Sparks Posted December 20, 2023 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 20, 2023 1 hour ago, The Barbarian said: Lake varves. We can precisely date them because they form 2 layers annually, a light one and a dark one. Just as tree rings can calibrate C14 for more recent dates. But it has little to do with the evidence for evolution, since it is accurate only to about 50,000 years. There's a lot more to it than that. We can discuss it further, if you like. Do you still have the data you were talking about? I guess you realize you cannot set the watch in the scenario though you won't acknowledge it. It's the same with the instruments (Spectrometers, Scintillation Counters and Geiger Counters) that are used to allegedly detect date and times of items. It does not matter that 'scientists' say they work, they cannot work correctly because there is a vital piece missing from the formula. So they pretend for grants, and the cause of evolution. We know why C14 does not work just as we know that 2 + 2 does not equal 28. No need looking for a white paper about 'proving it.' It may help to know that if the earth were trillions of years old, C14 would work due to equilibrium and the span of half-life with C14. But it does not work, and the more you go back in time, the more inaccurate because there is no equilibrium. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 20, 2023 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 20, 2023 24 minutes ago, Sparks said: I guess you realize you cannot set the watch in the scenario though you won't acknowledge it. Watches don't keep time in centuries. But we can use radioactive isotopes to date things. Would you like some more examples? 26 minutes ago, Sparks said: It's the same with the instruments (Spectrometers, Scintillation Counters and Geiger Counters) that are used to allegedly detect date and times of items. It does not matter that 'scientists' say they work, they cannot work correctly because there is a vital piece missing from the formula. So they pretend for grants, and the cause of evolution. They checked that on the eruption that buried Pompeii. Got it precisely right. So we know it works. 26 minutes ago, Sparks said: We know why C14 does not work As you saw, the C14 from Lake Sugetsu varves showed the process to be very accurate. Reality matters. 27 minutes ago, Sparks said: It may help to know that if the earth were trillions of years old, C14 would work due to equilibrium and the span of half-life with C14. It would work even for a very young Earth. Do you see why? 28 minutes ago, Sparks said: But it does not work, and the more you go back in time, the more inaccurate because there is no equilibrium. As you get out to 50,000 years, the decreasing amount of C14 will make the dates less and less certain. After about 50,000 years, the method will merely say "more than 50,000 years" (or whatever the sensitivity of the device provides). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparks Posted December 20, 2023 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 23 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 6,159 Content Per Day: 2.03 Reputation: 2,513 Days Won: 8 Joined: 01/20/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted December 20, 2023 1 minute ago, The Barbarian said: Watches don't keep time in centuries. But we can use radioactive isotopes to date things. Would you like some more examples? They checked that on the eruption that buried Pompeii. Got it precisely right. So we know it works. As you saw, the C14 from Lake Sugetsu varves showed the process to be very accurate. Reality matters. It would work even for a very young Earth. Do you see why? As you get out to 50,000 years, the decreasing amount of C14 will make the dates less and less certain. After about 50,000 years, the method will merely say "more than 50,000 years" (or whatever the sensitivity of the device provides). When I said that we know why C14 fails, I guess I meant the rest of us. Thanks for the chat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted December 20, 2023 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 20, 2023 3 hours ago, Sparks said: When I said that we know why C14 fails, The idea depends on ignoring the evidence. Because nuclear decay is a very well-understood process that physicists have repeatedly tested and verified, there's really no wiggle room for anyone who doubts it. There are some ways out of this dilemma. One such, the "virtual history" doctrine of Gerald Aardsma,considers the evidence to be a sort of "backstory" for real history starting about 5,000 years ago. I don't find it very persuasive, but unlike denying factual evidence, Dr. Aardsma's idea is not falsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeyondET Posted December 21, 2023 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 118 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 2,869 Content Per Day: 1.22 Reputation: 816 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/29/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/01/1968 Share Posted December 21, 2023 On 12/4/2023 at 11:59 AM, Eman_3 said: God is so knowledgeable that he created isotopes but messed up with human anatomy? Why do men have nipples? What purpose is there for the appendix? And sometimes more then two. superficial nipples can happen to both human males and females. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted March 1 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 1 Quote The idea depends on ignoring the evidence. Because nuclear decay is a very well-understood process that physicists have repeatedly tested and verified, It is not verified for Noah's day, and the fact it exists today is not relevant to the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted March 1 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 1 On 12/20/2023 at 11:08 AM, The Barbarian said: They checked that on the eruption that buried Pompeii. Got it precisely right. So we know it works. It works for as long as the eruption. If that was after Noah's day, so what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted March 1 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1 1 hour ago, dad2 said: It works for as long as the eruption. Works whenever we check it. 1 hour ago, dad2 said: If that was after Noah's day, so what? It merely shows that the method works, even for very recent events. But it works for millions of years as well. Would you like to learn how we know? The major problem for your new Noah story is that the Bible doesn't say the flood was global. Your rejection of God's word is more significant than your rejection of the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Barbarian Posted March 1 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 5,074 Content Per Day: 0.67 Reputation: 970 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/20/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted March 1 On 12/20/2023 at 7:09 PM, BeyondET said: And sometimes more then two. superficial nipples can happen to both human males and females. Why this should happen to humans is an incomprehensible problem for YE creationism, but it's completely understandable in light of evolution. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dad2 Posted March 1 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,510 Content Per Day: 0.97 Reputation: 185 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/28/2020 Status: Offline Author Share Posted March 1 Your checking cannot be checked. The checking only applies as long as the current laws exist. You cannot use the present physics as the reason everything came to exist (such as isotope ratios) and claim that checks the far past when we do not know what laws existed Quote The major problem for your new Noah story is that the Bible doesn't say the flood was global. That is not an issue. That is grasping at straws and trying to reinvent the bible to fit your religion and belief system. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts