Jump to content


Photo

Missing Transitional Intermediates


  • Please log in to reply
263 replies to this topic

#261 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 September 2017 - 02:10 AM

I think until Wibble explains properly guys, my explanation seems reasonable to me. The 9,000 figure didn't have an infinity symbol, it ranged "to" 53,000. I assume Wibble knows what the word, "to" means.

 

Example;

 

I went from my house to Wibble's house. 

 

 

 

Blitzking: Yes, but due to Wibble's deep emotional need for the date to be from 100 Million years to Infinity and beyond

 

Well, that too of course. :D

 

 

 

Buz Lightyear: to Infinity and beyond

 

;)



#262 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 797 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 22 September 2017 - 10:57 AM

"Many of the dates come from YEC Hugh Ross getting dinosaur bone fragments carbon dated that he acquired from a museum collection"
Sorry Hugh Ross is NOT A "YEC".. I dont know where you get your imformation from but you need to stop it as you are being lied to..
Hugh Ross is a deluded oval earther... NEXT!

I refer you to post #211.
 
 

"If we’re right about the soft tissue, why does radiometric dating produce apparently consistent wrong answer?"
Because, without a TIME MACHINE Radiometric dating methods simply CANNOT BE Calibrated Properly.. But we CAN scientifically test for Biodegradation rates under a MYRIAD of controlled and uncontrolled variables, and guess what "Evolution" comes up with the ball landing on Zero or Double Zero EVERY TIME.. Why dont we EVER see a C14 test on Dinosaur remains that contains no MEASURABLE Carbon 14 Content? JUST ONE and game over, And Genesis would be proven false! Unfortunately, "Evolution" comes up rolling snake eyes over and over and over again.. Why not just admit the obvious, Dinosaurs arent any older then Man is.. All the big ones just died out in the flood because in the pre flood world, reptiles (Who NEVER STOP GROWING BTW) lived long ages and got to enormous sizes.. They werent called Dinosaurs though, they were called Dragons and Behemoths and leviathans and Monsters..
Forget silly myths about Ice Age / Asteroid / Parasites / Causing the sudden extinction of the Massive Reptiles.. They all simply DROWNED..

Despite your assertions to the contrary Blitzking, radiometric dating works very well. If there was something wrong with it, then independent methods would not corroborate each other.
For example, in relation to the K-T boundary asteroid impact that you think is a "silly myth". Snipped from here" The K-T boundary is recorded in numerous sedimentary beds around the world. The Z-coal, the Ferris coal, and the Nevis coal in Montana and Saskatchewan all occur immediately above the K-T boundary. Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within these coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary, and some of these ash beds contain minerals that can be dated radiometrically. Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada. Since both the ash beds and the tektites occur either at or very near the K-T boundary, as determined by diagnostic fossils, the tektites and the ash beds should be very nearly the same age, and they are (Table 2). (W - they all fit very tightly around the 65 mya mark)There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible. "
We have shown experimentally under extreme temperatures and pressures that radioisotope decay rates (for those used in dating) do not vary. As for collagen decay, we have models for how long it should last but finding it in dino bone indicates those models are wrong, at least under certain circumstances. You may not like that reasoning but at the end of the day, if all fossils were only 4500 years old then there should be no problem finding loads of good quality collagen and DNA in all over the place. We've managed to extract enough DNA to sequence Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes which are conventionally dated to tens of thousands of years and yet we don't in the really old stuff, certainly not DNA sequences. Why should that be ?
As for C14 in dino bones, I know this is talking to a brick wall with you, but it's just contamination, it only takes the tiniest amount of modern carbon to make a carbon dead sample appear to be in the range of those dates in that article you love linking too. It's interesting that you seem to indicate that Genesis is falsifiable if a zero C14 sample is produced. I'll ask you again, about the fourth time I think, why is that we do indeed get Pleistocene bones that do return no measureable C14 ? Are you going to ignore this again ?


"I'll ask you again, about the fourth time I think, why is that we do indeed get Pleistocene bones that do return no measureable C14 ? Are you going to ignore this again ?"

And I will answer you again..

WE DONT get any Pleistocene bones that show zero carbon 14. You were mistaken (As Mike pointed out)

#263 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 715 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 23 September 2017 - 03:27 PM

 

Then why do they give dates in the thousands at all? What is the relevance of the dates given?

it's my guess that the "greater than" symbol means exactly that.
example >53,000 years:
the above means the date is greater than 53,000 years, the sample can range from 53,000 years to infinite

 

 
Yep that's right.
 
http://www.c14dating...adiocarbon ages

"If the sample approaches D14C = -1000 per mille within 2 standard deviations, it is considered to be indistinguishable from the laboratory background, ie, not able to be separated with confidence from the laboratory countrates which result from a sample which contains no radionuclide. In this instance, a minimum age is calculated. An example of a minimum age is >55, 000 yr or >50,000 yr (Gupta and Polach, 1985).... Samples whose age falls between modern and background and are given finite ages."

 

It seems to me they are saying between 9,670 plus or minus 60 years, "to" 53,170 years.
 
If I accept your code it would translate thus; "9,670 plus or minus to infinity/greater than 53,170"
 
The word "to" would make no sense, what is the significance of putting, "to". It seems like the estimate is meant to be 9,670 years to 53,170 years.


Here's the part you are referring to again.

“In Eurasia three hundred and sixty RC dates are tabulated from many sources based upon C-14 dating of bones [~130], tusks & molars [~190] and soft tissue [~40] by Yurij Vasil'chuk et al.9 On the Eurasian continent the dates ranged from 9,670 ± 60 to >53,170 RC years BP.

You somehow seem to think they are talking about a single sample. Clearly they are referring to many samples (360) from different published sources yielding a range of dates, with the oldest minimum date at >53,170 RC years BP (an infinite date)
 



#264 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 715 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 23 September 2017 - 03:49 PM

"I'll ask you again, about the fourth time I think, why is that we do indeed get Pleistocene bones that do return no measureable C14 ? Are you going to ignore this again ?"

And I will answer you again..

WE DONT get any Pleistocene bones that show zero carbon 14. You were mistaken (As Mike pointed out)


We get bones with no measureable C14. I am not mistaken, and Mike did not understand (see previous post). And don't pretend you've previously answered it.
 

Why dont we EVER see a C14 test on Dinosaur remains that contains no MEASURABLE Carbon 14 Content? JUST ONE and game over, And Genesis would be proven false!


The Pleistocene material is not dinosaur bones but that doesn't matter. They had no measureable C14 so by your own criterion, Genesis has been proven false. I look forward to your announcement that you are now an evolutionist ;)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users