. His methodology was not in question. Also, I was the who found that "Patterson _assumed_ that the meteorites he selected were left-over fragments from the solar nebula that condensed to form the sun, the earth and the planets." Either you didn't buy that when we started this discussion with Patterson or you didn't know how Patterson selected these meteorites.


Since, as you now say, his methodology was not in question then he found a chunk of rock that shows that at least a part of the matter in this solar system was 14.5 billion years old. Not 6000.



james bond said:


> I also said that all of evolution is wrong. That's why I asked what else you have.


I think the multitudes of dating areas on the earth and a few from space and observations of the distant galaxies are enough.



james bond said:


> It's not lead contamination. It already had too much lead from the beginning when the meteorite was formed. Gale could experimentally disprove it.


I already gave a reference that Patterson cleaned up his lab and the excess disappeared. Patterson himself showed it was contamination.



james bond said:


> See my comments above. He has show that diamonds are millions to billions of years old


He showed the inclusions entrapped in the diamonds were old. The diamonds isolated the rhenium. If you want to insist the diamonds were 6000 years old. Then it's the inclusions that demonstrate that the earth is billions of years old. Shirey's purpose was to trace and age diamonds. My purpose is to show the earth is billions of years old.



james bond said:


> Gale's work came in 1972. He knew about Patterson's methodology. That wasn't in question. His assumptions were. One was U-Pb dating would be accurate. It wasn't.


As I said Patterson, Gale was superseded by Patterson cleaning up his lab.



james bond said:


> As for the rest, it's areas we already covered. I think you agreed that we discussed the above at least three times now and still have not come to an agreement. The only takeaway for me is if the Earth is young, then the daughter elements would be short.


Yes, as I said this dialog has stagnated. My takeaway is that through the thousands of datings of long life time elements, and through observations of the immense universe with billions of galaxies billions of light years away, the earth and universe are many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years

.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Are these rhetorical questions? Hawking has his answers in a paragraph starting at the bottom of page 8. If you don't have page numbers, search for "Hubble's observations...."
> ...


The hologram idea was instigated by a theorem (forgot the name of it) in classical electrostatic theory. If the electric field is entirely known at some encompassing 2-D boundary, then the 3-D distribution of electric charges inside the boundary could be computed in principle. That means if you know the 2-D surface, you know the 3-D. Holograms are similar – mapping 3-D to 2-D without loss of visual information.

In the universe, there is a much more sophisticated concept of that mapping. I don't know how the theory is thought of by other physicists, but if it is fleshed out then I would have no trouble believing it, but as far as I know it doesn't add much to known physics. I think it is just an alternate perspective of what is already known. It came after Hawking's book (First edition 1988)

Of course nobody knows what happened before the beginning of the universe. There are theories that use speculation in a multidimentional physics model (called “Branes”). But it involves string theory – not useful yet.

What is the nature of time? It's measured by the frequency of a Cesium clock at NIST. More deeply, that means it is based on wave aspects of matter in quantum mechanics. Time is a variable in Schrodinger's equations, QED, and QCD. The wave nature of spectra, nuclear gamma decay, etc. involve frequencies which are immutable. Of course waves exist in space, and the space-time connection as a 4th dimension is deeply fundamental and mathematically joins the forces and fields of physics in a remarkable way.

Will time come to an end? I don't think so as long as there are atoms in the ever expanding universe. The matter defines time in the sense I gave above.

Can we go back in time? The past doesn't exist anymore.

“_Much different from what Hawking claims. Hawking is wrong._ “ My attitude is that I neither believe nor disbelieve what many are speculating about multiverses, the holographic universe, Brane theory, etc.

I don't base my physics on evolution. However, I know of no viable theory that can supplant evolution.

Largely I agree with Hawking. However I read the book in the 80's so I don't remember everything he said. I think I answered the specific topics you gave.

My edition of his book has no foreword. Just an intro by Sagan. Hawking's short bios of Einstein, Galileo, and Newton did not cover science. Hawking was a bit snarky of the religious aspects of those three – the persecution of Galileo, the Zionism of Einstein. It served no purpose. When I first read it it seemed that Hawking was trying to elevate himself at the expense of those other most revered past scientists.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Carbon dating of diamonds hits the AMS background limitation. There is no contamination or background limitation in the included Rh/Os dating of diamonds or the included uranium in Zircon.



You lack of credibility and credentials are showing compared to the world top AMS labs.



Wuwei said:


> These are 10 examples where you bring the Bible into this science thread:
> 
> The age of the earth is also vital to the biblical worldview.
> To start with, it undermines the authority of the Bible
> ...



Oh, good one.  Using what I said as examples.  However, it is creation science.  Not religion.  If we go by the Bible theory, then God is our creator.  That which he states he did took place in a relatively short 6,000 years time.  One can say the Bible contradicts Darwinism, but Darwinism came afterward.  Thus, we have creation vs. evolution in science today, but creation science has been systematically eliminated.  How else can I say that evolution is completely wrong?  No scientific method can be done over a long period of time.  None of it was observed.

#4 shows we have not genetic connection with animals.  While God used the same building blocks, we are different creations.  This can be demonstrated with DNA.  Evos state we our DNA is 96% same as the chimpanzee.  DNA produces proteins though of which 29% are identical, but 71% are different.  Thus, we are different species.

God did make man and a woman and sexual reproduction.  Evos cannot explain how asexual reproduction ever became sexual reproduction.

#7 shows you do not understand science when it is explained to you.  You only think Genesis is metaphor and that is scientific bias.

#8 Spong only addressed part of evolution.  The age of the Earth is important to secular atheist science as well because without long time, then the ToE and how evolution works theory falls apart. Thus, after removing God, creation, and the supernatural in Genesis, there can only be age of the Earth and universe and how life originated and evolved based on long time. Fossilization, mountain ranges being formed, great waterways being dug, and so on can only happen by nature and long time. However, no evidence or observation can back this up. No one can observe a glacier cut through a canyon and create it. This is what I learned in school, but it's wrong.

#9 and #10 Why should we accept long age in science when the evidence and conclusions are false?  You admitted all you have is radiometric dating.  Even Judaism looks at evolution and if it ever used the scientific method, then it would cause some problems to it, Christianity, and Islam, the Abrahamic religions.  However, there is no scientific method in radiometric dating as it is based on assumptions and not methodology.  You could not explain the time periods or the other questions I've asked of you such as why there is 3/4 of the Earth covered by water.



Wuwei said:


> Since, as you now say, his methodology was not in question then he found a chunk of rock that shows that at least a part of the matter in this solar system was 14.5 billion years old. Not 6000.



Quote mining.  What was in question were his assumptions.  You didn't believe using a meteorite was valid.



Wuwei said:


> I already gave a reference that Patterson cleaned up his lab and the excess disappeared. Patterson himself showed it was contamination.



I already went over this multiple times and you still don't get it.



Wuwei said:


> I think the multitudes of dating areas on the earth and a few from space and observations of the distant galaxies are enough.



All based on wrong assumptions.



Wuwei said:


> As I said Patterson, Gale was superseded by Patterson cleaning up his lab.



I'm repeating myself.  Gale knew about it.  His proof does not need contamination.



Wuwei said:


> Yes, as I said this dialog has stagnated. My takeaway is that through the thousands of datings of long life time elements, and through observations of the immense universe with billions of galaxies billions of light years away, the earth and universe are many orders of magnitude older than 6000 years



Creation scientists have taken the same samples used for the long dating when it was available, found radiocarbon, and was able to get a young date.  They even established a RATE group of creation scientists to do this.


----------



## james bond (Dec 9, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The hologram idea was instigated by a theorem (forgot the name of it) in classical electrostatic theory. If the electric field is entirely known at some encompassing 2-D boundary, then the 3-D distribution of electric charges inside the boundary could be computed in principle. That means if you know the 2-D surface, you know the 3-D. Holograms are similar – mapping 3-D to 2-D without loss of visual information.
> 
> In the universe, there is a much more sophisticated concept of that mapping. I don't know how the theory is thought of by other physicists, but if it is fleshed out then I would have no trouble believing it, but as far as I know it doesn't add much to known physics. I think it is just an alternate perspective of what is already known. It came after Hawking's book (First edition 1988)



There is no theory of everything as Hawking wrongly believed.  Otherwise, it would be part of known physics.  What Hawking proposed violates the laws of physics and nature.

That's interesting about classic electromagnetic theory.  What I was thinking was if you were a 3-D person and suppose there was a 2-D person, then the 3-D person can see the 2-D person, but not interact with his world.  Thus, if there were a 4-D being, s/he would be able to see our world in 3 dimensions at once.  I suppose they would be able to see back into our past and see into our near future.  

In our brains, our eyes project a 2-D image, but our brain magically interprets its depth and thus we are able to "see" in 3-D.  I suppose this is the mapping process which is done instantaneously.

I would think eventually the planetariums will use holograms to project the mapping of stars, moons, planets, etc. onto a screen so we can understand it better.  When I was a HS student, we saw it on a large domed screen and it gave an illusion of 3-D.  I haven't gone back as an adult, but I think the technology is making its resolution better and better, so we can see it clearer and think it's more real.



Wuwei said:


> Of course nobody knows what happened before the beginning of the universe. There are theories that use speculation in a multidimentional physics model (called “Branes”). But it involves string theory – not useful yet.



God knows.  He was the only witness there for his creation .  Uh, okay, you think it could be string theory.



Wuwei said:


> What is the nature of time? It's measured by the frequency of a Cesium clock at NIST. More deeply, that means it is based on wave aspects of matter in quantum mechanics. Time is a variable in Schrodinger's equations, QED, and QCD. The wave nature of spectra, nuclear gamma decay, etc. involve frequencies which are immutable. Of course waves exist in space, and the space-time connection as a 4th dimension is deeply fundamental and mathematically joins the forces and fields of physics in a remarkable way.
> 
> Will time come to an end? I don't think so as long as there are atoms in the ever expanding universe. The matter defines time in the sense I gave above.



Interesting.  That gives us the most accurate measurement of time as we know it today.  As for the wave aspects of matter in QM, we are just scratching the surface of the quantum world.  In popular media, we are just seeing the quantum world being depicted.  I just saw Ant Man and Wasp over the weekend on my projection TV from Netflix.  It had all kinds of weird ideas such as tardigrades existing/surviving in the quantum world, but it was fun.

What if the 4th dimension was made up of light?  In other words, it was a holographic world.  I do not know any other way to envision spacetime other than it being of light.  We look at the night sky with our telescopes, but can only see light from the past.  Hawking believed we can see the past from this light.  He said we can measure the CMB radiation.  Sorry, I may be off on this.

We have computer simulations that map 3-D objects to 4-D, but we can't really see it in our world physically.  If it was holographic, then it would be able to be seen. 



Wuwei said:


> Will time come to an end? I don't think so as long as there are atoms in the ever expanding universe. The matter defines time in the sense I gave above.
> 
> Can we go back in time? The past doesn't exist anymore.



That's correct.  Do you think it's light exists?  It must exist if we are able to see the night sky.  What about radiation?  Could radiation from the past still exist?  That's part of what Hawking states that doesn't make sense.  He believed we can examine what happened after the big bang for evidence of a multiverse event.  His wormholes from Ch. 10 includes this.



Wuwei said:


> “_Much different from what Hawking claims. Hawking is wrong._ “ My attitude is that I neither believe nor disbelieve what many are speculating about multiverses, the holographic universe, Brane theory, etc.
> 
> I don't base my physics on evolution. However, I know of no viable theory that can supplant evolution.
> 
> ...



I didn't think you fully bought into evolution.  What physics includes evolution tho?

I'll continue to post some of the things Hawking says that may be of interest.  So far, I think Hawking is wrong on much of what he stated in terms of its existence or his explanation isn't clear.  His explanation of the methodology of the physics behind it may not be wrong.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> Oh, good one. Using what I said as examples. However, it is creation science. Not religion. If we go by the Bible theory, then God is our creator. That which he states he did took place in a relatively short 6,000 years time.


I and many others consider creation science as Biblical based. Science must be totally based on verified observation and not the bible.



james bond said:


> I'm repeating myself. Gale knew about it. His proof does not need contamination.


I can't find the original paper by Gale. Only the abstract is available on the web.
In Brief—Summary of Technical Article for the Layman
_...there is insufficient uranium and thorium to explain the observed development of radiogenic lead. This fact was recognized by Murthy and Patterson who, in constructing the meteoritic lead-lead isochron, rejected most of the available data on this ground. Only for three meteorites (Beardsley, Nuevo Laredo and Richardton) are the lead and uranium data known to be in tolerable agreement._​
Patterson was concerned about contamination if Gales wasn't. Gale's argument also refers to isochrons in natural lead being the same as lead from Uranium decay, and too much natural lead was in the meteor.

I consider the "too much lead" to mean natural lead in the meteor. Obviously Patterson know about that and used uranium trapped in Zircon to isolate potential contamination from natural lead in the meteor. Gale may have made an impression on creationists, but not on other scientists. Other than that I don't know how to interpret what Gale's concern is.

Astrophysical Classics: Measuring the Age of the Earth
_He _[Patterson]_ took meteorites from five locations and tested his theory. His method worked! He measured the age of the Earth to be 4.55 billion years, with an error of 70 million years.
Incredibly, today—after over 50 years of measurement advancements and sample returns from the Moon—that number is exactly the same, with a_ smaller error bar of 20 million years.​
How do we know the age of the Earth? 
_The estimate, now refined and narrowed by other investigations, has stood for five decades, Eiler says, "and has only gotten more solid over time."_​
It seems that Gale doesn't have a case, yet creationists are still clinging to his paper (1972) written 36 years ago.


james bond said:


> You lack of credibility and credentials are showing compared to the world top AMS labs.





james bond said:


> Creation scientists have taken the same samples used for the long dating when it was available, found radiocarbon, and was able to get a young date. They even established a RATE group of creation scientists to do this.



The creationists ignored basic background limitations of AMS in C14 dating. The long life datings which were tested at the same world class AMS labs did not have the same limitations. Gale has yet to explain the many other successful datings of long life isotopes from primordial samples.
.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> What if the 4th dimension was made up of light? In other words, it was a holographic world. I do not know any other way to envision spacetime other than it being of light. We look at the night sky with our telescopes, but can only see light from the past. Hawking believed we can see the past from this light. He said we can measure the CMB radiation. Sorry, I may be off on this.





james bond said:


> Do you think it's light exists? It must exist if we are able to see the night sky. What about radiation? Could radiation from the past still exist? That's part of what Hawking states that doesn't make sense. He believed we can examine what happened after the big bang for evidence of a multiverse event. His wormholes from Ch. 10 includes this.


What Hawking is saying is that any stellar event we see now is in it's past not our past. That happens because of the finite speed of information.  We can't see a past that involves us.

There are a lot of posts about the fourth dimension and the speed of light, etc. I wrote this some time ago to clarify the fourth dimension, time, and how light fits in. It does not prove anything it simply jumps in the middle and clarifies the 4-space concept. This analysis will not occur in text books.

*4-space*​Everyone is familiar with Pythagorean's theorem in plane geometry. The hypotenuse H is given by the two sides of a right triangle:
H² = x²+y²

In 3 dimensions, with x, y, and z being the perpendicular coordinate axes, the distance between the origin and a point is a 3 dimensional version of the theorem:
D² = x²+y²+z²

However suppose x and y coordinates are given in centimeters and the z coordinate is given in inches. A conversion factor that relates inches to centimeters is needed. Since there is 2.54 cm per inch, the conversion factor is 2.54 cm/inch:
D² = x² + y² + 2.54² * z²

In the four dimensions of space plus time, the t coordinate is given in seconds, so this equation is wrong and needs a conversion factor.
S² =  x²+y²+z²+t² *(wrong. you can't add units of distance to units of time)*

Suppose the spatial dimensions are in meters. To turn time into meters, the units of the conversion factor must be meters / second. It turns out, to be consistent with relativity, the conversion must be an imaginary number ic.
S² = x²+y²+z² + (ict)² or
S² = x²+y²+z² – c² t²

Since the constant c is meters / second. It defines a velocity. It is the velocity of light.

S is no longer just a distance, it is a measure of the separation of events since an event occurs in both space and time. More exactly if one event is at x₀, y₀, z₀, and time t₀ and a second event is at
x₁, y₁, z₁, t₁ the separation S of these two events is,
S² = (x₀ - x₁)²+(y₀ - y₁)²+(z₀ - z₁)² - c²(t₀ - t₁)²

A few properties of S: Any two viewers moving in space will find that their perceived positions and times of these two events may differ but they will also find that their computation of S is the same for both. That is, S is invariant. Depending on the relative velocities, S can be positive, negative, or zero. But that's another story

The value of the velocity c is fundamental to this odd conversion factor of space and time in relativity and is simply the speed of light. So if you think maybe something can go faster than the speed of light, think again. The top speed is intimately tied to the fabric of space and time. You are actually imagining a fundamental change in the conversion factor, which is an immutable constant.

However if space is warped all bets are off. Pythagorean's theorem no longer applies since it works only in Euclid's plane geometry. Since c is constant then time is not constant. In that way you can play weird games with warped space and time like worm holes. Also it explains how in the warped space around the earth, time is different in space. They have to use a time correction in GPS systems to bring it to earth surface time.

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 12, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I and many others consider creation science as Biblical based. Science must be totally based on verified observation and not the bible.



It may be Bible based, but creation scientists use science and found that it backs up what is said in the Bible.  For example, radiocarbon dating backs up a young Earth.  If the Earth were millions or billions of years old, then there would not be C14 left.  Let's not go over the contamination thing again.  Thus, we have the same set of samples, but use different methodologies to date the samples, but reach different conclusions.



Wuwei said:


> It seems that Gale doesn't have a case, yet creationists are still clinging to his paper (1972) written 36 years ago.


Gale's paper shows Patterson was wrong in 1956.  It's not the methodology, but his assumptions.  You keep forgetting that and continue to just focus on methodology.

One of my main points from the beginning was we are not going to find the exact age of the Earth or universe through science.  God said that he would keep some things to himself. 

You think that by doing radiometric dating that one will be able to measure how old a _rock_ is.  We can't.  We can measure its mass, volume, color, the minerals in it, its size, and the way they are arranged.  We can crush it and measure its chemical composition, and find what radioactive elements it contains, but we do not have an instrument to directly measure age.

I can't ask you to step on a scale to find out how old you are.  Usually, one has to go to a document such as a birth certificate to determine when you were born.  Unfortunately, we have no document for that except the Bible.  God states that he was there for the creation.

Thus, Patterson and his fellow scientists would not accept an age if it was thousands of years old.  He did not even attempt radiocarbon dating.  Also, he was looking for something that was more than hundreds of millions of years old.  He was looking for something that was more than 2 or 3 billion of years old.  Just choosing the meteorites, I pointed out that he made assumptions of how they were formed and made his own assumptions about it relevance to dating.

Thus, you really have little more than a swag about the age of the Earth based on radiometric methodology and assumption, and are way off.  If your dates are correct, then we should find other evidence to back it up.  Just the bent rocks show long time is wrong.  Long time would break up the rock as entropy and pressure would cause it to break apart.  A young Earth where the rock bent due to sedimentary rock being chemically changed under water and formed into a bent shape due to water pressure from running water and other external forces.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 12, 2019)

The major point of contention: is the earth older than 6000 years.
There are at least three issues here.
What is the background level of any AMS machine?
What was Patterson measuring?
Does radiometric dating give an age?



james bond said:


> For example, radiocarbon dating backs up a young Earth. If the Earth were millions or billions of years old, then there would not be C14 left. Let's not go over the contamination thing again. Thus, we have the same set of samples, but use different methodologies to date the samples, but reach different conclusions.


The background level of an AMS machine has low noise, but 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 is at or below that noise level. That is the ratio of C14 to C12 for a 60,000 year sample. So the measurement of C14 in a very old object is totally meaningless. I gave you references for that.



james bond said:


> Gale's paper shows Patterson was wrong in 1956. It's not the methodology, but his assumptions. You keep forgetting that and continue to just focus on methodology.


If you think the assumption that the meteorite was an indicator of the age of the earth is wrong, it simply doesn't matter. All the meteorites and moon rocks remarkably agreed with the same age. At least the primordial debris around the solar system was found to be 4.55 billion years. It is ludicrous to think the moon is billions of years older than the earth.



james bond said:


> Thus, Patterson and his fellow scientists would not accept an age if it was thousands of years old. He did not even attempt radiocarbon dating. Also, he was looking for something that was more than hundreds of millions of years old. He was looking for something that was more than 2 or 3 billion of years old. Just choosing the meteorites, I pointed out that he made assumptions of how they were formed and made his own assumptions about it relevance to dating.


Why should Patterson bother with dating C14 when every one knows that prior samples with diamond were at the noise limit of the AMS? Snelling already said in a creationist site there is a background limit!
“_International Vocabulary of Metrology guidelines ... defined “measurement error” as a “measured quantity value minus a reference quantity value”. This definition depends on the accuracy of the reference quantity value and automatically introduces bias into the whole process because the reference value also must be previously measured with its own measurement error.”_​The AMS just does not work at 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000. You don't get it. Creationists who claim 50,000 years ignore the reference value in the AMS. Your problem is that you get all your information from creationists sites and not from science sites.



james bond said:


> You think that by doing radiometric dating that one will be able to measure how old a _rock_ is. We can't. We can measure its mass, volume, color, the minerals in it, its size, and the way they are arranged. We can crush it and measure its chemical composition, and find what radioactive elements it contains, but we do not have an instrument to directly measure age.
> 
> I can't ask you to step on a scale to find out how old you are. Usually, one has to go to a document such as a birth certificate to determine when you were born. Unfortunately, we have no document for that except the Bible. God states that he was there for the creation.


Do you see what you are doing? Your radiometric denial is remarkably inconsistent. You deny AMS validity for old material, but rigidly and rigorously embrace it only for C14.

Radiological dating is an indirect inference based on measured and verified immutable decay rates. It gives remarkable consistency in dating the age of the primordial moon and meteorites.

Another remarkable inconsistency is that you claim the earth age is 6000 years, but embrace the 50,000 years that you mistakenly think is valid. I just don't get it.

Again, I don't care if you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old. But don't use "creation science" to prove it. It simply doesn't work and is replete with contradictions. It is not science it is biased self-contradictory rationalization driven by the Bible.

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 13, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> What Hawking is saying is that any stellar event we see now is in it's past not our past. That happens because of the finite speed of information. We can't see a past that involves us.



Sure it's the heavenly bodies' past.  Special theory says that it is moving faster than us and its atomic clock, if it had one, is moving slower than ours.  This is how one travels into the future by going out into space for a while and then coming back.  The faster they go, the more time would have passed on Earth.  Hawking doesn't even realize this.  I think what Hawking cares about is its past and not ours.  If we go by the universe is bounded, then it fits our observations and that the laws of physics hold everywhere.

As for seeing the universe's past, I'm not sure how he expects to do that.  One of the things I've read he was trying to do was was find evidence for a multiverse and that was in the universe's past.  Anyway, Hawking and these theoretical physicists propose things such as a universe with no boundaries and people end up believing it is true.  It's all hypothesis, but the atheists end up believing it is true.



Wuwei said:


> *4-space*Everyone is familiar with Pythagorean's theorem in plane geometry. The hypotenuse H is given by the two sides of a right triangle:
> H² = x²+y²


...

I agree with this, but if you try to see this 3D triangle in 4D in a 3D world, then one would need simulation (you'll have to imagine if the object used right triangles how it would move).  This 4D object has the ability to pass through a 3D barrier.






I think one can use holograms to see a 4D object in 4D, but scientists have made 4D objects with 3D printers now.


----------



## james bond (Dec 13, 2019)

I don't want to copy and paste large parts of Hawking's book to discuss.  He has some weird and wrong ideas and his presentation isn't linear so not conducive for cutting and pasting.  Instead, I found this article.  It uses the type of thinking and logic that he does to convince others.  He goes from what is theory to thesis to hypothesis and then makes this hypothesis true.  He talks about what is impossible if one can hypothesize some things such as a boundless universe.  Then one can break the laws of physics such as the SLOT.  I suppose it's because you'll get energy from the beyond, but he has no experimental evidence nor any theory or thesis to back up what he is saying.  It's all hypothesis.  However, people believe, i.e. assume it's true and happened in the past.  People here like Fort Fun Indiana believe in an impossible boundless universe.

The Beginning of TIme


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 13, 2019)

james bond said:


> Sure it's the heavenly bodies' past. Special theory says that it is moving faster than us and its atomic clock, if it had one, is moving slower than ours. This is how one travels into the future by going out into space for a while and then coming back. The faster they go, the more time would have passed on Earth. Hawking doesn't even realize this. I think what Hawking cares about is its past and not ours. If we go by the universe is bounded, then it fits our observations and that the laws of physics hold everywhere.


Actually if we look at someone who is moving at a constant speed, time doesn't change for both parties. It is the acceleration and deacceleration that permanently change the time. You need to accelerate to get speed, then deaccelerate to stop and do the whole thing again to return. Yes, the process would let us see the future by allowing us to stop aging. 



james bond said:


> As for seeing the universe's past, I'm not sure how he expects to do that. One of the things I've read he was trying to do was was find evidence for a multiverse and that was in the universe's past. Anyway, Hawking and these theoretical physicists propose things such as a universe with no boundaries and people end up believing it is true. It's all hypothesis, but the atheists end up believing it is true.


The way I look at it is that people propose theories that are largely consistent with well verified physics, but often they are exploring possibilities. In that case nobody should insist that their theory actually reflects the universe unless observations support it. 



james bond said:


> I agree with this, but if you try to see this 3D triangle in 4D in a 3D world, then one would need simulation (you'll have to imagine if the object used right triangles how it would move). This 4D object has the ability to pass through a 3D barrier.


There are three reasons for higher dimensions that I can think of. 
One is exploring geometry like the 4D tetrahedron animation you showed. 
A second is mathematical. For example a "phase space" is defined and can have countless trillions of dimensions. Properties are handled statistically. 
The third example is physical theory where time is a special type of dimension that is useful in quantum mechanics (My earlier Pythagorean essay).

In the real world, space must be 3 dimensions. I once saw a proof that if space were 2 or 4 dimensions, gravity and electrostatic forces would no longer fall off as the square of distance. If someone wanted to theorize a space with 4 dimensions and 2 time-like dimensions (or whatever) there might be a consistent type of physics but it would be weird. If anyone has attempted that it would simply be for the fun of it, not to actually believe it. 



james bond said:


> I think one can use holograms to see a 4D object in 4D, but scientists have made 4D objects with 3D printers now.


I think their idea that they could print in 4D was quite exaggerated. What they were referring to was that they could create objects that could change shape when influenced by various circumstances. So, in that sense, the fourth dimension was time, but not the relativistic time that I previously referred to. 
.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2019)

james bond said:


> I don't want to copy and paste large parts of Hawking's book to discuss.  He has some weird and wrong ideas and his presentation isn't linear so not conducive for cutting and pasting.  Instead, I found this article.  It uses the type of thinking and logic that he does to convince others.  He goes from what is theory to thesis to hypothesis and then makes this hypothesis true.  He talks about what is impossible if one can hypothesize some things such as a boundless universe.  Then one can break the laws of physics such as the SLOT.  I suppose it's because you'll get energy from the beyond, but he has no experimental evidence nor any theory or thesis to back up what he is saying.  It's all hypothesis.  However, people believe, i.e. assume it's true and happened in the past.  People here like Fort Fun Indiana believe in an impossible boundless universe.
> 
> The Beginning of TIme


Yeah, Hawkings essay seemed to be a stream of conscious chat. I heard all the ideas before. You can judge them by gut feel, or how radical the are from real life. But in the end if any one of those ideas do not violate what I think physics is, I don't believe nor disbelieve them. There is no point in taking a stance. I argued with Fort Fun that the universe was closed and warped, but I can believe that we are both wrong. 
.


----------



## james bond (Dec 14, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> The major point of contention: is the earth older than 6000 years.
> There are at least three issues here.
> What is the background level of any AMS machine?
> What was Patterson measuring?
> Does radiometric dating give an age?



No, 6000 years or young Earth is correct.  You ignore what I say.  I have evidence backed by the scientific method.  I have credentials.  I had to provide you with Clair Patterson and evolutionary thinking and history.  You have not read the Bible and Genesis.  I have read both the evolution website and the Bible.  You don't and haven't.  You cannot get rid of the truth based on your belief in lies.  Even 3 billion years wasn't enough for evolution, so that's how Patterson became famous.  Why don't you just admit you lost your argument?

1) There was C14 remaining in the billions of years coals and diamonds.  That cannot be if it was so old.  We find other contradictions in millions and billions of year old objects.  How did you know the dinosaur fossil that Mary Schweitzer had was so old?  2) Gale showed there were too much primordial lead in the young meteorites that Patterson used.  3) The assumptions made by evolutionist scientists are wrong.  Not the methodology.  No one can observe a million years or a billion years in this life. 

What is the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes when the rock or meteorite was formed?  How do they date old fossils?

As for the rest, you should find the answer to your own questions.



Wuwei said:


> The background level of an AMS machine has low noise, but 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 is at or below that noise level. That is the ratio of C14 to C12 for a 60,000 year sample. So the measurement of C14 in a very old object is totally meaningless. I gave you references for that.



You have no credibility nor credentials.  OTOH, I have PhD's refuting you.  They are ready to test any object put forth for examination.  You have no one who will provide a sample.

Now you are going off the deep end here.



Wuwei said:


> Why should Patterson bother with dating C14 when every one knows that prior samples with diamond were at the noise limit of the AMS? Snelling already said in a creationist site there is a background limit!
> “_International Vocabulary of Metrology guidelines ... defined “measurement error” as a “measured quantity value minus a reference quantity value”. This definition depends on the accuracy of the reference quantity value and automatically introduces bias into the whole process because the reference value also must be previously measured with its own measurement error.”_The AMS just does not work at 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000. You don't get it. Creationists who claim 50,000 years ignore the reference value in the AMS. Your problem is that you get all your information from creationists sites and not from science sites.



.  You are coming totally unglued here.  Patterson was trying to come up with something to show an Earth older than 3 billion years.  Creation science is valid science because we have what is observable and the scientific method backs it up.  You have nothing .  It's fake science.  This is what happens when you find evidence to fit just to fit the evolution theory.



Wuwei said:


> Do you see what you are doing? Your radiometric denial is remarkably inconsistent. You deny AMS validity for old material, but rigidly and rigorously embrace it only for C14.
> 
> Radiological dating is an indirect inference based on measured and verified immutable decay rates. It gives remarkable consistency in dating the age of the primordial moon and meteorites.
> 
> ...



You are doing the same thing, but arguing for an old Earth and universe based on evolutionary thinking.  Science doesn't work like that.

Thus, I asked you for other evidence to back up what you claim.  I mean you are the ignorant one here since you didn't know who Clair Patterson was.  How did you know the age of Earth?  It was forced into your brain by the mainstream liberal media.  They took it in order to fit Darwinism.  However, later research showed Darwin was wrong.  Despite all this, people cling to their "faith-based" atheist science.

I already stated many times that we aren't going to get an accurate date using radiometric dating.  You should know this.  Why don't you date your own skin tissue using radiometric dating?  I can using radiocarbon dating and can do so for a thousand people, but I can't expect to be accurate for every person.  I may not be accurate for anyone.

My point was there really isn't any machine to tell us how old we are.  There will be varying dates.  My other valid point was there was C14 left when there should have been none.  Thus, radiocarbon dating was a valid method for trying to estimate the dating.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 14, 2019)

james bond said:


> No, 6000 years or young Earth is correct.





james bond said:


> My point was there really isn't any machine to tell us how old we are. There will be varying dates. My other valid point was there was C14 left when there should have been none. Thus, radiocarbon dating was a valid method for trying to estimate the dating.


I spent a lot of time trying to understand how a certain climate change denier thought. He ended up in a self contradictory position denying textbook physics just so he could keep his stance that the green house effect did not exist.

I find that you are the same way, ending up in a contradictory position but not seeming to know that.  My conclusion is that you would deny any physics that doesn't fit the Bible. You also don't know nor care how an AMS machine works but vehemently argue about it. Here is a printout of a low level AMS readout. See how noisy the background is. It would be nice of the creationists furnished a printout of a 60,000 year old carbon sample. It would also be right at the 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 noise level.






I don't care about evolution or bent rocks entering the picture because there are very basic concepts that shatter your hypothesis that the earth is 6000 years old.

Even your evolutionist friends have alleged  to finding samples where,
_"Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon "ages" of 64,900 years to 80,000 years."_

You are also now back to mockery. Are you now going to mock your creationist friends for saying that they found a diamond 80,000 years old? That is a factor of 13 older than your 6000 years. You are now in a contradictory position claiming the earth is both 6000 and also defending the position of the creationists's 80,000 years.

No creationist has scientifically explained how the universe with all the receding dim and distant galaxies is 6000 years old. That is another YEC destroyer.

Creation science is just a litany of what-ifs and maybes without any justification. My final conclusion is that creation science is a futile exercise that assumes beyond all doubt that the Bible is literally true and denies any science that says otherwise. Creation science is not science at all

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Actually if we look at someone who is moving at a constant speed, time doesn't change for both parties. It is the acceleration and deacceleration that permanently change the time. You need to accelerate to get speed, then deaccelerate to stop and do the whole thing again to return. Yes, the process would let us see the future by allowing us to stop aging.



How does one keep the same speed as a spacecraft?  Get serious.  I'm not sure how the person traveling through space "sees" the future.  He just sees everyone that he knew in the future older if they are still alive.  You may meet your son and daughter and they are older than you.  Anyway, there is no way to go back in time and it seems we agree on that.  Thus, Hawking doesn't realize how to travel into the future and for some foolish reason, he thinks one can go back into the past.



Wuwei said:


> The way I look at it is that people propose theories that are largely consistent with well verified physics, but often they are exploring possibilities. In that case nobody should insist that their theory actually reflects the universe unless observations support it.



I thought that, but then he starts talking as if it were true.  He seemed to like to violate the laws of physics in his hypothesis.  How can he state this happened with the big bang?  If I were an atheist scientist, then I would question the big bang as singularity and cosmic expansion seem impossible.  We can't have anything infinite in nature or else it violates the laws of physics and the laws of nature.  A lot of what Hawking talks about doesn't make sense.  He's an atheist, or at least I think he is, but he discusses God.  If he read the Bible (I think he has), then he does not have a good grasp of it.  I think like most people with higher education, he did not think it made sense.  Perhaps, he thought Genesis was metaphor, but truth is stranger than fiction.



Wuwei said:


> There are three reasons for higher dimensions that I can think of.
> One is exploring geometry like the 4D tetrahedron animation you showed.
> A second is mathematical. For example a "phase space" is defined and can have countless trillions of dimensions. Properties are handled statistically.
> The third example is physical theory where time is a special type of dimension that is useful in quantum mechanics (My earlier Pythagorean essay).
> ...



Okay.  I can't imagine countless or trillions of dimensions.  I'm not even sure what the 5th dimension is although it is shown to exist in mathematics.  The 4th dimension seemed weird because 4D matter can pass through 3D matter.  A 4D being can put 4D matter into the 3D world, but we could only see its three dimensions.  I'm not sure if we can touch, feel, and use our five senses on it as it is moving through time.  We may think it passes through us.



Wuwei said:


> I think their idea that they could print in 4D was quite exaggerated. What they were referring to was that they could create objects that could change shape when influenced by various circumstances. So, in that sense, the fourth dimension was time, but not the relativistic time that I previously referred to.



I thought it was fine as it shows a 3D object changing through entropy and it becomes something we recognize.  I'm not sure what you think happens to matter and us through the passage of time.  Entropy.  Part of why I don't believe in millions or billions of year old Earth is entropy would have destroyed it.  Earth is an open system.  Like heat, information and biology are affected the same way through entropy.  We can show that through the scientific method.


----------



## james bond (Dec 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Yeah, Hawkings essay seemed to be a stream of conscious chat. I heard all the ideas before. You can judge them by gut feel, or how radical the are from real life. But in the end if any one of those ideas do not violate what I think physics is, I don't believe nor disbelieve them. There is no point in taking a stance. I argued with Fort Fun that the universe was closed and warped, but I can believe that we are both wrong.



That's a good way to put -- a stream of consciousness _lecture_.  I don't think he appreciates someone interrupting him or thinks he is there to have a dialog.  Okay, you say you neither believe nor disbelieve Hawking's ideas, but you don't believe Genesis as being literal.  You thought it was metaphor.  To the contrary, one day = 24 hours.  The only place where time is not literal is in the prophecies which is not part of Genesis.  Here is the big question.  Is there any part of Genesis that violates the laws of physics?  We have a supernatural being, but he could be a being from the 4th dimension.

OTOH, I've said the big bang violates the laws of physics.  I think Hawking that was what Hawking was saying in his stream of consciousness lecture.  Before spacetime, singularity could violate the laws of physics and nature.  However, like going back in time, this is impossible.  He even admitted quantum particles need space.  I would think it would need time, as well, in order to move.


----------



## james bond (Dec 15, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I spent a lot of time trying to understand how a certain climate change denier thought. He ended up in a self contradictory position denying textbook physics just so he could keep his stance that the green house effect did not exist.



Climate change is based on human produced CO2.  What if it was the magnetic field weakening that was causing more solar radiation to enter and thus cause warming?  Isn't that the greenhouse effect?



Wuwei said:


> I find that you are the same way, ending up in a contradictory position but not seeming to know that. My conclusion is that you would deny any physics that doesn't fit the Bible. You also don't know nor care how an AMS machine works but vehemently argue about it. Here is a printout of a low level AMS readout. See how noisy the background is. It would be nice of the creationists furnished a printout of a 60,000 year old carbon sample. It would also be right at the 1 part in 1,000,000,000,000,000 noise level.



I wouldn't deny any physics that doesn't fit the Bible, but you are talking about dating something using a machine.  As I pointed out at least twice now that a machine doesn't tell you the age.  It's assumptions of what the machine tells you that makes one come up with the date.  I asked you how fossils were dated?  Can you answer it now as it is relevant to the discussion?



Wuwei said:


> I don't care about evolution or bent rocks entering the picture because there are very basic concepts that shatter your hypothesis that the earth is 6000 years old.




That makes you wrong.  Someone sent me this today and it fits you perfectly.  You do things the wrong way, but it may seem fine to you.  Maybe you like grossing people out and enjoy the extra flavor.  Saying things like, "I don't care about evolution or bent rocks entering the picture because..." makes you not credible even more than not having credentials.  It goes to show that you did not receive a well rounded education to see and understand more of the world than through nerd glasses and its narrow view.

Bent rocks support a young Earth.



Wuwei said:


> Even your evolutionist friends have alleged to finding samples where,
> _"Eight of the diamonds yielded radiocarbon "ages" of 64,900 years to 80,000 years."_
> 
> You are also now back to mockery. Are you now going to mock your creationist friends for saying that they found a diamond 80,000 years old? That is a factor of 13 older than your 6000 years. You are now in a contradictory position claiming the earth is both 6000 and also defending the position of the creationists's 80,000 years.
> ...



Again, I've stated that we are not going to find the exact age of the Earth through our dating methods.  Here is an explanation by AIG:

"The RATE radiocarbon research first focused on demonstrating that significant detectable levels of carbon-14 are present in ancient coal beds.1,2 Ten samples from U.S. coal beds, conventionally dated at 40–320 million years old, were found to contain carbon-14 equivalent to ages of around 48,000–50,000 years. The laboratory did repeat analyses and confirmed that this carbon-14 in the coals was not due to any contamination either _in situ_ in the samples or added to the samples in the laboratory. Of course, these would not be the true ages of these coal beds, because these 48,000–50,000 year ages are calculated at the present-day level and production rate of radiocarbon. The fact that all these coal beds yield radiocarbon ages in the same “ballpark” is consistent with them all having been formed at the same time in a recent catastrophic event. This is, of course, consistent with masses of pre-Flood vegetation being swept away and buried on a huge scale globally during the cataclysmic Genesis Flood."

Radiocarbon in Diamonds Confirmed



Wuwei said:


> No creationist has scientifically explained how the universe with all the receding dim and distant galaxies is 6000 years old. That is another YEC destroyer.
> 
> Creation science is just a litany of what-ifs and maybes without any justification. My final conclusion is that creation science is a futile exercise that assumes beyond all doubt that the Bible is literally true and denies any science that says otherwise. Creation science is not science at all



I just haven't explained it to you.  After all, you do not read the Bible nor the creation science websites with an open mind and compare to evolution which you do not know about either.  You also are ignorant about the horizon problem for the big bang theory.  That is the big bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe.  Because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out.  However, observations show the universe to be extremely uniform temperature at 2.73 degrees Kelvin.

The distant starlight problem has a couple of theories or models.  The problem is that the observation that many stars are millions of light years away when we have a young Earth.  It is a problem of _distance_ and not _time_.  It takes light one year to travel a distance of one light year.  Thus, it is possible to view an object as it was in the past, with the number of years in the past equal to the number of light years in distance.  Some scientists argue that the oldest objects visible today are gamma ray bursts over 13 billion light-years away, but if the universe is expanding then it should be possible to observe stars that are now actually much further away.  This is a flaw in the old universe model.  If the universe is expanding, then the far reaches of the universe would be older than the 13.7 billion years old universe.  That's something for you to explain.

As for the YEC solutions, one was proposed by Dr. Russell Humphries in 1994.  After he proposed it, there was some creationist arguments against it, but he was able overcome those arguments.  I don't want to present his model from 1994 as he changed it to overcome the arguments.  I can't find his original papers anymore and the argument presented against it.  I hope this is the most recent one from 2010.  It discusses Earth being surrounded by a gravity well.

"*Time Stands Still*



The new metric is not complicated, compared to many modern ones.  Because it is simple and yet rigorous, it shows a feature of gravitational time dilation that nobody had noticed before.  The feature was implicit in many previous metrics, but it had been obscured by the effects of motion.  Humphreys calls this feature of time dilation _achronicity_, or “timelessness.”  It causes clocks and all physical processes—hence, time itself—to be completely stopped in a region that could be very large.  This is in contrast to the time dilation around a black hole, in which time is completely stopped only at a certain exact distance from its center, at the “event horizon.”3  In his 2008 article, Humphreys showed how this new metric led straightforwardly to achronicity.  In the last five pages of the paper, he applied the time dilation achronicity to develop a new creationist cosmology."

A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1 


I'll stop here as there is more to explain.  After several years, Dr. John Harnett added to this theory based on Dr. Moshe Carmeli's cosmological relativity (CSR) model of the universe.

Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


----------



## Andylusion (Dec 15, 2019)

Vastator said:


> Physics Nobel awarded for discoveries about the universe’s evolution and exoplanets
> 
> Very cool stuff. These guys ha e really made a difference in our understanding of the universe. For a long time many doubted tbe existence of planets outside our Solar System. Some fools still do despite the preponderance of evidence. But what can you do?



The Nobel prize outside of the peace prize, is actually respectable.

I'm not sure if they really learned a ton about the universe yet... they just recently discovered it, correct?

It will likely take a long time to learn much about it.  Still cool though.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2019)

james bond said:


> No, 6000 years or young Earth is correct. You ignore what I say. I have evidence backed by the scientific method. I have credentials. I had to provide you with Clair Patterson and evolutionary thinking and history. You have not read the Bible and Genesis. I have read both the evolution website and the Bible. You don't and haven't. You cannot get rid of the truth based on your belief in lies. Even 3 billion years wasn't enough for evolution, so that's how Patterson became famous. Why don't you just admit you lost your argument?


Nope. You lost the argument, but you don't understand physics enough to know it. 



james bond said:


> 1) There was C14 remaining in the billions of years coals and diamonds. That cannot be if it was so old. We find other contradictions in millions and billions of year old objects. How did you know the dinosaur fossil that Mary Schweitzer had was so old? 2) Gale showed there were too much primordial lead in the young meteorites that Patterson used. 3) The assumptions made by evolutionist scientists are wrong. Not the methodology. No one can observe a million years or a billion years in this life.
> 
> What is the ratio of parent to daughter isotopes when the rock or meteorite was formed? How do they date old fossils?


We went through this many times. Gale is 1972. Out dated. C14 dating on diamonds is background noise.



james bond said:


> You have no credibility nor credentials. OTOH, I have PhD's refuting you. They are ready to test any object put forth for examination. You have no one who will provide a sample.
> 
> Now you are going off the deep end here


They have no credibility unless they show the graphs of the AMS spectrum similar to the one I showed with an obvious background.



james bond said:


> You are coming totally unglued here. Patterson was trying to come up with something to show an Earth older than 3 billion years. Creation science is valid science because we have what is observable and the scientific method backs it up. You have nothing
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Nope, Patterson was doing a geological study, not an evolution study. It's a different field.



james bond said:


> My point was there really isn't any machine to tell us how old we are. There will be varying dates. My other valid point was there was C14 left when there should have been none. Thus, radiocarbon dating was a valid method for trying to estimate the dating.


There was no C14 left it was background. Take another look at Snell's paper and the graph I showed.



james bond said:


> Climate change is based on human produced CO2. What if it was the magnetic field weakening that was causing more solar radiation to enter and thus cause warming? Isn't that the greenhouse effect?


Not at all. The GHE is a resonate absorption of greenhouse gases and back-radiation in the lower troposphere.



james bond said:


> I wouldn't deny any physics that doesn't fit the Bible, but you are talking about dating something using a machine. As I pointed out at least twice now that a machine doesn't tell you the age. It's assumptions of what the machine tells you that makes one come up with the date. I asked you how fossils were dated? Can you answer it now as it is relevant to the discussion?


Measurements of almost all physical quantities are indirect.
If you say a machine doesn't tell you the age, then......
A thermometer does not tell you temperature; it is just mercury that expanded
A thermocouple doesn't tell temperature. It is just a voltage.
A pressure gauge does not tell you pressure. It's just metal bent under force.
Your dashboard doesn't tell you speed or MPG they are just computations from a wheel sensor.
An hour glass doesn't tell time. It's just a small pile of sand.

As far as dating fossils, I already told you more than once. Look it up on a geology site. If you always get your information from a creationist site you will not get real science.



james bond said:


> Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe. Because the speed at which this radiation can disperse from hotter to colder parts of the universe is limited by the speed of light, there has not been enough time for the radiation to even out.


Balderdash. I bet you don't understand what you are typing.



james bond said:


> This is a flaw in the old universe model. If the universe is expanding, then the far reaches of the universe would be older than the 13.7 billion years old universe. That's something for you to explain.


It's not a flaw 13.7 B light years is the distance to our event horizon. The universe can be larger.



james bond said:


> That is the big bang model proposes that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) would have varied considerably from place to place early in the universe


The CMB has been measured by COBE and has non uniformity.



james bond said:


> A New Creationist Cosmology: In No Time at All Part 1
> 
> I'll stop here as there is more to explain. After several years, Dr. John Harnett added to this theory based on Dr. Moshe Carmeli's cosmological relativity (CSR) model of the universe.
> 
> Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science



I bet you didn't understand that last link. The author's hypothesis would totally screw up quantum electrodynamics in a big way. I told you before that the velocity of light is embedded in QED.

Also QCD, quantum chromodynamics is the theory that successfully covers baryon interactions. The quark field is a dynamical function of spacetime. You change space-time you change the strong force. Do that and all the stars will be screwed up.

Neither of those two links has any resemblance to observation. Creationists just can't change the laws of physics like that without unintended consequences.

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 17, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Nope. You lost the argument, but you don't understand physics enough to know it.



I didn't lost the argument.  Again, you lost the argument.

One doesn't have to understand physics to understand the evolution website and Genesis in the Bible.  Not only that, I do understand physics.

You could not explain the uniform temperature of the universe and how radiometric dating of a meteor can explain an expanding universe.  I'm the only one who compared both the evolution side using the Berkeley website creation reading Genesis in the Bible.  You just went by your own examples which did not provide enough valid information to make your case.  For example, what observations did you provide besides radiometric dating and compare it to what I provided with radiocarbon dating?  Next, I provided you with Clair Peterson and knowledge about evolutionary thinking, radiometric dating, the explanation by Dr. Russel Humphries of the distant starlight problem, Dr. Moshe Carmeli's cosmology model, Dr. John Harnett's addition to Dr. Carmeli's cosmology, uniform temperature of the universe, how the 13.7 billion years old universe has expanded, entropy, and more.  Did these things just go over your head?   What do you think will happen when the James Webb telescope comes online and sees that the outer edge of the universe has expanded?  Doesn't universal expansion go out in one direction?  Evolutionary thinking is based on the Copernican Principle which believes the universe is boundless and has no center.



Wuwei said:


> We went through this many times. Gale is 1972. Out dated. C14 dating on diamonds is background noise.



Gale has to do with Clair Patterson and his dating of the meteorite.  Instead of just arguing about the same thing over and over, I asked you how Mary Schweitzer date her dinosaur fossil?  Didn't she use radiometric dating, too?  How did she know how old the dinosaur fossil was?  I asked you this about three or four times now and you have not provided an answer.



Wuwei said:


> Nope, Patterson was doing a geological study, not an evolution study. It's a different field.



Of course, we are discussing a geological study.  What you don't know is how it is related to evolution.

In order for Patterson to become famous, he had to show the Earth was older than 3 billion years old.  Evolution needed even more time.  Otherwise, he would not have become famous in 1956.  "In 1956 the American geologist Clair Patterson (left) announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved."

Prior to that, it was Arthur Holmes who used radiometric dating to estimate 1.6 to 3 billion years, but Darwin needed more long time.  Holmes was the one who stated radiometric dating was the way to find the age of the Earth instead of other methods.  Do you know what these other _geological_ methods were?

...

As for the rest, we've discussed this already.  Tell me again how _Mary Schweitzer_ knew the age of the dinosaur fossil?



Wuwei said:


> It's not a flaw 13.7 B light years is the distance to our event horizon. The universe can be larger.



The event horizon has to do with black holes.  How do we measure the age of the universe using a black hole?



Wuwei said:


> The CMB has been measured by COBE and has non uniformity.



The temperature is uniform.  That can't be with the big bang theory.

*"COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer, launched in 1989) was the first satellite launched to measure the CMB properties outside Earth's atmosphere.  COBE established the precise blackbody character of the radiation and measured the temperature as 2.726 K, measured the earth's velocity relative to the matter that last emiited the radiation, and eventually detected anisotropies in the background at the level of 1 part in 105.*"

the cosmic microwave background



Wuwei said:


> I bet you didn't understand that last link. The author's hypothesis would totally screw up quantum electrodynamics in a big way. I told you before that the velocity of light is embedded in QED.
> 
> Also QCD, quantum chromodynamics is the theory that successfully covers baryon interactions. The quark field is a dynamical function of spacetime. You change space-time you change the strong force. Do that and all the stars will be screwed up.
> 
> Neither of those two links has any resemblance to observation. Creationists just can't change the laws of physics like that without unintended consequences.



How does singularity not change the laws of physics?  How can one have infinite temperature and infinite density in the natural and physical world?  How does cosmic inflation happen?  How did the Earth and solar system form?  How did day and night form?  Isn't that changing the laws of physics?



Wuwei said:


> I bet you didn't understand that last link. The author's hypothesis would totally screw up quantum electrodynamics in a big way. I told you before that the velocity of light is embedded in QED.








Why would I post something I don't understand?  Do you really want to bet something?  Which author are you referring to?  QED and QCD was not completed on the first day as you assume because the universe was not completed and functioning until after the sixth day.  All of the parts and pieces of the universe are connected.  If you think you understand physics, explain how QED and QCD happened with the big bang and evolutionary thinking?  It seems you just make assumptions that the way things such as physics are understood now is the way it was back then.  Please explain, how QED and QCD came about under evolution since you do not understand nor trust creation scientists?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 17, 2019)

james bond said:


> One doesn't have to understand physics to understand the evolution website and Genesis in the Bible. Not only that, I do understand physics.


Your understanding of physics is naive cut and paste from creationists sites. 


james bond said:


> You could not explain the uniform temperature of the universe and how radiometric dating of a meteor can explain an expanding universe. I'm the only one who compared both the evolution side using the Berkeley website creation reading Genesis in the Bible.


What are you talking about? Radiometric dating is what is done on earth.It has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe. Are you talking about Darwinian evolution? What does that have to do with an expanding universe?



james bond said:


> Dr. Moshe Carmeli's cosmology model


This is your reference on Carmeli. Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Do you understand the math? I do. And it screws up QED and QCD totally.



james bond said:


> Mary Schweitzer date her dinosaur fossil? Didn't she use radiometric dating, too? How did she know how old the dinosaur fossil was? I asked you this about three or four times now and you have not provided an answer.


She didn't go into detail, but she said that three different isotopes in the radiological dating were used and the all agreed to within 4%. She either used minerals that penetrated the decaying animal or minerals immediately surrounding the site.


james bond said:


> Of course, we are discussing a geological study. What you don't know is how it is related to evolution.
> 
> In order for Patterson to become famous, he had to show the Earth was older than 3 billion years old. Evolution needed even more time. Otherwise, he would not have become famous in 1956. "In 1956 the American geologist Clair Patterson (left) announced that the Earth was 4.5 billion years old. Darwin had finally gotten the luxury of time he had craved."
> 
> Prior to that, it was Arthur Holmes who used radiometric dating to estimate 1.6 to 3 billion years, but Darwin needed more long time. Holmes was the one who stated radiometric dating was the way to find the age of the Earth instead of other methods. Do you know what these other _geological_ methods were?


In order for Patterson to become famous? Why do you think Darwin needed more time? Where do you get that stuff? It seems you read nothing but creationist sites. Try looking at what the researchers are doing and saying. Don't get it second hand from a creationist site.



james bond said:


> The event horizon has to do with black holes. How do we measure the age of the universe using a black hole?


Wikipedia:
 An event horizon is acknowledged feature of expanding universe.
Try looking at other sites than creationist sites.



james bond said:


> The temperature is uniform. That can't be with the big bang theory.


I don't know where you got that. Try googling  COBE and look at images. It's not uniform.



james bond said:


> How does singularity not change the laws of physics? How can one have infinite temperature and infinite density in the natural and physical world? How does cosmic inflation happen? How did the Earth and solar system form? How did day and night form? Isn't that changing the laws of physics?


Go to the post I am talking about and read it. Neither the author nor I were talking about a singularity.

The big problem here is that you are losing track of what is being posted and what my posts are referring to.



james bond said:


> Why would I post something I don't understand? Do you really want to bet something? Which author are you referring to?


Go to the third paragraph from the end of my post. It is answering your comment which has a link. That is the link you don't understand.


james bond said:


> Please explain, how QED and QCD came about under evolution since you do not understand nor trust creation scientists?


What on earth are you talking about???? What does evolution have to do with it? Are you talking about Darwinian evolution? You need to be clearer.

You think so differently than I do that communication is close to impossible. I am beginning to think that you are simply trolling.


----------



## james bond (Dec 18, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Your understanding of physics is naive cut and paste from creationists sites.



Aren't you the naive one?  All you know is physics and don't seem to understand it in the cosmology of creation science vs. evolutionary thinking.  You were so ignorant that you did not know about people believed the Earth was 1.6 to 3 billion years old before Patterson using geology and formulating radiometric dating.  You have absolutely no idea who Arthur Holmes was .  Again, I had to give it to you because you are narrow-minded physics _worm._  I have to use creationist websites you lowly worm.  It's the only place where Christians can learn about creation science or real science since secular science is all BS today.  Creation scientists do not all agree.  You are such a worm that you cannot figure this out.  I even provided you with my evolution website.  Someone needs to pour salt on you in order to _burn_ some sense into you.  You are an ignorant fool, fool, fool.  You probably pronounce that foo, foo, foo .

Now, why don't you crap on the atheists here who post links from wikipedia, the BIASED atheist-evolution website?  I'm sick and tired of idiots who do not think creationists websites are valid science websites.  Just who do you think invented modern science and cosmology?  You are such a disgusting _worm_.
_


Wuwei said:



			What are you talking about? Radiometric dating is what is done on earth.It has nothing to do with the expansion of the universe. Are you talking about Darwinian evolution? What does that have to do with an expanding universe?
		
Click to expand...

_
I'm talking about the big bang and the CMB and how Hubble estimated the age of the universe.  He wasn't the the first.  Who was the first?  I have mentioned this person several times when talking to other atheists here about creation vs. evolution.  What was considered the age of the universe before this?



Wuwei said:


> This is your reference on Carmeli. Cosmological relativity - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
> Do you understand the math? I do. And it screws up QED and QCD totally.



I'm not a mind reader and do not know which author you are referring to -- the person who wrote the entry?, Dr. John Hartnett, Dr. Russell Humphries, or Dr. Moshe Carmeli.  You need to be more clearer in what you state.  Why don't you explain using the math on how "it screws up QED and QCD totally."  Which math are you referring to?  I am a computer scientist and not in physics which should give you a leg up.



Wuwei said:


> Wikipedia:
> An event horizon is acknowledged feature of expanding universe.
> Try looking at other sites than creationist sites.



I don't buy wikipedia.  Again, it is a biased website that anyone can change.  Do you want me to stick "Wuwei is a worm?" in one of their physics pages?  I can do that.  Again, please explain how an event horizon is an acknowledge feature of expanding universe.  You are such a worm that you think you can state something and everyone knows what you are talking about.  You may as well be speaking Chinese.  People here do not understand you mostly.  They think you are a _nerd_. 



Wuwei said:


> I don't know where you got that. Try googling COBE and look at images. It's not uniform.



Why don't you?  You provide little reference and expect people to understand what you are talking about.

I just crushed a _nerdy, spineless worm_ here on USMB.  Hallelujah!!!

"The first space mission specifically designed to study the cosmic microwave background (CMB) was the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE), launched by NASA in 1989. Among its key discoveries were that averaged across the whole sky, the CMB shows a spectrum that conforms extremely precisely to a so-called ‘black body’ (i.e. pure thermal radiation) at a temperature of 2.73 Kelvin, but that it also shows very small temperature fluctuations on the order of 1 part in 100,000 across the sky. These findings were rewarded with the award of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics to John Mather and George Smoot."

Planck and the cosmic microwave background



Wuwei said:


> Go to the post I am talking about and read it. Neither the author nor I were talking about a singularity.
> 
> The big problem here is that you are losing track of what is being posted and what my posts are referring to.



You do not even know how to use USMB properly, Wormwei.  What is the post # you want me to read?



Wuwei said:


> Go to the third paragraph from the end of my post. It is answering your comment which has a link. That is the link you don't understand.



.  Now, you are getting to be a joke.  You can't even explain things so people can understand you, Wormwei?  



Wuwei said:


> What on earth are you talking about???? What does evolution have to do with it? Are you talking about Darwinian evolution? You need to be clearer.
> 
> You think so differently than I do that communication is close to impossible. I am beginning to think that you are simply trolling.



Look, you are a disgusting worm, Wormwei.  I have no idea of much of what you refer to because you do not provide references for your claims.  You do not provide quotes to make your point.  You do not discuss evolution.  Most of what you presented was radiometric dating.  I do not know whether you accept evolution or know much about it.  English is not a very precise language.  You are trying to be very precise and think I know and understand what you are talking about when you write something.  You do not explain yourself very clearly.  I assume it is because your native language is not English.  Why don't you explain how the event horizon is related to age of the Earth?

When I said, "Please explain, how QED and QCD came about under evolution since you do not understand nor trust creation scientists?", I meant using evolutionary thinking of big bang, singularity, cosmic expansion, CMB, cosmology and the rest.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2019)

Good heavens james bond, you are really bitter and full of hatred.
Modern science goes against YEC in many ways. I'm just a messenger and you want to put all your science hatred on me?

Physics wasn't only invented by Christians. I can explain physics so anyone can understand it, but I found that your brain is conditioned to reject it if it doesn't agree with the Bible. If you don't want to believe basic physics from Wikipedia you will not believe it from any other non-creationist site.

Often your questions are worded with physics references or assumptions that are not decipherable. QED and QCD are highly mathematical theories that come out of decades of experiments and have nothing to do with evolution. I already covered that and other things in a previous posts, but you never remember and ask the same question over and over.

YECs are trying to remove or change critical parts of physics without understanding the consequences in other areas. They just can't say time or the speed of light or radiological half-lifes were different in the past without self-contradictions in all aspects of physics. I already explained that and gave you references, but you never remember.

My conclusion still holds: YEC and current physics are totally incompatible. Creation science is not science.  

You are buried in intolerance and bitterness. Christianity fails to bring harmony and serenity to your soul.

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Good heavens james bond, you are really bitter and full of hatred.
> Modern science goes against YEC in many ways. I'm just a messenger and you want to put all your science hatred on me?
> 
> Physics wasn't only invented by Christians. I can explain physics so anyone can understand it, but I found that your brain is conditioned to reject it if it doesn't agree with the Bible. If you don't want to believe basic physics from Wikipedia you will not believe it from any other non-creationist site.
> ...








Haha.  I get upset a morons who tell me I can't use creation science websites and do not understand basic science.  Do I tell you you can't use secular/atheist science websites?  What kind of Nazi - communist are you?

I have patiently explained how today's secular science came about through uniformitarianism and Darwinism in the 1850s from an atheist Scottish farmer, James Hutton, who taught Charles Lyell, who taught Charles Darwin.  I'm also tired of having to _educate_ you on these things because you lack education and a working brain.

Next, you quote wikipedia.  That isn't a valid encyclopedia.  Anyone can edit it.  Do you want me to edit and put you, Wuwei Worm, in it?  Besides, it is a biased and atheist encyclopedia.  I don't buy any of long time and wrong assumptions of radiometric dating that you believe in.  You did not know who Alfred Holmes was.  You cannot even connect long time to evolution.  Get a life and learn some things about basic science, moron .


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> Haha. I get upset a morons who tell me I can't use creation science websites and do not understand basic science. Do I tell you you can't use secular/atheist science websites? What kind of Nazi - communist are you?



Wow. You're turning into a regular flame thrower. Now you are mocking the Chinese. I am not oriental, but it is interesting what you think of them. You are sullying yourself with your sneering mockery of a huge population. I now understand what "love thy neighbor" means to you. What other ethnic groups do you hate? Arabs? Africans? Hispanics?



james bond said:


> I have patiently explained how today's secular science came about through uniformitarianism and Darwinism in the 1850s from an atheist Scottish farmer, James Hutton, who taught Charles Lyell, who taught Charles Darwin. I'm also tired of having to _educate_ you on these things because you lack education and a working brain.



As far as the history of science, it really doesn't matter who developed it. It's nice that you studied the history of one aspect of science. I'm more historically adept in the hard sciences.



james bond said:


> Next, you quote wikipedia. That isn't a valid encyclopedia. Anyone can edit it. Do you want me to edit and put you, Wuwei Worm, in it? Besides, it is a biased and atheist encyclopedia. I don't buy any of long time and wrong assumptions of radiometric dating that you believe in. You did not know who Alfred Holmes was. You cannot even connect long time to evolution. Get a life and learn some things about basic science, moron


Sure, go ahead and edit Wiki. If you think science is atheist, you should probably avoid talking about it. I was not familiar with Alfred Holmes. I looked him up and am puzzled why you think I should have known of him and why he is important to the subject of the age of the universe and earth.

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 20, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Wow. You're turning into a regular flame thrower. Now you are mocking the Chinese. I am not oriental, but it is interesting what you think of them. You are sullying yourself with your sneering mockery of a huge population. I now understand what "love thy neighbor" means to you. What other ethnic groups do you hate? Arabs? Africans? Hispanics?





 

Now, you have become idiotic.  Basically, you are is a dishonest Chinese, probably Communist and a fascist.  You don't have much formal education and are mostly ignorant.  I tried to be nice to you because of being a non-native English speaker, but you took advantage and said I should not use creation websites.  Also, said some nasty things about creation websites and their scientists.  It really isn't fair when creation scientists have been systematically removed from peer reviews and getting their papers published in science journals since the 1850s.  Some have lost their jobs or are afraid of losing their jobs if they speak up.  Maybe 50% of the population believe in evolution today in the US.  You don't know about evolution or other scientific subjects either.  The worst part is you claim to know physics, but are ignorant of it, too.



Wuwei said:


> As far as the history of science, it really doesn't matter who developed it. It's nice that you studied the history of one aspect of science. I'm more historically adept in the hard sciences.



Haha.  Dream on.  You are some country bumpkin who doesn't know _basic_ science.



Wuwei said:


> Sure, go ahead and edit Wiki. If you think science is atheist, you should probably avoid talking about it. I was not familiar with Alfred Holmes. I looked him up and am puzzled why you think I should have known of him and why he is important to the subject of the age of the universe and earth.



I'm tired of having to explain to you about the history of radiometric dating and how it led to the age of the Earth.  Alfred Holmes is the scientist who led others to using radiometric dating and believe that would provide the age of the Earth.  Of course, he made the wrong assumptions, too.  Let's just agree to disagree and if I never speak with you again, then it will be too soon .


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> Now, you have become idiotic. Basically, you are is a dishonest Chinese, probably Communist and a fascist. You don't have much formal education and are mostly ignorant. I tried to be nice to you because of being a non-native English speaker, but you took advantage and said I should not use creation websites.


Nope. Not Chinese. Communism and Fascism destroys people. I feel sorry for the oppressed people who live with that.



james bond said:


> It really isn't fair when creation scientists have been systematically removed from peer reviews and getting their papers published in science journals since the 1850s.


Well, apparently they agree with me.



james bond said:


> You don't know about evolution or other scientific subjects either. The worst part is you claim to know physics, but are ignorant of it, too....
> Haha. Dream on. You are some country bumpkin who doesn't know _basic_ science.


You have absolutely no idea who I am.



james bond said:


> I'm tired of having to explain to you about the history of radiometric dating and how it led to the age of the Earth.


For your cause I think it would be better if you learned more about the physics behind radiometric dating, and not the early history.



james bond said:


> Alfred Holmes is the scientist who led others to using radiometric dating and believe that would provide the age of the Earth.


Actually you have no idea who Alfred Holmes is.
Google it. Is atheistic Wiki giving me false information???
_Sgt. Alfred Holmes BEM (1 February 1931 - 1 January 1994) was a Gibraltarian sergeant of the Gibraltar Regiment.He was a well remembered Officer-in-Charge of the Apes who held this position, caring for the Gibraltar Barbary macaques, for over 38 years_​
That is why I was puzzled when you mentioned him as being of some importance. I researched it and I think you mean Arthur Holmes. Still, there is no relevance to the science of modern radiometric dating.



james bond said:


> Let's just agree to disagree and if I never speak with you again, then it will be too soon.


You will probably hear from me if you come back with distorted views of science in the science forum.

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 21, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Now, you have become idiotic. Basically, you are is a dishonest Chinese, probably Communist and a fascist. You don't have much formal education and are mostly ignorant. I tried to be nice to you because of being a non-native English speaker, but you took advantage and said I should not use creation websites.
> ...








I really picture you as this boy who grew up and is now old.  Your name could be Sum Ting instead of Wuwei Wong.

As I stated already, we are done.  You are not an honest person and thus, there is no point in discussing physics, science, nor anything else.  It's difficult enough arguing with an evolutionist, but far be it for me to have to teach someone evolution, the Bible, and creation science when they won't agree with me anyway, aren't honest, and states creation science websites are wrong and doesn't trust them, so I shouldn't use them.  Not only are you full of assertions, wrong thinking, ignorance, but fascism/Communism, too.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 24, 2019)

james bond said:


> I really picture you as this boy who grew up and is now old. Your name could be Sum Ting instead of Wuwei Wong.
> 
> As I stated already, we are done. You are not an honest person and thus, there is no point in discussing physics, science, nor anything else. It's difficult enough arguing with an evolutionist, but far be it for me to have to teach someone evolution, the Bible, and creation science when they won't agree with me anyway, aren't honest, and states creation science websites are wrong and doesn't trust them, so I shouldn't use them. Not only are you full of assertions, wrong thinking, ignorance, but fascism/Communism, too.



I have been honest in every statement of physics and it's applications. If you don't agree or understand it, that does not mean I am dishonest. Thank you for your patience in showing me the way creationists think. I always wondered how they rationalized that the earth age is 6000 years. 

FYI I had a Christian upbringing in Detroit, with a family tree of several generations living in Indiana and ultimately Anglo Saxon ancestors in the UK. I have been practicing the 108 steps of Tai Chi for many years. It brings serenity and peace. Over 3 million other Americans currently do. My moniker made you jump to false conclusions.

It says a lot when you said “_secular science is all BS today_”. There are three major ideas creationists are not able to rationalize without self-contradiction.

I asked many times, but you have never answered this self-contradiction:
The creation scientific premise --- the universe and earth are 6000 years old.
A creation science assertion --- C14 dating says it is 50,000 to 80,000 years.


This is another fact unanswered by creationists.
For isotopes with billion of years half life, there would be very little time for any decay if the earth age were 6000 yrs. Daughter isotopes ratios would be extremely small for every one of the countless thousands of assays. They aren't.


Is the entire universe 6000 years old? Creationists have a number of ideas that are “probably” or “maybe” the answer. However all ideas require radical changes in physics that would lead to self-contradictions.
As you said..........


james bond said:


> Ad hominem attack does not make you right and is for the losers.


It is interesting that you don't follow that. Many of your posts are full of bitterness and hatred. And now you want to leave the topic with a vindictive volley of spite. Christians should not be like that no matter what the other person is.

May you find peace and have a Merry Christmas.

.


----------



## james bond (Dec 25, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> I have been honest in every statement of physics and it's applications. If you don't agree or understand it, that does not mean I am dishonest. Thank you for your patience in showing me the way creationists think. I always wondered how they rationalized that the earth age is 6000 years.



There's no need to thank me.  In fact, I have no more patience for you.  If you said the things you said to me in person about not using creation websites, then we would've came to blows.  I would try to hurt you with extreme prejudice.  Creationists and their science have been systematically removed from secular science.  Maybe we can still get published in Britannica.  If they publish in wikipedia, then it would be erased.  That's why I rather just let this go and you go. 

No, you are not honest.  If you were, then more people here would trust you.  How can anyone trust a fascist and communist thinker?  You are also ignorant and I do not wish to explain the things you lack.  Creation scientists do not rationalize.  As I said, there is no way to know the exact age of the Earth through science.  Thus, we disagreed on the methods we used to _estimate_ the age of the Earth.  RATE was able to use radiocarbon dating after the atheist scientists used radiometric dating.  Creation scientists also have other ways to estimate the age of the Earth as explained here -- The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth.  OTOH, you do not know.



Wuwei said:


> FYI I had a Christian upbringing in Detroit, with a family tree of several generations living in Indiana and ultimately Anglo Saxon ancestors in the UK. I have been practicing the 108 steps of Tai Chi for many years. It brings serenity and peace. Over 3 million other Americans currently do. My moniker made you jump to false conclusions.
> 
> It says a lot when you said “_secular science is all BS today_”. There are three major ideas creationists are not able to rationalize without self-contradiction.
> 
> ...



It's too late.  I do not want to know anymore.

>>I asked many times, but you have never answered this self-contradiction:
The creation scientific premise --- the universe and earth are 6000 years old.
A creation science assertion --- C14 dating says it is 50,000 to 80,000 years.<<

Re-read my second paragraph.

>>This is another fact unanswered by creationists.
For isotopes with billion of years half life, there would be very little time for any decay if the earth age were 6000 yrs. Daughter isotopes ratios would be extremely small for every one of the countless thousands of assays. They aren't.<<

What does your atheist science website say?  Why are they using radioisotope dating?  How do they date fossils?  Don't they relate it to the _rock_ layer?  You need to find your own answers about radiometric dating?

>>Is the entire universe 6000 years old? Creationists have a number of ideas that are “probably” or “maybe” the answer. However all ideas require radical changes in physics that would lead to self-contradictions.<<

You are just ignorant about physics, too haha.  Probably and maybe are not the creationists answers.  It shows you are ignorant about creationists and me.



Wuwei said:


> It is interesting that you don't follow that. Many of your posts are full of bitterness and hatred. And now you want to leave the topic with a vindictive volley of spite. Christians should not be like that no matter what the other person is.
> 
> May you find peace and have a Merry Christmas.



I hate people who are fascists and communists and that is your disgusting attitude.


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 27, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > I have been honest in every statement of physics and it's applications. If you don't agree or understand it, that does not mean I am dishonest. Thank you for your patience in showing me the way creationists think. I always wondered how they rationalized that the earth age is 6000 years.
> ...



Good heavens you are off the rails with personal insults. You have to understand that you are not aiming your verbal vitriol at just me, you are cursing at almost all of modern physics and physicists. I am only telling you what the physics is. I can't help it if physics disagrees with you and creationists. Some foreign physicists may be fascists or communists, but not me. 

You should expect critique that is unpleasant to you when you bring up creationism in the Science and Technology forum. The Religion and Ethics forum would be better for promoting that.

May the New Year be one of harmony and peace for you.
.


----------



## james bond (Dec 28, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Good heavens you are off the rails with personal insults. You have to understand that you are not aiming your verbal vitriol at just me, you are cursing at almost all of modern physics and physicists. I am only telling you what the physics is. I can't help it if physics disagrees with you and creationists. Some foreign physicists may be fascists or communists, but not me.



At least, I answered your criticisms.  Maybe not to your satisfaction as you are ignorant.

Why would I aim at you?  You are _nothing_ as I've stated.  You may not even be right about physics.  You are ignorant about evolution and now we've discovered you know squat about Arthur Holmes -- Arthur Holmes | Earth 520: Plate Tectonics and People: Foundations of Solid Earth Science.  Thus, it is frustrating to be told by a pupil that I can't use creation websites because they are wrong or there is no creation science.  It really is hilarious.  LMAO.  That kind of comment would fit someone from China who is ignorant, fascist, and communist.

What was also irksome was you aren't honest enough to provide your background when I asked for it.  It doesn't do much good when I have to assume and then be told that's not it.  How can I trust you afterward?  Anyway, it's not important anymore.  You can be whatever personality you want on a forum.

I only post the link above about Holmes because he was wrong about radiometric dating and the age of the Earth.  He also was wrong about plate tectonics.  However, it does follow evolutionary thinking, so I can understand why he chose radiometric dating and became the young _superstar_ for it.  You are ignorant of these things, especially evolutionary thinking and history, so this is about as far as I can go.

What I would do if I were you is to not read stuff by Shirey.  He's somebody who sounds like he's in the gem business and would be biased.  He would not be able to sell diamonds for much if they were young.  I think that was the only source or link you provided besides wikipedia, another biased website against creationists.



Wuwei said:


> You should expect critique that is unpleasant to you when you bring up creationism in the Science and Technology forum. The Religion and Ethics forum would be better for promoting that.
> 
> May the New Year be one of harmony and peace for you.



You are also ignorant about the Bible theory and what intelligent design's Discovery Institute says about evolutionary thinking and history.  It's no wonder as you are closed minded about the Bible as well as intelligent design.  You probably do not know what the difference is.  The only common ground DI and creation science has is we do not believe in the false science of evolution.

Again, you are an ignorant twit going off telling their teacher what to do.  It is terribly insulting haha.  Why don't you learn about some religion and ethics, too, in the R&E forum you ignorant, ignorant, ignorant... _ignoramus_.

Can I do anything more to help you to not be such an ignoramus?


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 28, 2019)

james bond said:


> Wuwei said:
> 
> 
> > Good heavens you are off the rails with personal insults. You have to understand that you are not aiming your verbal vitriol at just me, you are cursing at almost all of modern physics and physicists. I am only telling you what the physics is. I can't help it if physics disagrees with you and creationists. Some foreign physicists may be fascists or communists, but not me.
> ...



Wow, I guess I really pissed you off. I didn't know you had such a hot button. But really, well known physics should not upset you that much. You should expect to get pressed from a number of people when you bring creationism to a Science forum.

Nope, never heard of Arthur Holmes. I looked him up. His notable book is over 100 years ago. Historical geology is not my major strength. 

I don't use the Bible in trying to understand the nature of the universe.

It seems like you are goading me and trying to piss me off. For shame. Just turn the other cheek. 

.


----------

