Reply With Quote
And? You do realize that living conditions factor into how much a society expands, right? Of course not. You didn't think about anything before you copied and pasted that argument from creation.com.
If it's "bull " why haven't you debunked any of it?
So anyone who doesn't agree with you is full of "bull " your bias one sided views are starting to become very annoying I rather you just read since you bring nothing to the debate.
On a side note. Just because you think your daughter shouldn't have a child from a black man doesn't mean you are a Klu Klux Klan member stop trying to call me a "Creationist" just because I found some facts on one of their sites.
The mere fact that I had to get a few facts and images from a young Earth site is further proof how Bias the Science and biology texts books are.
And? You do realize that living conditions factor into how much a society expands, right? Of course not. You didn't think about anything before you copied and pasted that argument from creation.com.
Last edited by redzero; 10-26-2012 at 09:05 PM.
I already have, and so have other people in this thread. You just keep ignoring our posts, because you are dishonest.
You are probably the most biased person here, since you disagree with scientists all the time for practically no real reason other than to make yourself seem smart.So anyone who doesn't agree with you is full of "bull " your bias one sided views are starting to become very annoying I rather you just read since you bring nothing to the debate.
On a side note. Just because you think your daughter shouldn't have a child from a black man doesn't mean you are a Klu Klux Klan member stop trying to call me a "Creationist" just because I found some facts on one of their sites."some" facts. Almost ALL your arguments come from creationists.
Again,The mere fact that I had to get a few facts and images from a young Earth site is further proof how Bias the Science and biology texts books are.
Last edited by redzero; 10-26-2012 at 09:13 PM.
Just because I didn't want to answer your jar of marbles question? How much time you think I have doing debates?
You have poor reading skills I said Sunday night Monday afternoon I would address your questions.Thank you. Proven beyond any denying and/or reasonable doubt.
Thanks for the fun.
Anytime you need to learn something about the Earth you live in you know where to go.
Not for me arguing with low IQ bottom feeders is not interesting at all.It has been an interesting excercise
To bad you couldn't prove that,looking into just how and why all of this bull is wrong.
What do you care about being honest? You sound more like a bible thump'er than anyone in this topic.
Good maybe now you will go to another debate and add nothing there also.You are probably the most biased person here,
You have no proof of that I disagree with the "Science" text books . read more post less.since you disagree with scientists all the time
As opposed to what you do?for practically no real reason other than to make yourself seem smart.
Does the word broken record mean anything to you?
Since Random Lie Bailed on the debate and you have yet to add to the debate I will wait for someone who is old enough to buy beer and has at least an 11th grade education to respond to any further.
Again,
This happens all the time: You get destroyed in an argument, and instead of admitting that you were wrong, you dodge the other poster and decide all of a sudden that you are above having arguments with them.
Like clockwork.
say the re with 22,000 posts without considering his trolls and who has started a 35 pages thread
Prove it. Have you researched any of those books? I am willing to give you 100.00 cash for every book in that list list you can prove is "not" a text book if you give me 200.00 cash for every book in that list that "is" a text book, we have a deal?
It took me less than ten minutes to type up reasonable responses.
Pretty much convinced me you are trolling here, and that responding to your taunts is pointless.
I think it says something when even Phenomaul gives up.
Come back with real Evidence the Earth is "4 Billion" years old or at least try and debunk my evidence .
I really don't want to talk marbles.
Meh. You avoid the simple talk about jelly beans and jars because the exercise very directly blows your stupid out of the water.
Ok, so you would use weight. Take the weight of the jellybeans divided by the weight of one jelly bean, to get a number of jelly beans.
1) Would the number of jelly beans that you calculated from this experiment be 100% guaranteed to be correct? Why or why not?
2) Why is this method better than simply randomly guessing a number between one and a trillion? Randomly guessing would also get a number of jelly beans.
Again, my two questions here were rather basic, and go directly to the point you are attempting to make about scientists' claims. If you could answer them, we can get to a very important idea, that we can both probably agree on.
You didn't answer my very simple questions again. I will assume that you will not do so. Unable, or willing, I am not sure.
I will answer them for you, then.
1) No. Weighing the jelly beans will not get you a 100% guaranteed answer. There would still be a chance that your calculation was slightly off. Unless you counted them, you would never be perfectly sure about how many jelly beans were in the jar.
2) By gathering data, you can start eliminating possibilities, and get closer than randomly (HA) guessing. If your random guess was that there was 600,000,000 jelly beans in jar, and you know from your observations that 600,000,000 would weigh as much as small office building, you can rule out that guess, as well as obviously low numbers, such as 1 or 2.
Even though you aren't completely sure what the number is, you can make some statements about what the number is, and what the number is NOT.
The universe is NOT 10,000 years old. The earth is NOT 10,000 years old.
The data we have gathered allows us to eliminate these possibilities, just as surely as we know that there are not 10 jelly beans in the jar. The same principle applies to all things. Guesses, even ones we are not perfectly certain of, based on data and observed measurements are better than randomly pulling something out of a hat.
All the science book covers you could post in the world will not change this.
"few fossils"
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidenceThousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years.
Here of some of the well-tested methods of dating used in the study of early humans:
Potassium-argon dating, Argon-argon dating, Carbon-14 (or Radiocarbon), and Uranium series. All of these methods measure the amount of radioactive decay of chemical elements; the decay occurs in a consistent manner, like a clock, over long periods of time.
Thermo-luminescence, Optically stimulated luminescence, and Electron spin resonance. All of these methods measure the amount of electrons that get absorbed and trapped inside a rock or tooth over time.
Paleomagnetism. This method compares the direction of the magnetic particles in layers of sediment to the known worldwide shifts in Earth’s magnetic field, which have well-established dates using other dating methods.
Biochronology. Since animal species change over time, the fauna can be arranged from younger to older. At some sites, animal fossils can be dated precisely by one of these other methods. For sites that cannot be readily dated, the animal species found there can be compared to well-dated species from other sites. In this way, sites that do not have radioactive or other materials for dating can be given a reliable age estimate.
Molecular clock. This method compares the amount of genetic difference between living organisms and computes an age based on well-tested rates of genetic mutation over time. Since genetic material (like DNA) decays rapidly, the molecular clock method can’t date very old fossils. It’s mainly useful for figuring out how long ago living species or populations shared a common ancestor, based on their DNA.
Of course, that is just human fossils.
The earth was around for billions of years before our relatively hairless ape species came along.
http://paleobiology.si.edu/index.html
Just now woke up and can see someone in this forum actually did some research I must say I'm impressed.
A fare warning though as I get my morning beer, the photos of the fossils, bone castings and seeds etc.... will only help me prove the Earth is Not " 4 Billion" years old
And it will be "your Science" that will contradict your findings.
As for your cute charts they will be exposed as unproven theories and to use the Smithsonian which has been exposed for lying to the public is a huge mistake on your part.
Smithsonian Ins ute Coverup on Giant Race Pre-existing Modern Man
The Smithsonian Ins ution, easily the world's largest museum complex, began from the generous gift of James Smithson,
an English scientist, in 1829. Believed born a bas (especially in the eyes of his later detractors), Smithson was a
"diligent young student," receiving a Master of Arts from Pembroke College, Oxford, in 1786. He became a distinguished
scientist. Passing away in 1829, his fortun went to his nephew, James Henry Hungerford , stipulating that if this man
died without an heir, the remainder of the fortune would go to the government of The United States.
Hungerford died in 1835. Although there was some controversy in the interim, the finding of the Smithsonian, based upon
the more than a half million-dollar gift, took place officially in 1846. His legacy to the American people was, in his own
words, "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge." Since that time, the museum's collections have increased
considerably, with problems in the cataloging and location of stored finds developing due to changing standards of
administrations over the last 150 years. Analogous to the Vatican with its antique cache of confiscated, problematic
treasures, the booty of the Holy See may pale in comparison to the Smithsonian's boatload of diffuse evidence. Pity of it
is that Smithson's request has gone into a different mode of interpretation. Instead of diffusing knowledge, it has
unwittingly become confused with the problem of sprawling storage.
The Great Smithsonian Cover-up
Noted Native American author and professor of law emeritus, Vine Deloria, writes in a personal communication:
It's probably better that so few of the ruins and remains were tied in with the Smithsonian because they give good reason
to believe the ending of the Indiana Jones movie a great warehouse where the real secrets of earth history are buried.
Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the
North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual
demeanor. The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Ins ution, created a one-
way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited. This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed
off to any but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning
the deep past.
The first hint we had about the possible existence of an actual race of tall, strong, and intellectually sophisticated people,
was in researching old township and county records. Many of these were quoting from old diaries and letters that were
combined, for posterity, in the 1800s from diaries going back to the 1700s. Says Vine in this understanding:
Some of these old county and regional history books contain real gems because the people were not subjected to a rigid
indoctrination about evolution and were astonished about what they found and honestly reported it.
The le pages of the early county and pioneer history books often included phrases like "CAREFULLY WRITTEN
AND COMPILED" and "LEST WE FORGET."
Some time before archaeology came to subscribe the general public to its view of prehistory generations prior to
Darwin's troublesome theory the pioneers thought that some of the earthworks were as ancient as could be concurrent
with human habitation in America. Some among the early settlers exercised their pens assured that the earthworks were
not built by the direct ancestry of the native people living in the historical period, but rather were constructed in a more
remote era encompassing a different social order. They compared the "Mound Builders," with the "Indians," clearly
discerning the former as belonging to an earlier time possessing a different fate or destiny from the latter.
Evidence for the occupation of this region before the appearance of the red man and the white race is to be found in almost
every part of the county, as well as through the northwest generally. In removing the gravel bluffs, which are numerous
and deep, for the construction and repair of roads, and in excavating cellars, hundreds of human skeletons, some of them
of giant form, have been found. A citizen of Marion County estimates that there were about as many human skeletons in
the knolls of Marion County as there are white inhabitants at present!
The History of Marion County, Ohio
(complied from past accounts, published in 1883)
Mastodonic remains are occasionally unearthed, and, from time to time, discoveries of the remains of Indian settlements
are indicated by the appearance of gigantic skeletons, with the high cheek bones, powerful jaws and massive frames
peculiar of the red man, who left these as the only record with which to form a clew to the history of past ages.
The History of Brown County, Ohio
(complied from past accounts, published in 1883)
Group of Mounds in Brown County, Ohio.
She said also that three skeletons were found at the mouth of the Paw Paw Creek many years later, while Nim (Nimrod)
Satterfield was justice of the peace. Jim Dean and some men were digging for a bridge foundation and found these bones at
the lower end of the old buffalo wallow. She thought it was Dr. Kidwell, of Fairmont, who examined them and said they
were very old, perhaps thousands of years old. She said that when the skeletons were exposed to the weather for a few
days, their bones turned black and began to crumble, that Squire Satterfield had them buried in the Joliffe graveyard
(Rivesville). All these skeletons, she said, were measured, and found to be about eight feet long
Last edited by mouse; 10-30-2012 at 09:30 PM.
Of course, that is just human fossils.
The earth was around for billions of years before our relatively hairless ape species came along.
Fossils are great just show me where they are Billions of years old.
What are the flaws of the molecular clock model in determining relatedness between species?
It assumes that all changes in amino acid sequence are random and aren't affected by natural selection and this probably isn't true. Moreover, sequences of amino acids change at different rates in different organisms
The molecular clock alone can only say that one time period is twice as long as another: it cannot assign concrete dates. To achieve this, the molecular clock must first be calibrated against independent evidence about dates, such as the fossil record.[7] Alternatively, for viral phylogenetics and ancient DNA studies, two areas of evolutionary biology where it is impossible to sample sequences over an evolutionary timescale, the dates of the samples themselves can't be used to calibrate the molecular clock.
You could have a least bothered to erase the reference before you plagiarized the passage.
Potassium-Argon Radiodating Theory
(1) The radioisotope 40K cons utes 0.012% of all naturally occurring potassium. S.T. Butler & H. Messel, "A Modern Introduction to Physics" (vol. 3), Howitz Pub. Inc. P/L & Grahame Book Co P/L: Sydney, p:24 1962
(2) 40K has a half-life of 1.31 billion years.
(3) 40K (parent isotope) breaks down to 40Ar (daughter isotope) by gaining an electron.
The Experiment
Dr Steven A. Austin (PhD), Professor of Geology (Ins ute of Creation Research, San Diego, California) used the K-Ar method to date porphyritic dacite rock produced by the Mt St Helens eruption in 1986.
The Sample of Rock
(1) A 7 Kg sample of dacite was collected from the north-west slope of the lava dome formed from the 1986 flow.
(2) A 1 Kg block of rock was sawn from inside the sample. This sample had not been exposed to the argon in the air over the 10 years since it was formed.
(3) The chemical analysis of the sample showed that it was typical porphyritic dacite.
The Preparation of the Rock for Testing
(1) The test block was washed thoroughly to remove any outside contamination.
(2) The rock was crushed and milled using an iron mortar.
(3) Rock powder was sieved through thoroughly washed screens.
(4) The sieved material was washed to remove any contamination from the air.
(5) The resultant powder had a particle size of 0.180-0.075 mm.
(6) The powdered rock was filtered using heavy liquids to remove any contamination.
(7) Part of the powder was separated into four different mineral samples - feldspar-glass, heavy magnetic, heavy non-magnetic, and pyroxene.
(8) Each sample was scanned under the microscope to ensure that there were no foreign particles in them.
(9) The samples were stored in vials away from the air and dust.
The Potassium-argon Dating Test
(1) The 5 samples were analysed by the Geochron Laboratories, Cambridge, Massachusetts under the direction of Richard Reesman.
(2) The lab was not told where the rock came from, or that the age of the rock was known.
(3) Flame photometry was used to measure the amount of K (%).
(4) The amount of 40K (ppm) was calculated from the terrestrial isotopic abundance using the K concentration.
(5) The concentration of 40Ar ('radiogenic argon-40') was derived using a mass spectrometer.
(6) Two measurements for each element were taken and an average calculated from them.
(7) The ratio of 40Ar to the total Argon was measured using a mass spectrometer.
The Age Calculation
(1) The age was calculated using the 'general model-age equation'.
t=1/l ln [((Dt-Do)/Pt)+1]
t = the age of the rock
l = the decay constant for 40K (5.543x10-10/yr)
Dt = the number of 40Ar atoms in the rock when it was analysed
Do = the number of 40Ar atoms in the rock when it was formed
Pt = the number of 40K atoms in the rock when it was analysed (0.105)
(2) The equation becomes:- t=1/(5.543x10-10) ln [((1/0.105)(40Ar/40K))+1]
The Results
The ten year old rock was given the following estimated ages:-
Mineral Sample
40K
[ppm]
40Ar
[ppm]
Calculated Age
[million years]
Whole rock
1.102
0.0000225
0.35 ± 0.05
Feldspar-glass
1.250
0.0000250
0.34 ± 0.06
Heavy magnetic
0.693
0.0000370
0.90 ± 0.20
Heavy non-magnetic
0.555
0.0000540
1.70 ± 0.30
Pyroxene
0.533
0.0000870
2.80 ± 0.60
Analysis of the Dating Method
(1) It was an assumption that: Dt-Do = 40Ar
(2) "As a matter of practice, no radiogenic argon is supposed to have existed when the rock was formed." CEN Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3, p:340 1996
(3) Because the rock was ten years old, there was no time for 40Ar to form from 40K. Therefore any 40Ar measured was not radiogenic argon.
(4) "The argon analysis of the dacite lava dome show, surprisingly, a non-zero concentration of 'radiogenic argon' (40Ar) in all preparations from the dacite." CEN Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3, p:340 1996
(5) Different minerals were shown to contain varying amounts of argon gas.
(6) Verifying this:-"The solubility of Ar in the minerals [olivine] is surprisingly high." Broadhurst, et al, Geochimica et Cosmochimica, Vol. 54, p:299-309
The Conclusion of the Test
K-Ar Radiometric dating does not yield accurate ages under test conditions.
"The primary assumption upon which K-Ar model-age dating is based assumes zero 40Ar in the mineral phases of a rock when it solidifies. This assumption has been shown to be faulty." CEN Tech. J., Vol. 10, No. 3, p:342 1996
The truth
Potassium-argon testing is flawed.
THE PROBLEMS WITH
CARBON-14 DATING
The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”
The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support.
Mark Allen is too busy spying on teenage girls to come up with an original thought.
Only you know of such tricks.
I don't need to hide where I get info i leave that to you Mr Professor Google.
Still avoiding a live debate?
More flaws in carbon 14 dating.
Carbon-14 dating is the standard method used by scientists to determine the age of certain fossilized remains. As scientists will often claim something to be millions or billions of years old (ages that do not conform to the Biblical account of the age of the earth), Christians are often left wondering about the accuracy of the carbon-14 method. The truth is, carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as it’s also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.
Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMU’s), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMU’s. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.
Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or “breath in” carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.
There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.
First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.
The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.
Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their s s dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the s s died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those s s until just recently.
We’ve listed five faulty assumptions here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is – at best – reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results – human bias.
If you’ve ever been part of a medical study, you’re probably familiar with the terms “blind study” and “double-blind study”. In a blind study, using carbon-14 dating for example, a person would send in a few quality control samples along with the actual sample to the laboratory. The laboratory analyst should not know which sample is the one of interest. In this way, the analyst could not introduce bias into the dating of the actual sample. In a double-blind study (using an experimental drug study as an example), some patients will be given the experimental drug, while others will be given a placebo (a harmless sugar pill). Neither the patients nor the doctors while know who gets what. This provides an added layer of protection against bias.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.
Not exactly true. Past times have been calibrated, as the atmospheric 14C is know to change. It is still true that accuracy decreased with age, but corrections do exist for changing levels.
I agree with it being plausible that decay rates change, but the reason was not mentioned. I would suggest that natural variances do not alter decay rates. If I am wrong, I would love to read why.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
