about the accuracy of your dating

[TheRealMccoy]

I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

[A***@yahoo.com]

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

Wikipedia tells us:

"The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."


Yep, they ASSUME it. But ASSUMING it's true, there talking about:

"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."

So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.

That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.
"The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

I don't go around pretending I know the age of the earth

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.

But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.

To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.

Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.

I've got some more if you'd like.


AA

[TheRealMccoy]

The great barrier reef was about twenty thousand years ago or less, dumkopf

[Atlatl Axolotl]

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:38:48 PM UTC-7, TheRealMccoy wrote:
.> The great barrier reef was about twenty thousand years ago or less, dumkopf.

"Was"? Still is, last time I looked.

"Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and
grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains.
These corals and residues gradually become structures
known as coral reefs. This process of growth and
deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger
reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of
years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
estimates that corals have been growing on the Great
Barrier Reef for 25 million years."

-- RationalWiki


AA

[A***@yahoo.com]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> The great barrier reef was about twenty thousand years ago or less, dumkopf.
"Was"? Still is, last time I looked.
"Corals are marine organisms that slowly deposit and
grow upon the residues of their calcareous remains.
These corals and residues gradually become structures
known as coral reefs. This process of growth and
deposition is extremely slow, and some of the larger
reefs have been "growing" for hundreds of thousands of
years. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
estimates that corals have been growing on the Great
Barrier Reef for 25 million years."
-- RationalWiki
AA

Coral growth is variable. It's situational.

http://www.thereeftank.com/forums/f6/how-fast-do-these-corals-grow-120716.html

"I can only speak from personal experience about the hairy mushroom corals... Mine grow to about 2-3 inches in diameter and shortly after split into 2-3 new mushrooms. Like Lover said, there's lots of variables, no telling how long it will take yours to split."

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> The great barrier reef was about twenty thousand years ago or less, dumkopf.
"Was"? Still is

Then why were you arguing using it as an example for things older than a million years for, IDIOT.???

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
.> The great barrier reef was about twenty thousand years ago or less, dumkopf.
"Was"? Still is

Then why were you arguing using it as an example for things older than a million years for, IDIOT.???

https://web.archive.org/web/20070620013057/http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/12437/Reef-Facts-01.pdf

The current Great Barrier Reef
structure started growing on top of
the old reef platform about 9000
years ago when the sea levels rose
at the end of the last Ice Age.
Many of the places that support reefs
today were part of the land during the
last ice age, which ended about 20 000
years ago.
As global temperatures increased, the
ice melted and retreated to the poles
and mountain tops. Sea levels rose to
their present levels about 6000 years
ago, creating ideal conditions for corals
to develop along the tops of former low
coastal hills.

[A***@yahoo.com]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

.> You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.

Shorter version: you don't know a single detail about a single
one of the techniques I mentioned, and are hence utterly
incapable of giving any technical criticisms -- and so you wave
your hands and magically pronounce them each and every one bogus.
Not even prima facie: non facie.

I keep forgetting why I'd stopped trying to have rational
and informed debates vis a vis science with you. My bad.

aa

[A***@yahoo.com]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

.> You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.
Shorter version: you don't know a single detail about a single
one of the techniques I mentioned, and are hence utterly
incapable of giving any technical criticisms -- and so you wave
your hands and magically pronounce them each and every one bogus.
Not even prima facie: non facie.
I keep forgetting why I'd stopped trying to have rational
and informed debates vis a vis science with you. My bad.
aa

You can name any technique and tell me you don't have a time machine to test it. Even if the system worked within periods dated in historic times, thus testable ,that doesn't mean it'll work in 10,000 years where there is nothing of historic value to be tested, or for times beyond that. We don't know the degree of error that results from great age lengths. The fact that you're picking up some random rock and testing it and claiming to know how old it is shows that you're apt to go around shooting at needles in the dark.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

.> You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.
Shorter version: you don't know a single detail about a single
one of the techniques I mentioned, and are hence utterly
incapable of giving any technical criticisms -- and so you wave
your hands and magically pronounce them each and every one bogus.
Not even prima facie: non facie.
I keep forgetting why I'd stopped trying to have rational
and informed debates vis a vis science with you. My bad.
aa

.> You can name any technique and tell me you don't have a time machine to test it. Even if the system worked within periods dated in historic times, thus testable ,that doesn't mean it'll work in 10,000 years where there is nothing of historic value to be tested, or for times beyond that. We don't know the degree of error that results from great age lengths.

When multiple independent techniques, none of which uses
processes or variables that any of the others is based on,
give similar answers, then to use Gould's words, it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

If DNA, fingerprints, fiber analysis, hair analysis, blood typing
and ballistics all point to one person, that gives confidence that the
accusation is correct.

Precisely the same confidence is warranted when multiple independent
dating techniques all point to a similar age.


AA






The fact that you're picking up some random rock and testing it and claiming to know how old it is shows that you're apt to go around shooting at needles in the dark.

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
If DNA, fingerprints, fiber analysis, hair analysis, blood typing
and ballistics all point to one person, that gives confidence that the
accusation is correct.

Unless the person has an airtight alibi, for instancde, being under surveillance by the govt during the time of the alleged offense, then you have to look more at govt framing, since the person certainly did not do that

[A***@yahoo.com]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

.> You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.
Shorter version: you don't know a single detail about a single
one of the techniques I mentioned, and are hence utterly
incapable of giving any technical criticisms -- and so you wave
your hands and magically pronounce them each and every one bogus.
Not even prima facie: non facie.
I keep forgetting why I'd stopped trying to have rational
and informed debates vis a vis science with you. My bad.
aa

.> You can name any technique and tell me you don't have a time machine to test it. Even if the system worked within periods dated in historic times, thus testable ,that doesn't mean it'll work in 10,000 years where there is nothing of historic value to be tested, or for times beyond that. We don't know the degree of error that results from great age lengths.
When multiple independent techniques, none of which uses
processes or variables that any of the others is based on,
give similar answers, then to use Gould's words, it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

He who controls the calibration controls the results.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
If DNA, fingerprints, fiber analysis, hair analysis, blood typing
and ballistics all point to one person, that gives confidence that the
accusation is correct.
Precisely the same confidence is warranted when multiple independent
dating techniques all point to a similar age.
AA
The fact that you're picking up some random rock and testing it and claiming to know how old it is shows that you're apt to go around shooting at needles in the dark.

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by A***@yahoo.com
He who controls the calibration controls the results.

Like that paper I quoted, anything outside their intended answer was discarded, and they inserted values into equations that would produce their desired result ...

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by A***@yahoo.com
He who controls the calibration controls the results.

Like that paper I quoted, anything outside their intended answer was discarded, and they inserted values into equations that would produce their desired result ...

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

.> You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.
Shorter version: you don't know a single detail about a single
one of the techniques I mentioned, and are hence utterly
incapable of giving any technical criticisms -- and so you wave
your hands and magically pronounce them each and every one bogus.
Not even prima facie: non facie.
I keep forgetting why I'd stopped trying to have rational
and informed debates vis a vis science with you. My bad.
aa

.> You can name any technique and tell me you don't have a time machine to test it. Even if the system worked within periods dated in historic times, thus testable ,that doesn't mean it'll work in 10,000 years where there is nothing of historic value to be tested, or for times beyond that. We don't know the degree of error that results from great age lengths.
When multiple independent techniques, none of which uses
processes or variables that any of the others is based on,
give similar answers, then to use Gould's words, it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

.> He who controls the calibration controls the results.


So you're now proposing a global conspiracy involving
large numbers of scientists over a range of disciplines
from astronomy to physics to biology to geology to chemistry
to cosmology and others; a plot which has been going on for
decade after decade, all with an aim to .... to what?

AA

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
If DNA, fingerprints, fiber analysis, hair analysis, blood typing
and ballistics all point to one person, that gives confidence that the
accusation is correct.
Precisely the same confidence is warranted when multiple independent
dating techniques all point to a similar age.
AA
The fact that you're picking up some random rock and testing it and claiming to know how old it is shows that you're apt to go around shooting at needles in the dark.

[A***@yahoo.com]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

.> You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.
Shorter version: you don't know a single detail about a single
one of the techniques I mentioned, and are hence utterly
incapable of giving any technical criticisms -- and so you wave
your hands and magically pronounce them each and every one bogus.
Not even prima facie: non facie.
I keep forgetting why I'd stopped trying to have rational
and informed debates vis a vis science with you. My bad.
aa

.> You can name any technique and tell me you don't have a time machine to test it. Even if the system worked within periods dated in historic times, thus testable ,that doesn't mean it'll work in 10,000 years where there is nothing of historic value to be tested, or for times beyond that. We don't know the degree of error that results from great age lengths.
When multiple independent techniques, none of which uses
processes or variables that any of the others is based on,
give similar answers, then to use Gould's words, it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

.> He who controls the calibration controls the results.
So you're now proposing a global conspiracy involving
large numbers of scientists over a range of disciplines
from astronomy to physics to biology to geology to chemistry
to cosmology and others; a plot which has been going on for
decade after decade, all with an aim to .... to what?
AA

Actually I am not. Science is compartmentalized. The geologist sits in his compartment assuming that the paleontologists in their compartments are correct.

Evolutionists thrive on suppositions. They assume their beliefs to be true. And, evolutionists have an attitude. They're also guided by foundations that provided their funding. If you look at the situation right now, anyone that has a discovery that is contrary to the evolutionist beliefs are shunned and campaigned against. That's not science. That's not necessarily a conspiracy. Likewise, you atheists aren't necessarily conspiring on this site, you share the same philosophy and lose your objectivity in it.

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
If DNA, fingerprints, fiber analysis, hair analysis, blood typing
and ballistics all point to one person, that gives confidence that the
accusation is correct.
Precisely the same confidence is warranted when multiple independent
dating techniques all point to a similar age.
AA
The fact that you're picking up some random rock and testing it and claiming to know how old it is shows that you're apt to go around shooting at needles in the dark.

[Atlatl Axolotl]

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

.> You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.
Shorter version: you don't know a single detail about a single
one of the techniques I mentioned, and are hence utterly
incapable of giving any technical criticisms -- and so you wave
your hands and magically pronounce them each and every one bogus.
Not even prima facie: non facie.
I keep forgetting why I'd stopped trying to have rational
and informed debates vis a vis science with you. My bad.
aa

.> You can name any technique and tell me you don't have a time machine to test it. Even if the system worked within periods dated in historic times, thus testable ,that doesn't mean it'll work in 10,000 years where there is nothing of historic value to be tested, or for times beyond that. We don't know the degree of error that results from great age lengths.
When multiple independent techniques, none of which uses
processes or variables that any of the others is based on,
give similar answers, then to use Gould's words, it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

.> He who controls the calibration controls the results.
So you're now proposing a global conspiracy involving
large numbers of scientists over a range of disciplines
from astronomy to physics to biology to geology to chemistry
to cosmology and others; a plot which has been going on for
decade after decade, all with an aim to .... to what?
AA

.> Actually I am not.

Of course you are. For all of these scientists in widely different
fields, with completely different interests and objects of study,
spread both over the entire world and over many decades,
each field using its own methodology -- for all of these to
have derived reasonable agreement on date ranges that you claim are
not only bogus but wildly bogus -- clearly a global consipracy
is the only thing that could create that level of coordinated deception.

But then I remember that you're the guy who, when I was giving
you evidence for the reality of satellites, started out going on
about balloons but ended up bringing up "secret societies".

For some people, mere reality simply isn't exciting enough.

Atlatl Axolotl

Science is compartmentalized. The geologist sits in his compartment assuming that the paleontologists in their compartments are correct.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
Evolutionists thrive on suppositions. They assume their beliefs to be true. And, evolutionists have an attitude. They're also guided by foundations that provided their funding. If you look at the situation right now, anyone that has a discovery that is contrary to the evolutionist beliefs are shunned and campaigned against. That's not science. That's not necessarily a conspiracy.

.>Likewise, you atheists aren't necessarily conspiring on this site, you share the same philosophy and lose your objectivity in it.

(p.s: I'm not an atheist)

2a

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
If DNA, fingerprints, fiber analysis, hair analysis, blood typing
and ballistics all point to one person, that gives confidence that the
accusation is correct.
Precisely the same confidence is warranted when multiple independent
dating techniques all point to a similar age.
AA
The fact that you're picking up some random rock and testing it and claiming to know how old it is shows that you're apt to go around shooting at needles in the dark.

[TheRealMccoy]

Anyway a2, or is it like r2, or 3po, the fact the earth was made may obviate the inaccurate dating of many disciplines all pointing at each other with their unproven theories to justify their science guesses

[Gronk]

On Saturday, November 18, 2017 at 1:49:04 PM UTC-8, Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.

.> You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.
Shorter version: you don't know a single detail about a single
one of the techniques I mentioned, and are hence utterly
incapable of giving any technical criticisms -- and so you wave
your hands and magically pronounce them each and every one bogus.
Not even prima facie: non facie.
I keep forgetting why I'd stopped trying to have rational
and informed debates vis a vis science with you. My bad.

.> You can name any technique and tell me you don't have a time machine to test it. Even if the system worked within periods dated in historic times, thus testable ,that doesn't mean it'll work in 10,000 years where there is nothing of historic value to be tested, or for times beyond that. We don't know the degree of error that results from great age lengths.
When multiple independent techniques, none of which uses
processes or variables that any of the others is based on,
give similar answers, then to use Gould's words, it would
be perverse to withhold provisional assent.

.> He who controls the calibration controls the results.
So you're now proposing a global conspiracy involving
large numbers of scientists over a range of disciplines
from astronomy to physics to biology to geology to chemistry
to cosmology and others; a plot which has been going on for
decade after decade, all with an aim to .... to what?

Actually I am not. Science is compartmentalized. The geologist sits in his compartment assuming that the paleontologists in their compartments are correct.
Evolutionists thrive on suppositions. They assume their beliefs to be true. And, evolutionists have an attitude. They're also guided by foundations that provided their funding. If you look at the situation right now, anyone that has a discovery that is contrary to the evolutionist beliefs are shunned and campaigned against. That's not science. That's not necessarily a conspiracy. Likewise, you atheists aren't necessarily conspiring on this site, you share the same philosophy and lose your objectivity in it.

Creationists thrive on magic, that breathing on dirt can make a human.

[Tim]

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.

You can dodge the facts and the theories, but that's not science. It is fake Christian though.

[A***@yahoo.com]

Post by Tim

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.

You can dodge the facts and the theories, but that's not science. It is fake Christian though.

There is no fact in dating things that are supposedly millions of years old. No way to test it.

[Tim]

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Tim

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.

You can dodge the facts and the theories, but that's not science. It is fake Christian though.

There is no fact in dating things that are supposedly millions of years old.

Yes there is.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
No way to test it.

Yes there is. Different methods offer confirmation.

[A***@yahoo.com]

Post by Tim

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Tim

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.
AA

You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.

You can dodge the facts and the theories, but that's not science. It is fake Christian though.

There is no fact in dating things that are supposedly millions of years old.

Yes there is.

Post by A***@yahoo.com
No way to test it.

Yes there is. Different methods offer confirmation.

You make methods confirm. All you have to do is throw out discordant results. Throwing out discordant results is a common practice.

[Gronk]

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Atlatl Axolotl

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

It's fuddy duddy reasoning to say that you can give the dates of the earth in the millions based on the decay rate of uranium.

.> "The dating method is usually performed on the mineral zircon. The mineral incorporates uranium and thorium atoms into its crystal structure, but strongly rejects lead. Therefore, one can ASSUME that the entire lead content of the zircon is radiogenic, i.e. it is produced solely by a process of radioactive decay after the formation of the mineral. Thus the current ratio of lead to uranium in the mineral can be used to determine its age."

Post by A***@yahoo.com
"The method relies on two separate decay chains, the uranium series from 238U to 206Pb, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years and the actinium series from 235U to 207Pb, with a half-life of 710 million years."
So, we assume that the lead was in the rock from the get-go - never mind the formation of the zircon from the get-go, that perhaps the lead just happened to be in it, we are so bold to say that we know that nothing has changed over millions or billions of years. In other words the dating system cannot be tested over a vast period of time.
That's pseudo science. you can't prove the earth is millions or billions of years old.

The assumption is based on known mineralogy; it's not just something
someone arbitrarily decided after six beers. If you're going to attack
the argument, you're going to have to show that the crystallography is incorrect.
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: cosmogenic nuclide buildup, iron-
manganese nodule growth, Milankovitch cycles, amino acid
racemization, Naica megacrystals, sedimentary varves, the
Great Barrier Reef, seabed plankton layering, nitrogen
impurities in diamonds.
Note that none of them depend on rates of radioactive decay.
Each of them is independant of all the others. All give
dates over one million years.
I've got some more if you'd like.

You can rig and select any long age you want. It's not science.

How do you do this... "rigging" ... ?

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: the
Great Barrier Reef

See what a moron he is ...

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by Atlatl Axolotl
But beyond that, there are a whole host of techniques that show the age of
the Earth to be a million years or more.
To name just a few: the
Great Barrier Reef

See what a moron he is ...

so here he is as a retard parrot bot, with a simple task, that no one could possibly foul up online in taking a position and arguing it, and then he goes and drops the ball in front of everyone like a total inept buffoon ...

[duke]

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

WE............all know that the age of the Solar system is 4.5 billion years.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[TheRealMccoy]

You are aware, duke, the elements, according to stellar theory, did not come from our sun, Sol?

[duke]

Post by TheRealMccoy
You are aware, duke, the elements, according to stellar theory, did not come from our sun, Sol?

The universe formed through the big bang explosion, all of the elements on Earth
have been cooked for billions of years in stars and then released in the
universe through supernova explosions.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Cloud Hobbit]

WE............all know that the age of the Solar system is 4.5 billion years.

the dukester, American-American

_________

No we only know that we have no way of going back before the big bang.

If something happened before that there is as yet, no way to obtain data on it.

At least that is my understanding.

[TheRealMccoy]

You big bang certainly can be wrong

[duke]

Post by TheRealMccoy
You big bang certainly can be wrong

Size of current universe and rate of expansion can be reverse-studied. The big
bang happened some 13.8 billion years ago.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[TheRealMccoy]

They already know what is supposed to happen regarding nucleosynthesis, very recent collider experiments have thrown the big bang into question.

[duke]

Post by TheRealMccoy
They already know what is supposed to happen regarding nucleosynthesis, very recent collider experiments have thrown the big bang into question.

There are pitfalls to the alternatives.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
They already know what is supposed to happen regarding nucleosynthesis, very recent collider experiments have thrown the big bang into question.

There are pitfalls to the alternatives.

Just because you currently do not think you have a viable alternative, does not mean the existing in vogue theory of men is correct.

[duke]

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
They already know what is supposed to happen regarding nucleosynthesis, very recent collider experiments have thrown the big bang into question.

There are pitfalls to the alternatives.

Just because you currently do not think you have a viable alternative, does not mean the existing in vogue theory of men is correct.

Creation is solid fact. The method used by God to bring about creation is yet
unknown.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
They already know what is supposed to happen regarding nucleosynthesis, very recent collider experiments have thrown the big bang into question.

There are pitfalls to the alternatives.

Just because you currently do not think you have a viable alternative, does not mean the existing in vogue theory of men is correct.

Creation is solid fact. The method used by God to bring about creation is yet
unknown.

christ spake, and the world was made ...

[duke]

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:02:42 -0800 (PST), TheRealMccoy

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
They already know what is supposed to happen regarding nucleosynthesis, very recent collider experiments have thrown the big bang into question.

There are pitfalls to the alternatives.

Just because you currently do not think you have a viable alternative, does not mean the existing in vogue theory of men is correct.

Creation is solid fact. The method used by God to bring about creation is yet
unknown.

christ spake, and the world was made ...

Jesus Christ was a man. Gold spoke and the universe was created.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[TheRealMccoy]

Christ spoke, and the world was made

[duke]

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Cloud Hobbit]

Pretty sure earth was made long before God raped Mary.

[TheRealMccoy]

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Pretty sure earth was made

[duke]

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Pretty sure earth was made long before God raped Mary.

God existed billions of years before Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb by the
overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[hypatiab7]

Post by duke

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Pretty sure earth was made long before God raped Mary.

God existed billions of years before Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb by the
overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

You are speaking in a very primitive language. Please use English.

[duke]

Post by hypatiab7

Post by duke

Post by Cloud Hobbit
Pretty sure earth was made long before God raped Mary.

God existed billions of years before Jesus was conceived in Mary's womb by the
overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

You are speaking in a very primitive language. Please use English.

Straight out of scripture.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Gronk]

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

[duke]

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Tim]

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

How could he put it well when above you claim that god existed before Christ, you fool?

[Gronk]

Post by Tim

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

How could he put it well when above you claim that god existed before Christ, you fool?

Ooops.

[Tim]

Post by Gronk

Post by Tim

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

How could he put it well when above you claim that god existed before Christ, you fool?

Ooops.

I bet his parents said that after his mom popped him out. I bet they said it a lot.

[A***@yahoo.com]

Post by Tim

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

How could he put it well when above you claim that god existed before Christ, you fool?

SO you think you're Mr. T?

[Tim]

Post by A***@yahoo.com

Post by Tim

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

How could he put it well when above you claim that god existed before Christ, you fool?

SO you think you're Mr. T?
http://youtu.be/mHt49t6EC_4

No, but I know that you're an idiot.

[duke]

Post by Tim

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

How could he put it well when above you claim that god existed before Christ, you fool?

Wow, it takes a quadratic to dream up that falsification.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[hypatiab7]

Post by Tim

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

How could he put it well when above you claim that god existed before Christ, you fool?

If 'God' is supposed to be Josh's daddy, he'd have to have existed
before him, wouldn't he? Or have the Fundie Protestants given their
god a Tardis for Christmas. After all, the Doctor has referred to
some god or other several times. Was he talking to himself?

[Gronk]

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

Put 100% wrong.

[duke]

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

Put 100% wrong.

You're just jealous because your god, satan, didn't create the world.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Gronk]

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

Put 100% wrong.

You're just jealous because your god, satan, didn't create the world.

The world formed by the laws of nature, no superstition involved.

[duke]

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

Put 100% wrong.

You're just jealous because your god, satan, didn't create the world.

The world formed by the laws of nature, no superstition involved.

Shirley you're not that dumb.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Gronk]

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

Put 100% wrong.

You're just jealous because your god, satan, didn't create the world.

The world formed by the laws of nature, no superstition involved.

Shirley you're not that dumb.

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-this-amazing-video-shows-evolution-happening-in-just-days

[duke]

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

Put 100% wrong.

You're just jealous because your god, satan, didn't create the world.

The world formed by the laws of nature, no superstition involved.

Shirley you're not that dumb.

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-this-amazing-video-shows-evolution-happening-in-just-days

Researchers have filmed E. coli growing in a giant petri dish laced with
antibiotics to show just how easy it is for bacteria become antibiotic
resistant.

Take him away.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Gronk]

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
Christ spoke, and the world was made

Well put.

Wrong, but well put.

100% accurate, and he put it well.

Put 100% wrong.

You're just jealous because your god, satan, didn't create the world.

The world formed by the laws of nature, no superstition involved.

Shirley you're not that dumb.

https://www.sciencealert.com/watch-this-amazing-video-shows-evolution-happening-in-just-days

Researchers have filmed E. coli growing in a giant petri dish laced with
antibiotics to show just how easy it is for bacteria become antibiotic
resistant.
Take him away.

Huh?

[Tim]

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
They already know what is supposed to happen regarding nucleosynthesis, very recent collider experiments have thrown the big bang into question.

There are pitfalls to the alternatives.

Just because you currently do not think you have a viable alternative, does not mean the existing in vogue theory of men is correct.

Creation is solid fact.

Nope, it's shaky faith.

Post by duke
The method used by God to bring about creation is yet
unknown.

More faith without evidence.

[Gronk]

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
They already know what is supposed to happen regarding nucleosynthesis, very recent collider experiments have thrown the big bang into question.

There are pitfalls to the alternatives.

Just because you currently do not think you have a viable alternative, does not mean the existing in vogue theory of men is correct.

Creation is solid fact. The method used by God to bring about creation is yet
unknown.

Define "creation"...

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Gronk

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy

Post by duke

Post by TheRealMccoy
They already know what is supposed to happen regarding nucleosynthesis, very recent collider experiments have thrown the big bang into question.

There are pitfalls to the alternatives.

Just because you currently do not think you have a viable alternative, does not mean the existing in vogue theory of men is correct.

Creation is solid fact. The method used by God to bring about creation is yet
unknown.

Define "creation"...

...and WHAT FUCKING GOD?

[duke]

On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 15:26:53 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit

Post by duke
WE............all know that the age of the Solar system is 4.5 billion years.
the dukester, American-American
No we only know that we have no way of going back before the big bang.
If something happened before that there is as yet, no way to obtain data on it.
At least that is my understanding.

Then accept the big bang as the answer.

the dukester, American-American


*****
The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine
and a good cigar.

G.K. Chesterton
*****

[Gronk]

Post by TheRealMccoy
I do not know how old the earth is
but this is predicated on that the ratio starting of lead and uranium isotopes is identical to that of meteorites
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~bi1/Bi1__Micro-_to_Macro-Biology/Additional_Readings_files/Age%20of%20meterorites%20and%20the%20earth.pdf

That was 1956. Got anything recent?