Are Fossils evidence of evolution ....or are the evidence of fossils

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, Eternally Gratefull said:

really? I think the fossil record according to those who use it to promote darwins theories are consistent with what we would find with a global flood.

Everyone has an opinion.   Facts are harder to get.  What do you have?

 

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, BeyondET said:

When you say spectrometers that’s a broad term, there are a few different types like a ( Time of Flight spectrometer )

Spectrometers don't measure time.

 

[Sparks]

7 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Then I assume there is no answer to the age of the earth.

Correct.  Creationists use legal/historical data to guess the age of the Earth, but they don't know precisely. Scientists try to use instruments, but despite the precision nature of the instruments and very reliable radioactive half-lives, they cannot know because of calibration issues.

[BeyondET]

5 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Correct.  Creationists use legal/historical data to guess the age of the Earth, but they don't know precisely. Scientists try to use instruments, but despite the precision nature of the instruments and very reliable radioactive half-lives, they cannot know because of calibration issues.

I see what your saying now,

time is just a figment of the human imagination sort of, the same problem will arise rather a person believes the earth is only 6 thousand years old or 4.5 billion years. basically God created the earth to rotate in front of the sun and humans design the length of the day by creating numbers on a round clock face or a stick in the middle of some rocks 

[teddyv]

45 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Were you following the prior posts in this thread?  You cannot tell the date of the Earth, date of the stones, date of old mummies and so on using instruments due to calibration issues.

So why is everyone still using this? Why are the only one in the world who seems to understand this problem? Forgive me if I am extremely skeptical of your opinion and experience.

If an ICP-MS or an ICP-AES cannot give consistent results because it can't be calibrated, then why can would I use this as an analytical tool. What should we use then?  

[BeyondET]

6 minutes ago, teddyv said:

 

If an ICP-MS or an ICP-AES cannot give consistent results because it can't be calibrated, then why can would I use this as an analytical tool. What should we use then?  

Maybe computers since it’s accuracy is pretty much spot on, I just typed exactly what I am thinking ? 

Edited March 20, 2021 by BeyondET

[teddyv]

6 minutes ago, BeyondET said:

Maybe computers since it’s accuracy is pretty much spot on, I just typed exactly what I am thinking ? 

I don't think your grammar app is calibrated properly. 

[BeyondET]

50 minutes ago, teddyv said:

I don't think your grammar app is calibrated properly. 

Arg I thought something was wrong that wasn’t thoughts

Edited March 20, 2021 by BeyondET

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

So why is everyone still using this? Why are the only one in the world who seems to understand this problem? Forgive me if I am extremely skeptical of your opinion and experience.

Well to begin, it's all they have.  Secondly, they all agree that the date is correct based on the fact that they are rarely challenged by the facts.

The case of the lava flow that's was known to be 200 years was a fact that countered the machine's claim that it was millions of years old.  So in that case, the scientist concede that the machine was having a bad day, and agree that it was wrong.  But it's always wrong.

Scientist actually send bones around to other labs, and they get similar results and they average the dates.  It's good money, but all their machines have the same calibration issues and, therefore, false results.

If someone offered you big grant money to write a 'white paper' on the Oort Cloud, would you write it?  It's hard to turn down for such an easy task unless you have a sensitive conscious.   You see, you would have to write article as if the Oort Cloud really exists.  We have no evidence of that.  So, in effect you would be paid to perpetuate a lie about a theory, as if it does exist.  Would a scientists do that about dating methods, or Darwinian Evolution itself?  You bet.

1 hour ago, teddyv said:

If an ICP-MS or an ICP-AES cannot give consistent results because it can't be calibrated, then why can would I use this as an analytical tool. What should we use then?  

They can be calibrated to handle tasks like identifying isotopes, and grading metals quite well.  They cannot handle dating methods for the same reasons you cannot tell me when the candle was lit, in my previous post.

 

[BeyondET]

I’ve looked up the calibration for a spectrometer, steps may vary based on the model of the spectrometer, but the process follows a few universal steps.

1 The spectrometer is turned on and allowed to warm up.

2 It is then set to the wavelength to be calibrated.

3 A blank is prepared by filling the cuvette with the solution to the halfway point.

4 The operator cleans the cuvette so that oils and other outside influences are not introduced into the calibration.

5 Load the blank into the spectrometer.

6 Conduct the process using the blank.

7 Evaluate the results.

8 Adjust the spectrometer to rectify issues found from the blank.

Repeat the steps as necessary.

Edited March 20, 2021 by BeyondET