jerryR34 Posted July 31, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted July 31, 2014 Evolution is a hoax...proof...Scientists still do not know why yawns are contagious. If they don't know that, how can they comment on anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted August 1, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.91 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted August 1, 2014 So true. Yes often recently formed rocks can show enough daughter element to be dated to millions of years old. Some scientists have argued that the methods only apply to older rocks, but that is laughable circular reasoning because do they expect the daughter element to somehow correct itself over time? Seep out the rock? Their logic is sometimes lacking. These rocks start off already over -dated by millions of years and the rock does not have the ability to correct its own daughter element quantities. (as silly as that sounds, what are these guys thinking?) That's why you can take samples from the region and "calibrate" or make sure you're not taking a sample that has been disturbed by outside influences. You seem to suggest that the scientists in the field aren't aware of these issues that you bring up. Those stupid stupid scientists!http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Petrology/RadDating0.HTM ========================================================== With ALL Radiometric Dating, You're "calibrating" off Three Assumptions: the biggie.... 1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know that. Extrapolation from a Guess...plain and simple. This is like walking into a track meet in progress (with no signs stating how long the race is) observing the race, pulling out your watch and 50 seconds later the runner crosses the finish line. Question: How long was the race? In other words.....how long is a piece of string? 2. Also, after hardening the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating groundwaters. 3. Decay Rates must remain Constant The Scientific Inquiry is also Invalid Because they Skipped Step 1 of the Scientific Method: Observe a Phenomenon. What Phenomenon do you observe when you look @ a Rock? Moreover, it has been Falsified Hundreds of Times using Rocks of Known Ages (False Positives): ie, rocks that are 42 years old sent to a World Renown Radiometric Lab and subsequently dated @ 3.5 Million Years Old. You seem to suggest that the scientists in the field aren't aware of these issues that you bring up. Those stupid stupid scientists! They surely should, it's basic reasoning. What's that telling you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts