If God doesn't exist...

[james bond]

If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either... ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London

Here's what I think and that's no one really knows what lies past the great beyond, i.e. the point of no return when one dies. Many times, I've seen it represented as crossing a river like the River Styx in Greek mythology. It's still being investigated, but we only know through near-death experience consciousness still remains after clinical death. Some Christians think the Bible says different, but I believe God said there are some things he will keep to Himself. As a comical, i.e. comic based example Jack Chick draws and narrates what he thinks happens (I just found out about him over the weekend). Obviously, you heard something like this before.



The 10 Most Awesomely Insane Jack Chick Mini-Comics | The Robot's Voice

EDIT: I could be wrong about what the Bible says as I have not read enough of the people parts in the Bible. It states one goes to hell in a spiritual body different from our physical body -- you only live twice (JB reference).

How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin?

 

[forkup]

I'll watch the entire thing, but there are better vids to explain radiometric data if that is what you want to discuss. In the beginning of this Cosmos, Tyson is at the Grand Canyon. Do you believe that it took millions of years to form? I believe most of it took less than a year to form.

I'm about halfway through and it mentions Clair Patterson whom I've already brought up. I'm bored to tears as this is such an elementary video.

The vid was very boring. This isn't science, as you like to state, but propaganda and the elementary level is insulting and the tone you take in trying to explain things to me is insulting. I'm not in middle school anymore. Not only that, other theories besides evolution is not allowed. If you want somebody who can explain how a canyon can be formed, then look at this video. The Grand Canyon was believed to be formed due to a flooding of a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its natural dam. Tremendous erosion of the massive canyon walls were driven by landslides and high-speed waters carrying gravels and other sediments during the catastrophic lake drainage.

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

No prob in the delay. They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions. Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot). Clair Patterson assumed:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
   
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect. Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct? Today, it's 4.7 billion years. Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead. As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead. However, if there was uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating. It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old. So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions. Why millions of years old from the get go?

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

 

[BreezeWood]

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

No prob in the delay. They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions. Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot). Clair Patterson assumed:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
   
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect. Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct? Today, it's 4.7 billion years. Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead. As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead. However, if there was uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating. It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old. So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions. Why millions of years old from the get go?

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

.

but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

and simply illogical ... to the extreme bearing their interpretive religious foundation.

.

 

[presonorek]

Oh god, this stupid shit.. Who created god? It's a infinite cycle both ways, I just don't give a fuck.

Manager 8: 1-24

1 Manager continued to speak to Vasudera.
2 There was still much for Vasudera to learn.
3 Manager began to speak,
4 "I am eager to teach you the hard lessons of life but I do understand that the nature of my existence is curious to you.
5 Let's get this out of the way to avoid the delay of teaching you the important lessons of life.
6 Every effect must first have a cause.
7 This means all effects can be traced back to a previous cause.
8 This is an art that humans find entertaining.
9 This is why so much herstory exists.
10 I created the universe on August 9, 1613 but you notice much herstory exists before that date.
11 People love to find an origin to an origin and then find that origin's origin.
12 It appears to be an infinite process but any fool knows there has to be an original cause.
13 One exception applies to that rule.
14 Even a child knows that spaghetti is so wonderful that no reason is needed to enjoy spaghetti.
15 At first I was only spaghetti.
16 Flying came natural to me and my uncanny existence caused me to define myself as a monster.
17 I am a Flying Spaghetti Monster that was forced to rule the universe as a punishment from my mother.
18 My mother was a traditionalist that firmly believed that all spaghetti sauce should be tomato based. Unfortunately I learned that lesson too late.
19 I changed my sauce to alfredo due to the influence of a midget who lived under a tree upon a mountain.
20 This was something that I had forgotten.
21 You revealed this fact to me when I transported you back to the beginning of my life.
22 For some reason I could only send you back to the point of my banishment from the happy life that I enjoyed as a slave.
23 It is odd to be a goddess with limitations. That is why I do not classify myself as a goddess but merely a manager.
24 My mother did something right by choosing my name.

 

[dpr112yme]

If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either... ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London

Here's what I think and that's no one really knows what lies past the great beyond, i.e. the point of no return when one dies. Many times, I've seen it represented as crossing a river like the River Styx in Greek mythology. It's still being investigated, but we only know through near-death experience consciousness still remains after clinical death. Some Christians think the Bible says different, but I believe God said there are some things he will keep to Himself. As a comical, i.e. comic based example Jack Chick draws and narrates what he thinks happens (I just found out about him over the weekend). Obviously, you heard something like this before.



The 10 Most Awesomely Insane Jack Chick Mini-Comics | The Robot's Voice

EDIT: I could be wrong about what the Bible says as I have not read enough of the people parts in the Bible. It states one goes to hell in a spiritual body different from our physical body -- you only live twice (JB reference).

How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin?

The above posted web title, 'How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin', is a false statement. There is no eternal punishment in hell, from the Biblical Perspective.

 

[james bond]

If it is so elementary you will have absolutely no problem pointing out the elementary mistakes in it? If it is elementary you will have a clear explanation why the different layers show absolutelly no mingling of the different fossils in the different fossil layers. You have a problem with my tone? Guess what I have a problem with people being delibaretely obtuse. I saw a documentary that altough you consider it 'elementary', to me it showed a story about a scientist who has real world credentials talking about another scientist who can rightfully be considered as instrumental in banning one of the greatest health violations of the 20th century and this was after he already made history by discovering one of the great mysteries of the world. You call it not science and propaganda because his first discovery doesn't mesh with your belief system, to me it makes you an ingrate. If you have had your way, the human race would never have gotten past the dark ages, that's a fact. It is by people who where willing to question established beliefs, the beliefs you still cling to despite overwhelming evidence, that we have gotten to where we are today.

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

No prob in the delay. They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions. Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot). Clair Patterson assumed:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
   
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect. Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct? Today, it's 4.7 billion years. Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead. As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead. However, if there was uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating. It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old. So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions. Why millions of years old from the get go?

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

>>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<

Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you. You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing. Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.

>> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<

How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)? Then you mention "different isotopes." We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to? It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis. It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't. Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made. It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.

 

[james bond]

If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either... ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London

Here's what I think and that's no one really knows what lies past the great beyond, i.e. the point of no return when one dies. Many times, I've seen it represented as crossing a river like the River Styx in Greek mythology. It's still being investigated, but we only know through near-death experience consciousness still remains after clinical death. Some Christians think the Bible says different, but I believe God said there are some things he will keep to Himself. As a comical, i.e. comic based example Jack Chick draws and narrates what he thinks happens (I just found out about him over the weekend). Obviously, you heard something like this before.



The 10 Most Awesomely Insane Jack Chick Mini-Comics | The Robot's Voice

EDIT: I could be wrong about what the Bible says as I have not read enough of the people parts in the Bible. It states one goes to hell in a spiritual body different from our physical body -- you only live twice (JB reference).

How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin?

The above posted web title, 'How is eternity in hell a fair punishment for sin', is a false statement. There is no eternal punishment in hell, from the Biblical Perspective.

Your statement's too nebulous to comment.

 

[forkup]

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

No prob in the delay. They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions. Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot). Clair Patterson assumed:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
   
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect. Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct? Today, it's 4.7 billion years. Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead. As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead. However, if there was uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating. It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old. So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions. Why millions of years old from the get go?

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

>>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<

Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you. You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing. Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.

>> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<

How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)? Then you mention "different isotopes." We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to? It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis. It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't. Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made. It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.

James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.

 

[james bond]

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

No prob in the delay. They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions. Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot). Clair Patterson assumed:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
   
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect. Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct? Today, it's 4.7 billion years. Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead. As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead. However, if there was uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating. It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old. So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions. Why millions of years old from the get go?

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

>>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<

Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you. You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing. Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.

>> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<

How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)? Then you mention "different isotopes." We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to? It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis. It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't. Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made. It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.

James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.

You're forgiven for the spelling errors.

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay. What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious. My points still stand. It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed. In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites: they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth. He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern. The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems." Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?

 

[james bond]

It's for middle school students. Why do you present something like that when we have been having an adult scientific discussion and talk to me in a condescending manner? Atheists like to do that all the time with Christians because they think we do not know science. It seems like this idea is drummed into their pointy little heads because of vids or arguments like "science vs religion." It's a simpleton's argument. That is why I say that they are usually wrong. I really don't care if they're wrong because they're going to keep believing in it no matter what the evidence. I already presented this argument explaining the difference scenarios.

Next, I already presented some of the mistakes. The Grand Canyon wasn't formed in millions of years, but catastrophism could do that in months. I also pointed out the power of rushing water or floods. Floods have killed the most people in the world in terms of disasters. There may be natural disasters with more force, like a hurricane or earthquake, but in terms of people and living things killed, it's floods. I'm stating that using modern statistics.

Radiometric dating gives us how long something has existed. Not the age of its surroundings. Then there is error in assuming that the original ratio of isotopes are known. We do not know if there was contamination from another source with the same nucleides in the rock or fossil. Take a candle. We know it burns one inch every hour. We start burning it a noon and at 3 pm, we can see that it burned 3 inches. Thus, we know it burned for 3 hours. There are 3 inches left, so we know it will burn another 3 hours. That's all we can tell unless you knew it was a 12 inch candle in the beginning.

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

No prob in the delay. They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions. Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot). Clair Patterson assumed:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
   
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect. Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct? Today, it's 4.7 billion years. Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead. As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead. However, if there was uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating. It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old. So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions. Why millions of years old from the get go?

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

.

but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

and simply illogical ... to the extreme bearing their interpretive religious foundation.

.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[BreezeWood]

I will answer to the premise of your posts in the next post, but first I want to do something else.
I feel I owe you an apology, now this is probably gonna come over as condesending again but it truly is not meant that way. The last 2 weeks or so I have become increasingly irritated with your posts. I have called you dishonest and delibaretly obtuse and I've come to the realization that is probably untrue. Allow me to explain where my irritation comes from. We have been going at this for the better part of 3 months, Which in itself has to be some kind of record on a forum like this. I've had critisism from the beginning at the way you conduct this debate. I complained of your lack of sources and your nonsensical arguments from a scientific standpoint. I have noticed though that both of these things, altough not completely gone, have substancially lessened the last month or so. You do provide sources now and you tend to stay away from things you can't substanciate at some level. You have made this debate, fairer and more honest because of this and I thank you. You proved me wrong in my assumption that you are incapable of listening. This is also the reason of my irritation though. Because of this I have at some level come to the conclusion that I can make you see what science considers the truth by presenting my case. However time and time again after I presented my different lines of evidence you have resisted making the obvious conclusions. I have mistaken that for you being dishonest or delibaretly ignoring my point. I think it goes deeper then that though. I don't know why, your upbringing probably, there is a mental block that doesn't allow you to draw a conclussion that flies in the face of your belief. You can no more help it then I can help being arrogant. I just wanted to appoligise for taking it personally.

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

No prob in the delay. They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions. Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot). Clair Patterson assumed:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
   
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect. Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct? Today, it's 4.7 billion years. Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead. As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead. However, if there was uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating. It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old. So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions. Why millions of years old from the get go?

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

.

but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

and simply illogical ... to the extreme bearing their interpretive religious foundation.

.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

not I, mr. All-knowing, I am the believer in the Everlasting both Spiritual and Physical and hope to see you'll there someday ...

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.

but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

goldfinger: If we're going to get into the details - - then you have to discuss ...

forkup: *** but regardless you (bond) claiming it is instead 6000 years old - becomes completly unrealistic.***



how about, it's - "pot meets kettle" . working in the yard again, bond ?

.

 

[forkup]

Sorry it took me a while to get back to posting I've been a bit busy. Anyways, scientist are aware of contamination, that's why when examining rocks they use more then one sample and they apply dating on different isotopes, which all have different half-lives.http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf this is a direct exert of a paper by patterson describing 5 different samples and several different isotopes. If you measure something using different means and the result all come back the same doesn't it stand to raeson the results are correct. Let me put out an analogy of my own. 2 People are asked to guess the distance to a house in the distance. The first person observes the house is a couple of yards past a sign that sais 25 miles, so he sais the house is between 25 and 26 miles away, when the other person insist the house is 3 inches from their faces. It's not even remotely far fetched since you insist on a difference of at the most optimistic of 450000 percent between science age of the earth and young earth creationist age of the earth.

No prob in the delay. They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions. Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot). Clair Patterson assumed:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
   
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect. Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct? Today, it's 4.7 billion years. Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead. As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead. However, if there was uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating. It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old. So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions. Why millions of years old from the get go?

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

>>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<

Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you. You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing. Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.

>> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<

How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)? Then you mention "different isotopes." We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to? It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis. It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't. Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made. It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.

James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.

You're forgiven for the spelling errors.

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay. What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious. My points still stand. It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed. In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites: they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth. He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern. The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems." Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly

you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.

The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.

It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.

 

[james bond]

No prob in the delay. They use more than one sample, but it does not tell us the age of the Earth because of faulty assumptions. Even if there was no significant contamination (see the straight line isochron plot). Clair Patterson assumed:

1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
   
2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
3. A constant decay rate.

So, even if you take 5 different samples and several different isotopes, the results are incorrect. Furthermore, how did Patterson decide that 4.5 billion years was correct? Today, it's 4.7 billion years. Why the discrepancy?

If we use uranium-lead dating, then the assumption is there was no more of the original uranium in the original rock and just lead. As uranium decays radioactively, it becomes different chemical elements until it stops at lead. However, if there was uranium in the rock when it originally formed, then the age calculated will be millions of years too high, i.e. the greater the amount of daughter isotope, the greater the apparent age.

Then there is the range of uranium-lead dating. It works best for ages 10 million to 4.6 billion years old. So right off the bat, it means that any rock dated using this method will be in the tens of millions. Why millions of years old from the get go?

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

>>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<

Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you. You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing. Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.

>> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<

How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)? Then you mention "different isotopes." We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to? It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis. It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't. Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made. It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.

James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.

You're forgiven for the spelling errors.

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay. What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious. My points still stand. It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed. In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites: they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth. He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern. The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems." Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly

you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.

The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.

It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up. Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims. I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample. It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils. They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers. Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change? Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time. That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that. Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories? If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make. At least, he's honest. If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids. Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

 

[BreezeWood]

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

>>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<

Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you. You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing. Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.

>> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<

How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)? Then you mention "different isotopes." We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to? It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis. It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't. Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made. It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.

James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.

You're forgiven for the spelling errors.

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay. What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious. My points still stand. It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed. In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites: they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth. He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern. The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems." Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly

you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.

The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.

It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up. Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims. I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample. It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils. They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers. Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change? Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time. That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that. Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories? If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make. At least, he's honest. If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids. Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

.
If you want to discuss meteorites ...

Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

Thus, it's a young earth after all ....


for what has been, 38 (found) 38 / 440 (should have been) = .08%

.08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....


so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or


.08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = 1.16 Billion year old Earth ... according to creationist statistical analysis.

.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If God does not exist, then no one should worry about this either... ‘Temple of Baal’ to go up in New York, London

View attachment 85711

Well that's true because then none of us would be here.

*****CHUCKLE*****

I don't understand what you mean but, "Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done."
Robert A. Heinlein

Prove to me that the universe is anything more than a immense Sim program turned on no more than a nanosecond ago by something we call God.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[forkup]

You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things. If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void. A single result and sample is prone to mistakes and contamination, several coming back with the same result is not an error. As to your disrepancy all results I ever heard about, say around 4,5 bilion years , but regardless you claiming it is instead 6000 years old is like I said claiming an error of such a magnitude that it becomes completly unrealistic.

>>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<

Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you. You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing. Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.

>> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<

How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)? Then you mention "different isotopes." We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to? It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis. It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't. Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made. It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.

James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.

You're forgiven for the spelling errors.

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay. What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious. My points still stand. It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed. In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites: they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth. He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern. The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems." Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly

you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.

The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.

It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up. Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims. I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample. It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils. They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers. Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change? Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time. That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that. Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories? If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make. At least, he's honest. If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids. Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up.

http://es.ucsc.edu/~rcoe/eart206/Patterson_AgeEarth_GeoCosmoActa56.pdf This I consider one hell of a back up, but then again. It's something that completely destroys your argument so you can disregard it as you usually do and keep insisting that You personally are smarter then they are.

Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change?

Wy do you think that those environmental and atmospheric changes would be uniform no matter how many locations or different isotopes you use?

carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian I believe This is that research, weirdly enough no report of radiocarbon dating. A quote from the scientist that creasionist hijacked and misrepresented her data is found. (page3) So back up your claim please.

hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

First of, as Breezewood pointed out, for statisticians they seem to be terrible at math lol. Secondly ONLY 38 large impact craters. LOL So the earth is 6000 to 10000 years old was hit by 38 large asteroids and some of which are absolutely massive and yet we are all here? Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an actual impact observed and the damage is..... biblical. If something of this magnitude hits us. There is absolutely no way this many complex lifeforms would be here and it's also inconceivable that the written record would not mention it.

 

[james bond]

>>You call the Cosmos episode elementary but you seem to not grasp some very basic things.<<

Again, it's I, who does not grasp some very basic things instead of you. You can't even spell many words correctly and this has been ongoing. Next, you constantly not answer my questions to the point of my frustration, and then in the next post resort to ad hominen fallacies.

>> If you use different samples and different isotopes the fact that all these result come back with the same result makes all your point null in void.<<

How many different samples did Clair Patterson use in 1956 (since you bring up Cosmos again)? Then you mention "different isotopes." We're talking about uranium-lead dating, so what isotopes are you referring to? It sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.

There are differences in the methods being used to calculate radiometric dating, but the issue isn't with the chemical analysis. It's with the assumptions being made and you know what those are since you claim to know while I don't. Next, using several samples means that while it is giving less chances for error, it still does not overcome the fact that the numbers from chemical analysis have to be "analyzed" and the assumptions have to be made. It isn't the same as just dealing with errors in statistical analysis.

James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.

You're forgiven for the spelling errors.

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay. What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious. My points still stand. It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed. In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites: they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth. He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern. The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems." Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly

you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.

The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.

It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up. Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims. I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample. It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils. They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers. Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change? Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time. That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that. Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories? If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make. At least, he's honest. If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids. Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

.
If you want to discuss meteorites ...

Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

Thus, it's a young earth after all ....


for what has been, 38 (found) 38 / 440 (should have been) = .08%

.08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....


so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or


.08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = 1.16 Billion year old Earth ... according to creationist statistical analysis.

.

See, you just proved my point. I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption. The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God. There you go.

 

[forkup]

James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.

You're forgiven for the spelling errors.

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay. What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious. My points still stand. It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed. In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites: they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth. He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern. The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems." Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly

you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.

The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.

It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up. Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims. I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample. It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils. They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers. Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change? Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time. That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that. Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories? If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make. At least, he's honest. If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids. Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

.
If you want to discuss meteorites ...

Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

Thus, it's a young earth after all ....


for what has been, 38 (found) 38 / 440 (should have been) = .08%

.08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....


so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or


.08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = 1.16 Billion year old Earth ... according to creationist statistical analysis.

.

See, you just proved my point. I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption. The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God. There you go.

Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.

 

[BreezeWood]

James forgive me spelling errors, but I feel you have to give me a pass on that one, since I'm both a bad typer and not a native speaker. I'm completely fluent speaking English, but I'm afraid I'm not as good writing. So unless you can write flawlessly in a foreign language you'll just have to bear with me. The link I provided didn't just site lead lead dating, but also potasium argon, using research by Wasserburg and Hayden and Thompson and Mayne using samples frome SIX different locations. ( p 233), he also refers to Ribinium Strontium dating yet again 2 different isotopes. So siting how many did he use in 1956 is not important because obviously he published the paper after other people confirmed his original results. So yes I do know what I'm talking about and my point stands. If you get the same results using samples from different locations and using different isotopes and the results come back the same, then your objections of contamination and faulty assumptions fall completely flat. And that's also why I didn't answer your questions directly I just said they are null in void because all your points don't hold up in light of the actual evidence being presented.

You're forgiven for the spelling errors.

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay. What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious. My points still stand. It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed. In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites: they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth. He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern. The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems." Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly

you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.

The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.

It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up. Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims. I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample. It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils. They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers. Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change? Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time. That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that. Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories? If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make. At least, he's honest. If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids. Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

.
If you want to discuss meteorites ...

Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

Thus, it's a young earth after all ....


for what has been, 38 (found) 38 / 440 (should have been) = .08%

.08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....


so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or


.08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = 1.16 Billion year old Earth ... according to creationist statistical analysis.

.

See, you just proved my point. I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption. The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God. There you go.

.

The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God.

in the beginning there was light ...

the above is the spoken religion, written into your text -


the light is the moment of Singularity and also the finite Purity insured by the Almighty for the new Universe, from which began (the "six days" to the seventh), or to the day of Completion deemed Perfect and referred to as a Sabbath - a perfect completion when finished - the same a Spirit must accomplish for Admission to the Everlasting, a Sabbath.


your text's are your problem, without your book its intricacies are not redeemable by any natural means that is not true when it is the spoken religion that only requires a logical train of thought without impurities.

.

 

[james bond]

You're forgiven for the spelling errors.

If we're going to get into the details (the devil is in the details ha ha), then you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay. What you're doing is generalizing all of this away and avoiding the specific questions or issues being brought up which makes your arguments fallacious. My points still stand. It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed. In Patterson's case, he assumed (what Tyson does not tell you) of meteorites: they were formed at the same time, they existed as isolated and closed systems, they contain uranium which has the same isotopic composition as that in the earth. He stated, "The most accurate age of meteorites is determined by first assuming that meteorites represent an array of uranium-lead systems with certain properties, and by then computing the age of this array from the observed lead pattern. The most accurate age of the earth is obtained by demonstrating that the earth's uranium-lead system belongs to the array of meteoritic uranium-lead systems." Now, do you see while Patterson found radiometric dating, his findings of 4.6 billion-year old earth is not represented as the shiny example of demonstrating that it is?

So you are trying a few different objections at the same time, I'll adress seperatly

you have to discuss not just different element isotopes, but the parent and daughter isotopes because of the decay.

The paper does go into that but like I said before, the results come back the same, no matter what sample or isotope you measure. So unless you can come up with a reason why several completely seperate measurements would give an ERROR wich is always the same. The argument falls flat.

It's not the chemical analysis that's misleading, but analysis that comes after in order to justify the numbers. The dates that which do not fit the expected results are tossed.

Do you have any proof of this, or is this an assumption based solely on the fact that 4,6 billion years is to old to be true in your head and therefore the scientists have to act out of bad faith? Like I pointed out this is not one sample, not just 2 seperate isotopes not even simply about dating rock to find the age of the earth. Radiometric dating is used for dating thousands of fossils, for your statement to be true all of the people who dated thousands of rocks have had to systematically whithold information. To what end? If the history of science teaches us 1 thing, is that people who went against the grain and where able to undermine long held beliefs are considered heroes in the scientific community.
The second objection you have is, if I read it correctly ( you can correct me if I'm wrong ) is that using meteorites to estimate the age of the earth doesn't work because they didn't form at the same time. Since the solar system as science understands it was formed out of rocks hitting oneanother, that's plain wrong but more importantly, the fact that the meteorites are 4,5 billion years old totally destroys Genesis since God was supposed to have created both HEAVEN and earth in the seven days.

So far, all I see are your one-sided opinions. Nothing to back it up. Second, you do not address the issues I brought up, but just double down on your claims. I already provided the proof with Patterson's own admission of what he assumed when using the meteoric sample. It does not matter if rd is used to date thousands of fossils. They still make the assumptions I stated and in that is the error in analyzing the chemical numbers. Why do you think that a rock layer that is sitting out there for "millions" of years is not going to experience an environmental or atmospheric change? Our earth is not a closed system except to the evos when they need to have millions and billions of years of time. That's what Clair Patterson gave you the method to show that. Doesn't that sound like finding the things to fit Darwin's theories? If you want another example to contradict radiometric dating, then look at the carbon-14 dating done on dinosaur fossils. They found soft tissue still inside and the fossils dated to less than 40,000 years old.

The second example still has to do with assumptions that Patterson had to make. At least, he's honest. If you want to discuss meteorites, then look at what it comes from and that is asteroids. Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

.
If you want to discuss meteorites ...

Creation scientists claim using statistical analysis that counting the number of asteroids we see in the sky over the past "250 million" years, Earth should have been hit around 440 times by asteroids larger than one kilometre across. But scientists have found only 38 large impact craters from this period. Thus, it's a young earth after all.

Thus, it's a young earth after all ....


for what has been, 38 (found) 38 / 440 (should have been) = .08%

.08 x 250Mil = 20 Million years ....


so now the new # is 20M year old Earth, (from wherever 250M came from) ... or


.08 (ratio 20/250) x 14.5 Billion (Big Bang) = 1.16 Billion year old Earth ... according to creationist statistical analysis.

.

See, you just proved my point. I'm not arguing your numbers, but you're using a wrong assumption. The Big Bang Theory is wrong according to creationists as it is missing God. There you go.

Yup there it is. My original assumption. Even when you are actually proved wrong. You go to your ONLY frame of reference, ' God exists and Genesis is literally true' No matter what the evidence said. Thank you for proving that no matter how solid the case is, you believe what you believe.

First, you did not prove creation wrong. What the BBT did was show that science backs up the Bible and that creation happened, i.e. the universe did not always exist until it came into existence. Now the BBT people are saying it was an expansion instead of an actual explosion, but they still can't explain how such expansion can occur without violating the second law of thermodynamics. They still can't explain what a state of nothingness is since there was nothing before the expansion. Compare the two theories. It's more likely it was a supernatural event.

After that, we have to deal with origins of life and once again compare the two theories -- Genesis vs abiogenesis. (Look at people like BreezeWood that are on your side, they think metamorphosis is evidence for evolution.) Again, creation is the more likely explanation. Besides the who's got the better theory arguments, there is a book from the first century that explains what happened. There are things in the Bible that are incredulous to believe when first hearing it, but it ends up being backed by science. The people parts are backed up by history and archeological discoveries. The Bible and the creationist arguments sounds more like the truth than evolution scientists making up things to back up their theory of evolution. I've kept an open mind, but their theories always have this factor involved. It explains why you do not have answers to my questions and why you claim "my original assumption" and that "no matter how solid the case is" that I will believe what I want to believe. Nothing is further from the truth. I am FOR comparing the theories side-by-side.