Evolution vs Rastafari: Why you have to go with Rastafari

tree rings of deciduous trees usually form "zones " of two (and sometimes 3 rings per year. These are rather easy to discern and are each "lined" by cells that are clearly visible.Its a mature field technique, so to tell us that its faulty is hilarious.
When all you read is ignorant opinions by people who deny reality, your own reality will be flawed. Tree ring analyses (Several tricks and techniques including analyzing the chemicals that a tree picks up with each rain season)

ALl dating techniques do have (usually method and analyses) Assumptions. You seem to want to believe that noone has recognized them and we are just blindly practicing voodoo science.
The only times that method corrections and duplicates and QA has been avoided have been those times qwhen "Creation scientists" have purposely used incorrect methods, or have "doped" samples (like when there was this spate of dinosaur fossils being analyzed by C14 and all the dates were out of range because the Method chosen was fraudulently chosen).
YOU guys are responsible forpretty much all of the incorrect results reported out. Whenever a mistake infrequently occurs in someones literature report, it sets off a **** storm of rebuttal by other scientists who are interested in having dqta verified over and over.
Real science i pretty much self correcting, unlike "Creation science" which is built almost entirely on deception and denial.

You can "Be;ieve" whatever you wish(I have to tell you that I read as many BS reports by your "Scientists" (most of whom claim the existence of a worldwide "flood"). That kind of bull- **** "science" , I admit, does belong in a "Creationism Amusement Park" like the one that you guys built in Kentucky.

There will come a time (after doing more reading and visiting classic sites) when youll understand that science is pretty much fact and evidence based . Then you will move on to become an OLD EARTH Creationist

I have no idea what assumptions of which you are speaking that invalidate dating techniques. ALL SCIENCE uses assumptions to start,.
For instance,

A. Each method of radioisotope dating is bounded by a LOWER AGE LIMIT AND AN UPPER AGE LIMIT and are usable for a specific defined range.(C14 is NEVER used for ancient carbon , if its over 60 K years, AS AN ASSUMPTION OF THE AGE, we would use another method and cross check with other techniques.

B. Decay Constants in the equations (LAMBDA VALUES) are constantly being cross verified and relisted (we're talking about numbers whose accuracy we that now being corrected to the 6th decimal place to the right of the dot

C. Several isotopes undergo "branched decays" wherein their decay constants are a SIGMA value of lambda values from both decay branches.
D Isotopes decay in fixed ratios unique or each element .SO, we use the decay for the parent and DAUGHTER ISOTOPES (As a cross check pf the method),(These methods include U/Pb, Th /Th ,U/Th/Th/He methods. as well s K/Ar Ar/Ar etc. the assumptions for these are cross checked against known age items (like Agometicus granites for U and min aged volcanos for K).
Theres a lot of rading and l;earning to do but as Ive alwys been told
"BEFORE YOURE ABLE TO CRITIQUE THE RULES< YOU BETTER LEARN THE RULES"


Dendrochronology is a very mature tool and before you post actual LIES like your above, you oughta know how its actually done. Dendro guys take multiple samples and resection their samples for "entire season ring sequences". This is news from the 1940's
ARE YOU SURE youre not gungasnake?? He was fond of making up lies about what he said that "Evolosers believed in".
If you dont know what youre talking about at all , dammit, why dont you just shut up??

Ive given A2K Creationists and IDers a perfect scientific argument to try to make points on, (Convergent and divergent evolution , ), yet you try to deny techniques from Physics and chemistry to make your silly points. Are you guys too dumb? or do you just have some talking points handed you by clowns like Ken Ham ?

Ah, so you do understand dating techniques are iunreliable because they all rely on assumptions.

Tree ring dating can be just as ‘laughable’ (as u put it) as any other technique...yielding any desired conclusion. Just as looking at a fossil like Pakicetus and concluding it is a transitional fossil, or looking at highly engineered bacteria (single celled organisms)and concluding that an ocean vent manufactured life using a ‘chemical soup.’ Seeing what is desired.

Interesting isn’t it.....can’t convince the deceived, whether it be an angelic being or human being.....but yet reinforces my observations that only those who seek the truth will find it. I hope one day u do this:)

for someone as unknowing as you, you should be more interested in larning rather than preaching.

Assumptions dont lead to "unreliable results" unless there is a desire to deceive. SO,Im assuming that, since your own worldview recognizes deceipt as a method upon which your beliefs are based, you think that others (like science) are up to the same thing.

Im really Not interested in your opinions, they are based upon serial denial and selective acceptance ,all topped off with a group obtuseness in everything you guys seem to preach.

Prattle On, If you ever learn something, lemme know.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/
Rocks are not clocks.
(Figured I would post This again, I am not sure if you read it or understand it)

So if you acknowledge thatAll dating techniques have assumptions at play, then yes, that means they are unreliable. And such evidence full of assumptions would be thrown out in the court of law.( which is why I throw out the garbage of millions and billions of years)
I find that intellectually dishonest of you to say otherwise. ( you are deceiving yourself by saying they are reliable) I agree that science does not deceive people.

Your a moron. Assumptions dont imply unreliability unless the assumptions are wrong. As I listed just a few assumptions that are associated with Radioisotopic data (like the following: K40 has a branched decay that yields first order daughter products C40 and Ar40. Each of the two daughters has its own decay constant, so the method decay constant is the sum of the decay constants of the two daughters. This generates some non radiogenic Ca which has a result that our method equations need a certain amt of modification).
There are really no "methodological assumptions" that render radiological dating unreliable. Thats just pure Creationist claptrap being disseminated by AIG (which is hardly what you would call "reliable criticism").

I understand your stuff waay more than you do, too bad you have your had up your ass when it comes to science.

You are certainly blissfully ignorant of the real world. Radioisotopic dating has often been used as a forensic tool in both civil and criminal cases . Of course defense lawyers try to "get the best deal for their clients" by claiming that methods are unreliable, however under newest rules of evidence established in (about)1992, scientific data can be admitted so long as the verifiability can be established and those presenting the data in testimony ARE QUALIFIED (There is a process called voire dire where testifying experts are examined to establish their expertise). The dt is also examine by experts on both sides (if there is any suspect that the data are in error)

PS, the basis by which radionuclide dating is established is called the "DECAY LAW", its robust enough to have its basis presente by equations (repeatable mathematical expressions ). Creationists (mostly you YECs, hve been speciously presenting your crap that decay rates have changed over time qnd that ll rad dating is relible. Its funny how even the OEC;s an the IDers submit that rad dating is correct and occurences (if they leave a "radioactive track") can be accurately determined. We have ways to cross check all these dtes and, when an error in someones calv=culations and dqta are found, the actual investigations and correction ppares make relly interesting reading and we then even dicover more new "tricks".
Like theres a trick that was discovered by J Wells that enables relly old rad dates to be compared against other natural occurences that take into account the changing day and year length from hundreds of million of years ago.

Your own Creationist brothers (OECs and IDers) seem to disagree with your "scientific findings" and my use of the term "SPECIOUS" to describe your beliefs about rad nuclides was coined by an OEC (theistic evolution scientist), not me.


PS I read Snellings stuff and commented waaay back there. His styles are slightly leaning toward the ridiculous (weve had histories with the ICR because they could actually be guilty of commiting fraud with misshandling data and specimens).
When they submitted Triceratops sample bone to be carbon dated they never anwered the questions

1BONE?? a fossil from 65 mya would be totally reconfigured as a replacement deposit mostly Silica based. .What form of carbon were they using? Carbonate ??(the Hell Creek Formation is a shale not a limestone).
2. FAKE SAMPLES?? It turned out that some of their samples (those that were sent to the U of Georgia radioisotope lab were possibly "doped" with recent carbon material (like rubbing the "bone" in a LAC Beetle resin powder) So they actually added C14 to some of the samples. Was Snelling part of all that



,

sure, I agree with using dating techniques for civil matters in the court of law, when scientists can and do use dating techniques with certain items and for stuff in the recent past Where NO assumptions are required(or very little)....It is the problem of dating rocks, and relying on major assumptions.
Heck you can find plenty of information of ‘creationists’ using many different types of dating techniques Including radioisotopic.

Just as dating rock ‘layers’ as millions and billions of years old relies on major assumptions.
http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/anomalous.htm

OY , so rather than learn, you just deny. eh?
Being a YEC certainly has its challenges . In one line you state that something cant be done, then you flip 180 and try the other side .

I sense that youre just being disingenuous (I always think [ often incorrectly]That mere education and facts can) burrow into some peoples wordlviews. Maybe you really dont believe this **** that you preach--sorta like gunga, who has always been accused of just playing stupid for fun.
So I bid you adieu, you just continue reading comic books, and buying all that YEC stuff.

I used to preach evolutionism, (but too many challenges) but yes, now I just learn, and share the facts, not preach(which is all anyone can really do).

"preach" v "teach" hmmm. Teaching requires me to be familiar with the many sides of a discipline so that FAQs and misconceptions can be handled painlessly. Preaching is merely the act of advocating or inculcating via speech.
Llearning science is more about being able to acquire the expertise by experiment, or detailed investigations.

You seem to preach your conclusions without benefit of the facts neh?
You can tell us all about Noah's Flood and Creation ??

Here are two more links giving insight to how increased carbon levels in the biosphere ( for whatever reason ) lead to ‘old age’ results.
http://old.reasons.org/articles/global-warming-affects-carbon-dating
To sum up this link above, if carbon levels continue to increase the way they are, when I die, my bones could be dated 1000 years old at the moment of death!

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/radiocarbon-dating/
This link above explains why some dating techniques like carbon dating can be fairly accurate/reliable only for so long, in the RECENT-past.

Keep in mind as we discussed that even though we observe Lions as flesh eaters, is not necessarily reasonable to assume it has always been this way, ( because we have also observed them as vegetarians) therefore when digging up bones of dead animals, we must make assumptions because we just simply cannot know all the factors at play in the DISTANT past.

Thought I would throw those in there.

And to sum up Noah’s flood, I would say it is quite clear the biblical teaching is global in scale because Noah was commanded to take birds upon the ark.
Also, in Genesis chapter 7 God commanded Noah to only take the animals which ‘breathe through their nostrils’ on the ark Noah (Not insects, which breathe through their skin and could Live on floating debris ).
Estimations range around 2,000 ‘kinds’ on the ark.
These animals were vegetarian making it easier to feed as well as not dangerous.
And all the fossils*, coal beds, rock layers, oil fields are the result of such a historical event.

Took you all week to find that ****?? You coulda asked me or any scientist whose ever worked directly withC14. There are a number of calibration techniques that handle all of that stuff
The simplest is the "!890 wood standard". Its not used so much any more except for a few cases. we use several kinds of acids like Oxalic as standards
Ill tell ya about atmospheric N14/C14 some other day.

The crap about the method being "sorta accurate" has a few points pf rality that began the question of calibration and correcting for anthropogenic changes for N14/C14.

So you are convinced that there was a world wide flood like the bible implies?

Whenever I think about that old Noah bullsh*t, it really cracks me up. In a veritable compendium of tall tales and bullsh*t (the bobble), the flood story tops them all.

Why do you assume it took me all week?
Another example of how assumptions dictate conclusions!
The reality is it took me a much shorter period of time. Sound familiar?
Exactly my point with dating techniques haha.
You Cannot calibrate assumptions.
The evidence is convincing for a global flood, absolutely.

Your assumption has been that, because of the variability of N14/C14 in the environment through time, any method involving age determinations using C14 are wrong. That is bullshit on your behalf.
What I told you was that weve long understood how to do method calibrations to remove any effects of changing C14 levels. The fact that it took you o long to find it out and then , rather than look up the standard methods (Also available on the internet), you went to a non-science site to pull down their Creationist spin on all this.

Cosmogenic exposure methods that include 14C,3He,36O,10B and 26Al all have method calibrations recognizing that many environmental interactions can make the original parent or daughter isotopes vary as a result of recent impacts in the environment.
What youve reveled is the built-in anti science views inherent with Creationist views . You immediately jump to "its false technology" before you even understood what the damn methods entail (Both in the field and the lab).

Im sota amazed at how you guys uphold the existence of a worldwide flood when there is absolutely NO evidence of such a contemporaneous flood worldwide. There are examples of places where areas had been submerged and then uplifted (like the Himalayan plateau ), or areas where coastal formations and interior formations show inundation places(like lakes or inland seas) , but none of these show us that they've occurred as a single contemporaneous event.
The fact is that over the last Billion an a half years of geologic records, we see huge areas of submergence, separated( by geography )from other huge areas of dry land. The mythology of the"Flood legend" was readably developed by two geophysicists in the 1970's where they saw evidence of a peripheral post glacial inundation along the edges of the Black Sea where the area had been inhabited by separate civilizations who dwelt along the coastal areas, when the post glacial inundation occurred around 8+K years ago this area had driven these people to migrate and their stories (traceable from myths like Gilgamesh to Noah). Jewish culture seems to recognize these as myth and moral tales . Only a very few cults seem to retain several of these stories as "FACT". You seem to be one.

Hint: I dont think Id present your tales to any meetings of geologic-archaeology,

Like "Hayseed Stevens" a Creationist "Geologist" who applied scripture to drilling for oil . He announced "Absolutely" that a huge oil field await discovery at the SW margin of the Dead Sea.
He collected all kinds of pledges and investments from gullible people and took his oil drilling company...first named "kit Carson LLC" then renamed "NESS" (Its symbol was an oil derrick arising from the starr of David)... from 57$ a share to about 21 CENTS a share in time for(I believe) Christmas the very next year. He pounded 30 million dollars into the ground based on "Flood Geology". He took many peoples retirement funds and pissed them away based on false science and total Biblical Bullshit. He wasnt a con man cause he believed what he was doing (He lost his own money too)


Weve been able to prove by science that not only did a worldwide flood of the Bibke NOT occur, but noone who believes there was has been able to use the type of science needed to make it true (Continental drift would be occuring at a rate of about 7 mi /hr.)

I suggest you watch these videos, it will help you understand the underlying Assumptions at play. It covers more than I have time to write.
https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/age-of-the-earth/radiocarbon-dating/

Keep in mind how ‘evolutionism scientists’ Also heavily rely on assumptions like flesh eating has always existed (that death is good and required), That ‘chemical soups’can produce life known as bacteria, As well as the major assumption that minor DNA resequencing can lead to whales with legs as an example.

Your example of someone relying on flood geology to drill for oil is kind of vague. Are you comparing it to scenarios like scientist who rely on evolution doctrine that teaches chemical soups in oceans can produce life, therefore they search for life on other planets, only to come up dry?! Wasting plenty of tax dollars, if you can count that high.

Always know your source. The quote below is from the AnswersInGenesis.org site: