afdave
Posts: 1621 Joined: April 2006
|
Eric... Quote | He (or, more accurately, the sources he C&Ps from) take a technique, apply it in a situation where it is known not to work (like using radiocarbon to date 250-million-year-old coal deposits), | Interesting, isn't it, Eric, why C14 dating "doesn't work" on coal or diamonds. There is no reason why it should not. There's plenty of measurable C14 there, 10X and 5X the AMS threshhold. Enough to get the AMS labs scratching their heads going "Where in the world did that come from? It shouldn't be there! Maybe our instruments are messed up! Maybe we have contamination! Ohmigod! What do we do! The Creos are going to jump all over this!"
Jonny-wonny... Quote | I already explicitly answered your question, Davie-poo. Go back and read my posts for comprehension. | No you didn't. You dodged it. You have not answered my question of 'On what basis do you reject C14 dating of coal and diamonds, but you accept it for dating wooden artifacts and cave paintings?' An answer of 'Well, everyone knows you can't date coal and diamonds with C14' won't do.
Quote | Thinkk "cross-checking" and what level of contamination is required to change the calcluated date of a sample of, say, 30K years age. Remember exponentials, Davie-wavey? | I think you are trying to say it doesn't take much. But I think you are mistaken. Takes quite a bit, there Johnny-wonny. Going from 50k to 20k is .24% to almost 9%. Here's the formula for you, Jonny-wonny. It's logarithms, not exponentials, Jonny-wonny. Remember logarithms? A = [ ln (pMC) / (-0.693) ] x 5730 Your MIT arrogance is blinding you and now you are confusing logarithms with exponentials.
Eric... Quote | But you're not dating anything that's less than 10,000 years old, Dave. You still haven't grasped the fundamental point here: radiometric dates correlate extremely well with figures derived from multiple other independent methods. Your phony radiometric dates don't correlate with anything else, other than your desire to have a young earth. Your "suspicions" are, quite simply, wrong. | Yes I am dating something less than 10,000 years old. And my C14 dates correlate extremely well with many other lines of evidence, 14 of them listed right here.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp We have yet to go over these in detail, but we will go over many of them.
Also, just consider the very few things I have shown you ...
* You have NO explanation for how civilization appeared so abruptly just 6000 years ago, 194,000 years after H. Sapiens was living on earth. I do.
* You have no believeable explanation for why there is so much Helium retained in zircons. I showed you the Fenton Hill zircons, and you said, 'Yeah, well that's not enough data.' OK. So I showed you the Gold Butte zircons. And you had no answer.
* There is a revival of the U/Th/4He geochronometer taking place as we speak. http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/dec102004/1519.pdf Of course they are not looking for a 6000 year old earth, but no doubt we will obtain much more data on high helium retentive zircons over the next few years. The RATE Group themselves will be doing other zircon tests as well.
* You have no explanation for why there is so much C14 in coal and diamonds. These should be C14 'dead' according to mainstream science. JonF's assertion of contamination is bogus because then you would have to throw out the whole method for wood artifacts, cave paintings, etc.
StephenWells... Quote | It's hilarious that he brings up this paper as if it supports him, when in fact the entire methodology of the paper completely trashes what Humphreys did with his zircons. | You're missing the point of bringing up the article as usual. The point is that there are probably MANY HRZ's out there. Of course, conventional geologists are not going to be testing them the same way Humphreys did because they are looking for different things.
Carlson... Quote | Well, as a horse owner, I understand quite well. There is one problem, dude. A breed is not the same thing as a species. The four year old AWS registered Percheron-Arab cross out in my pasture is Equus caballus. Just like her sire and just like her dam. Funny thing, the race-bred quarter horse, paint horse, and Section A Welsh out grazing with her are a pretty diverse looking lot, but are all Equus caballus too. | Yes. And the apes are a pretty diverse looking lot as well and anyone that knows anything about breeding should know that it doesn't take long to get a lot of very different looking apes.
My head just spins at some of the blindness on this thread!
-------------- A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com
|