james bond
Gold Member
- Oct 17, 2015
- 13,407
- 1,802
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.
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.
.
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.