Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
 

 FAQFAQ SearchSearch Free GamesMake a Donation  UsergroupsUsergroups Free GamesForum Rules ProfileContact RegisterRegister 
ProfileWebsite News Log inSubmit Articles  ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in 

Question for Creationists


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate
Author Message
Trinity1
Emperor of the World



Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FFT wrote:
Using radiocarbon dating on anything considered to be older than 60,000 years is dishonest to begin with. Getting anomalous results isn't surprising, it's expected.


Source? Please cite an article less than 10 years old if possible.
Back to top
Trinity1
Emperor of the World



Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FFT wrote:
[Using radiocarbon dating on anything considered to be older than 60,000 years is dishonest to begin with. Getting anomalous results isn't surprising, it's expected.


Perhaps you should call that European lab to tell them to quit making such false claims... they are saying 100K... as they are able to distinguish what is and is not back ground radiation down to... I think it was .0004pMC
Back to top
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy



Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5846

Location: Memphis
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Trinity1 wrote:
Source? Please cite an article less than 10 years old if possible.
Source for what? That you're going to get anomalous results if you try to date something outside of the reliable dating range for a dating method?

Do I even need to cite for something so obvious?

Trinity1 wrote:
Perhaps you should call that European lab to tell them to quit making such false claims... they are saying 100K... as they are able to distinguish what is and is not back ground radiation down to... I think it was .0004pMC
Sure. This was not available when these tests were done.
Back to top
Trinity1
Emperor of the World



Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FFT wrote:
Trinity1 wrote:
Perhaps you should call that European lab to tell them to quit making such false claims... they are saying 100K... as they are able to distinguish what is and is not back ground radiation down to... I think it was .0004pMC
Sure. This was not available when these tests were done.


Huh? This technology IS available FFT. They did use it to differentiate and distinguish. It is NOT background radiation. What in tarnation are you talking about it not being available... when it is sitting here... right in front of my nose... it is/was/and has been available!
Back to top
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy



Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5846

Location: Memphis
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Check the dates of the tests done which go "woo see this says [50K-60K]" and compare them to how long this 100K has been available. And if, for that matter, they even used that method.
Back to top
Trinity1
Emperor of the World



Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FFT wrote:
Check the dates of the tests done which go "woo see this says [50K-60K]" and compare them to how long this 100K has been available. And if, for that matter, they even used that method.


Please reword this... I have no idea what you are asking for. Are you saying when these coal samples wer tested the ability to eliminate background radiation wasn't avaialbe?
Back to top
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy



Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5846

Location: Memphis
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
To this 100,000 year accuracy, yes.
Back to top
Trinity1
Emperor of the World



Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 5:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FFT wrote:
To this 100,000 year accuracy, yes.


So, this quote from RATE is inacurate?
Quote:
"According to these studies, errors in the spectrometer are very low and usually below the detection limit since the spectrometer is energy dispersive and identifies ion species by energy loss. The detector electronic noise, the mass spectrometer interferences, and the cross contamination all contribute less than .0004pMC to background."(Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth Vol 2, Vardiman/Snelling/Chaffin, 2005, pg 607-608)


And if it is... why?
Back to top
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy



Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5846

Location: Memphis
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's completely accurate.

Is it the method that was used? No.
Back to top
Trinity1
Emperor of the World



Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FFT wrote:
It's completely accurate.
Is it the method that was used? No.


Confused or disgusted *Sigh* Confused or disgusted

You know FFT... I'm for once just speechless. No... really. I've tried... really... I have. I have been patient... persistent... and yes... at times, a little temperamental in this thread.

I really don't know what else to show you. I have provided cite after cite after cite demonstrating the veracity of these tests, samples, given the benefit of the doubt to the validity of c14 dating... and you simply state... 'wrong method'. I'm really not sure where else we can go with this thread. Any ideas?
Back to top
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy



Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5846

Location: Memphis
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Trinity1 wrote:
I really don't know what else to show you. I have provided cite after cite after cite demonstrating the veracity of these tests, samples, given the benefit of the doubt to the validity of c14 dating... and you simply state... 'wrong method'. I'm really not sure where else we can go with this thread. Any ideas?
There could be some C14 dating method accurate to 200,000 years and it still wouldn't matter, RATE used the classic <62,000 year dating method.

Get this through your head: yes, there is a method that can hit 100,000 years. No, RATE did not use it.
Back to top
Trinity1
Emperor of the World



Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FFT wrote:
There could be some C14 dating method accurate to 200,000 years and it still wouldn't matter, RATE used the classic <62,000 year dating method.
Get this through your head: yes, there is a method that can hit 100,000 years. No, RATE did not use it.


Confused or disgusted What... you know this.... how? This ought to be interesting... let me get a bowl of popcorn for this one. Laughing
Back to top
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy



Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5846

Location: Memphis
PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2006 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Because it's in the ORIGINAL PAPER. Where is it?
Back to top
Trinity1
Emperor of the World



Joined: 02 Apr 2006

Posts: 3111
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FFT wrote:
Because it's in the ORIGINAL PAPER. Where is it?


Right HERE

If you don't like that or want to spring for the cost... try HERE

Now... tell me... what is the differnence in the methodology you are talking about.
Back to top
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy



Joined: 26 Mar 2005

Posts: 5846

Location: Memphis
PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The "original paper" used Whitelaw's calculations from 1970.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Creation vs. Evolution Debate All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 

© 2001-2007