6days
New member
But if the temperature consistently shows 80 to 100 degree, then either...
A) you have a bad thermometer, or
B) the temperature really is 80 to 100 degree.
Real Science Radio's 2013 List of Not So Old Things Pt 3
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
But if the temperature consistently shows 80 to 100 degree, then either...
A) you have a bad thermometer, or
B) the temperature really is 80 to 100 degree.
Or you're using it incorrectly. As you learned, C-14, over tens of thousands of years, will form from nitrogen, if there are any sources of ionizing radiation in the ground.
So there are a lot of reasons why dinosaur bones test out close to the maximum age possible for C-14.
6days
New member
22,000 years is no where close to the maximum but is consistent within the creation / flood model.
Let's check with Stripe on that one.
Stripe, is 22,000 years consistent within the creation / flood model?
Have you conceded the errors in your presentation of C14/12 dating yet?
As usual, Stipe is very cautious about committing himself to anything. The bunker is warm and safe, and he's staying there.
When you've got something of relevance, let us know. :troll:
gcthomas
New member
So, what does the argon-argon data tell us about the age of the Earth? Or the Uranium-lead sequence?
Why the focus on the inappropriate C14 decay?
:dog:
There is nothing inappropriate about it. Sample a dino bone for C14, find it and we have evidence for the idea that it died recently.
We know why you want to talk about something else.
gcthomas
New member
Of course you do! Haven't you taken anything in from the discussions about C14 dating methods?
C14 is all over the place. Even the methods used to extract the sample from bone will add modern carbon. The method is bunk, and the best thing is you know it, but are dishonestly representing the state of the art. You know about the other dating methods that uniformly give consistent dates that are different from the amateur C14 one.
Go on, Stripe, run away from the multiple dating methods that disagree with your faith-based non-science nonsense.
gcthomas
New member
So, just tell us again why you reject the argon-argon, uranium lead, and other half-life dating methods that all agree on the age of rocks, whilst picking out the one method that is unable to measure great ages even if the ages given prove your 6000 year belief?
I don't see any of your work published, and I at least am a registered physicist.
I assume you reject the state of the art methods for dating rock simply because it disagrees with your particular biblical interpretation. (cue rant about what the Bible 'plainly says'
)
I don't see any of your work published, and I at least am a registered physicist.
I assume you reject the state of the art methods for dating rock simply because it disagrees with your particular biblical interpretation. (cue rant about what the Bible 'plainly says'
)
6days
New member
A registered physicist?
Here is a "registered" nuclear physicist.
http://creation.mobi/jim-mason-nuclear-physicist
gcthomas
New member
He spent a career as an engineer, not a physicist. Why, do you think, that it took him 20 years to 'realise' that his nuclear physics study was mistaken? He hasn't published his 'novel' ideas in any respectable journal, and he has never had a job as a physicist.
I really don't think that he is registered with any professional Physics learned society, do you? Who'd have him except evangelical groups who think a five decade old PhD gives someone something like Papal infallibility?