Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…241242244246247…328

Comments

  • #7292
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    gg shots all


  • #7293
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Mr. Boo wrote: »
    Right. So it's (c) then. You're trolling.

    I think that wraps it up nicely.
    Where have I trolled?

    ... I was making an in-depth scientific assessment of the anti-ID paper before this diversion (by you guys) occurred.


  • #7294
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    J C wrote: »
    Where have I trolled?

    ... I was making an in-depth scientific assessment of the anti-ID paper before this diversion (by you guys) occurred.

    It was neither in-depth nor scientific, and no-one is under the illusion that you think it was. At best, it was your opinion, and nothing more.


  • #7295
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    ID research is 'cutting edge' ... and it doesn't appear to have been replicated by 'M2M' Evolutionist scientists ...

    LOL, yeah sure it is. Like when 'ID scientists' erroneously dated diamonds and coal to be less than 60,000 years old. Some real cutting edge stuff there ;)


  • #7296
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    LOL, yeah sure it is. Like when 'ID scientists' erroneously dated diamonds and coal to be less than 60,000 years old. Some real cutting edge stuff there ;)
    LOL, you mean the non-ID, non-Creation Science W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California where natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with Evolutionist 'ages' in excess of 100 Ma yielded 14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.:eek::D:)
    Reference Taylor RE, Southon J (2007). "Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259: 282–28. Bibcode 2007NIMPB.259..282T. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.239.

    When you're in a hole ... the first rule is to stop digging!!!:)


  • Advertisement
  • #7297
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    It was neither in-depth nor scientific, and no-one is under the illusion that you think it was. At best, it was your opinion, and nothing more.
    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    You can't just decide you may or may not use reference when you're critiscising a scientific paper like this. You just can't. It just isn't how it works. At all. No. Just...no. Can I be more clear?
    I feel your pain ... and I can assure you that Jesus loves you and wants to Save and prosper you.


  • #7298
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    You mean the non-ID, non-Creation Science W. M. Keck Carbon Cycle Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory of the University of California where natural diamond samples from different sources within rock formations with Evolutionist 'ages' in excess of 100 Ma yielded 14C apparent ages 64,920 ± 430 BP to 80,000 ± 1100 BP as reported in 2007.:eek::D:)
    Reference Taylor RE, Southon J (2007). "Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds". Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259: 282–28. Bibcode 2007NIMPB.259..282T. doi:10.1016/j.nimb.2007.01.239.

    When you are in a hole ... the first rule is to stop digging!!!:)

    No, it didn't. You cannot carbon-date diamonds and coal. I've already explained this to you. I also explained how subterranean decays of uranium-thorium isotope series can produce quantities of carbon-14, which is reflected on local coal or diamond deposits.

    Do you understand now, or do I have to spell it out in simpler English for you?


  • #7299
    housetypeb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,197 ✭✭✭housetypeb


    [QUOTE=J C;

    When you're in a hole ... the first rule is to stop digging!!!:)[/QUOTE]

    Or in your case, start digging sideways.:)


  • #7300
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, it didn't. You cannot carbon-date diamonds and coal. I've already explained this to you. I also explained how subterranean decays of uranium-thorium isotope series can produce quantities of carbon-14, which is reflected on local coal or diamond deposits.

    Do you understand now, or do I have to spell it out in simpler English for you?
    Denial of a Young Earth ... and excuses to continue believing in the 'long ages' required to give any credibility to M2M Evolution.


  • #7301
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    You clearly don't know anything about carbon dating, J C. Although you proved that yourself some time ago. You're making yourself look stupid again. Just admit you don't know what you're on about.


  • Advertisement
  • #7302
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Denial of a Young Earth ... and excuses to continue believing in the 'long ages' required to give any credibility to M2M Evolution.

    The dating of coal and diamonds has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. You have presented absolutely no evidence of a young earth. I can present mountains of evidence of an earth which is billions of years old. You lose.

    Face it, you're fooling nobody only yourself.


  • #7303
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    The dating of coal and diamonds has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. You have presented absolutely no evidence of a young earth. I can present mountains of evidence of an earth which is billions of years old. You lose.
    It is you who raised this issue ... when you thought it would help your case ... and now that it has 'blown up in your face' you are saying that it nothing to do with Evolution!!!

    Please do yourself a favour ... and stop digging!!!:eek:


  • #7304
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    This thread is becoming painful...... J C I take it that you're also the under impression that this is what life used to be like.....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY6LwQrdjcg


    *Sigh if only....*:pac: By the way, Dinosaurs have been carbon dated to over 200 million years ago....


  • #7305
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    ... so you have no scientifically valid answers ... and you're now resorting to children's cartoons!!!:):pac:


  • #7306
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you have no scientifically valid answers ... and you're now resorting to children's cartoons!!!:):pac:

    Erm. It was to illustrate a point more than anything. Dinosaurs being radiocarbon dated back to 200 million years would sort refute the point which you were just making. Any children's encyclopedia should illustrate this for you. This is a scientifically valid answer by the way.

    Edit: Error correct in post below. And damn, should have noticed that earlier post... :P


  • #7307
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    By the way, Dinosaurs have been carbon dated to over 200 million years ago....
    No they haven't ... Carbon Dating cannot, even in theory 'date' aretifacts that are millions of 'evolutionist years' old.


  • #7308
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    J C wrote: »
    No they haven't ... Carbon Dating cannot, even in theory 'date' aretifacts that are millions of 'evolutionist years' old.

    Apologies, I was incorrect. However they use different methods to date dinosaurs, radiometric dating. My point still stands essentially.
    Dating Sedimentary Rock
    The most widely known form of radiometric dating is carbon-14 dating. This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones. The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old. Dinosaur bones, on the other hand, are millions of years old -- some fossils are billions of years old. To determine the ages of these specimens, scientists need an isotope with a very long half-life. Some of the isotopes used for this purpose are uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40, each of which has a half-life of more than a million years.
    Unfortunately, these elements don't exist in dinosaur fossils themselves. Each of them typically exists in igneous rock, or rock made from cooled magma. Fossils, however, form in sedimentary rock -- sediment quickly covers a dinosaur's body, and the sediment and the bones gradually turn into rock. But this sediment doesn't typically include the necessary isotopes in measurable amounts. Fossils can't form in the igneous rock that usually does contain the isotopes. The extreme temperatures of the magma would just destroy the bones.
    So to determine the age of sedimentary rock layers, researchers first have to find neighboring layers of Earth that include igneous rock, such as volcanic ash. These layers are like bookends -- they give a beginning and an end to the period of time when the sedimentary rock formed. By using radiometric dating to determine the age of igneous brackets, researchers can accurately determine the age of the sedimentary layers between them.
    Using the basic ideas of bracketing and radiometric dating, researchers have determined the age of rock layers all over the world. This information has also helped determine the age of the Earth itself. While the oldest known rocks on Earth are about 3.5 billion years old, researchers have found zircon crystals that are 4.3 billion years old [source: USGS]. Based on the analysis of these samples, scientists estimate that the Earth itself is about 4.5 billion years old. In addition, the oldest known moon rocks are 4.5 billion years old. Since the moon and the Earth probably formed at the same time, this supports the current idea of the Earth's age.
    http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age1.htm


  • #7309
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    It is you who raised this issue ... when you thought it would help your case ... and now that it has 'blown up in your face' you are saying that it nothing to do with Evolution!!!

    Please do yourself a favour ... and stop digging!!!:eek:

    Yes - I raised the issue, when you routinely stated that the Earth was 6,000 years old. I then asked you to present evidence to support your claim, and the best you could come up with was erroneously dated coal and diamonds, that set them at 50,000 years old.

    You're so odiously awful at this debate, that even with your fabricated nonsense, you still can't even get your story right.

    The only thing that has blown up in my face, is hot air from you. Like I said - you're fooling nobody on this thread but yourself.


  • #7310
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Erm. It was to illustrate a point more than anything. Dinosaurs being radiocarbon dated back to 200 million years would sort refute the point which you were just making.
    It might ... if it did ... but unfortunately for your idea, radioscarbon 'dating' isn't capable of doing this ... even in theory.

    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Any children's encyclopedia should illustrate this for you. This is a scientifically valid answer by the way.
    It isn't scientiically valid ... please ask any physicist, who will confirm that I am correct on this issue.


  • #7311
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    I live with a physicist and he thinks you're a moron.

    Edit: Actually, the other half-dozen or so physicists I occasionally go drinking with also reckon you're a bit thick. I know a couple of geologists too who took a look at some of your posts about the floods and isotope dating, and the just felt sad about how wrong you'd gotten it all. I have friends in a couple of other disciplines too, microbiology, mathematics, chemistry, statistics, philosophy... Every time I've shown them something that you wrote, J C, they have told me that you have no idea what you're talking about.

    Further edit: I should probably point out that those aren't my words. I merely call J C intellectually dishonest and evasive to the point of cowardice. Anyone I show his posts to though, not being on boards.ie, tend to be less diplomatic in their judgements. I'm sure J C will say I'm spewing evil mean ad hominems at him, of course, but he tends to do that whenever someone points out that something he's posted is very stupid...


  • Advertisement
  • #7312
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    No they haven't ... Carbon Dating cannot, even in theory 'date' aretifacts that are millions of 'evolutionist years' old.

    You are correct. They cannot date artefacts that are over 58,000 years old (dinosaur fossils included). Do you know what else that cannot date? Coal and diamonds. That is why scientists use other radiometric dating methodologies for dating fossils (well technically, the surrounding rocks).


  • #7313
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    Apologies, I was incorrect. However they use different methods to date dinosaurs, radiometric dating. My point still stands essentially.
    ... these other methods are equally invalid ... they are based on assumptions that cannot be verified ... things like the parent isotopes were originally 100% and the daughter isotopes were 0 ... and no dilution occurred via leaching.
    Please stop digging!!:)


  • #7314
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    ... these other methods are equally invalid ... they are based on assumptions that cannot be verified ...

    Er, yes they can be verified - otherwise scientists would discard them for a more accurate dating methodology. Scientists unlike yourself, have no dogmatic agenda. They pursue scientific truth, and don't try to bend or fabricate stories to try and suit a 2,000 year old tale from a bunch of Palestinian goat-herders.


  • #7315
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Yes - I raised the issue, when you routinely stated that the Earth was 6,000 years old. I then asked you to present evidence to support your claim, and the best you could come up with was erroneously dated coal and diamonds, that set them at 50,000 years old.

    You're so odiously awful at this debate, that even with your fabricated nonsense, you still can't even get your story right.

    The only thing that has blown up in my face, is hot air from you. Like I said - you're fooling nobody on this thread but yourself.
    Scales and calibration curves are used as well as differential equations ... and the radiocarbon 'ages' are determined on the basis of these assumptions.

    The 50,000 year figure isn't correct ... but I will agree to differ with you on this ...
    ... but the fact that any 14C is detected within diamonds that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years 'old' proves that they aren't hundreds of millions of years ... no matter how much 'long agers' wish them to be.:);)


  • #7316
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Scales and calibration curves are used as well as differential equations ... and the radiocarbon 'ages' are determined on the basis of these assumptions.

    Which is why they have 'error margins'. All considered by scientists long ago. Uranium-lead dating for example has an error margin of 2% - 5%. That means, that in every billion years - they could be off by a maximum of 5 million years. Hardly the error margin you'd require for young earth lunatics to invalidate the methodologies.

    And as earlier requested by you, I asked you - if you don't agree with these dating methods - then you're more than welcome to provide a methodology, which is repeatable, testable and put forward for a peer-review. Instead of doing this - all you did was bring up the same old canard about diamonds, which I have already shown to be fake.
    J C wrote: »
    The 50,000 year figure isn't correct ... but I will agree to differ with you on this ...

    You're damn right it isn't correct. So why use it in the first place?
    J C wrote: »
    ... but the fact that any 14C is detected within diamonds that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years 'old' proves that they aren't hundreds of millions of years ... no matter how hard 'long agers' wish them to be.:);)

    No, it isn't proof. The only thing it proves is that you don't understand how radio-carbon dating works, how carbon-14 is acquired, and what it can be used to accurately date, and what it cannot be used with.


  • #7317
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Er, yes they can be verified - otherwise scientists would discard them for a more accurate dating methodology.
    There are no accurate (millions of years) dating methods ... they are all based on 'long ages' assumptions.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Scientists unlike yourself, have no dogmatic agenda. They pursue scientific truth, and don't try to bend or fabricate stories to try and suit a 2,000 year old tale from a bunch of Palestinian goat-herders.
    You keep forgetting that Creation Scientists are also conventionally qualified scientists.
    ... and if young earth creationists can be accused of bias in favour of a young earth ... old earth evolutionists can equally have bias in favour of an old earth.
    There is a 'fall back' position for Young Earth Creationists ... of old earth creationism and even theistic evolutionism ... but M2M Evolutionists have no fall back philosophical position ... and an old earth is the 'only game in town' for them.


  • #7318
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Bets on J C's "scientific qualifications" turning out to be a mail-order degree in homeopathy or something? He certainly didn't learn the kind of science that uses observation of evidence to model and predict the processes of reality.


  • #7319
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Which is why they have 'error margins'. All considered by scientists long ago. Uranium-lead dating for example has an error margin of 2% - 5%. That means, that in every billion years - they could be off by a maximum of 5 million years. Hardly the error margin you'd require for young earth lunatics to invalidate the methodologies.
    They could be off by almost any amount.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    And as earlier requested by you, I asked you - if you don't agree with these dating methods - then you're more than welcome to provide a methodology, which is repeatable, testable and put forward for a peer-review. Instead of doing this - all you did was bring up the same old canard about diamonds, which I have already shown to be fake.

    You're damn right it isn't correct. So why use it in the first place?
    ... it's more like less than 10,000 years.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, it isn't proof. The only thing it proves is that you don't understand how radio-carbon dating works, how carbon-14 is acquired, and what it can be used to accurately date, and what it cannot be used with.
    I know all about it ... you are the guy who was claiming that radiocarbon dating could date artifacts that were supposedly hundreds of millions of years old ... until I corrected you on it.


  • #7320
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    First of all, 'Old Earth Evolutionists' do not form a scientific discipline. The word you are looking for is 'Geologists'. Well, other disciplines too, but certainly not ones you just made up.

    'M2M Evolutionists' are not a scientific group either. It's something you or some other creationist made up in an attempt to make it sound ridiculous.
    I never said they were scientific groups ... they are worldview (or religious) groupings.


  • Advertisement
  • #7321
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Bets on J C's "scientific qualifications" turning out to be a mail-order degree in homeopathy or something? .
    You're wrong about that too!!!
    Sarky wrote: »
    He certainly didn't learn the kind of science that uses observation of evidence to model and predict the processes of reality.
    ... and you're the ones denying reality ... and the physical evidence under your noses ... to try and cling to your faith that intelligence(s) of epic proportions didn't Created life.:)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement