Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

You oughta see his posts when he really gets wound up. He can loosly cpnnect four or more disparate subjects by cleverly stylized un-on sentences (Sometimes without any punctuation)

He likes to dangle unfriendly parts of speech like that in ELizabethan poesy .

Sheesh!!!

FM, the talk was neither about carcinogens, nor about how do they 'appear out of nothing' in industrial quantities in the fries ... nor what is the need for the fast-food to be deeply fried at all.
After all, if you are afraid of bears (acrylamide or something) don't go to the forest (don't eat deeply fried & heavily cooked foods).
I was asking about the carbon dating - the fries were your theme, and BTW a lot of (other) questions could be asked there.
So, do you have any vaguest idea about how many research articles in the past 300 years for example in your field have based their 'discoveries' on carbon dating ... and what does the carbon dating actually read ... and how many of these articles have been validated subsequently ... or they are taken as truth of the last resort, by default ... and the question is not 'What will you have with the carbon dating?', but rather 'Why should you base your theory on a method that you don't know what it is measuring?'.

GAAAH but you are not picking up on anything.
CAN YOU provide me with some scholarly articles on C14 dating on HAWAIIAN lava? (That was youre specific request)

I do not. AS I SAID before, the only lava that would even allow C isotope ratio testing are carbonotites (and even these have much more accurate tests available since carbonotites offgas if in the presence of low pH hydrothermal solutions)

I doubt that you will pay any attention to this factual information

From 300 years ago ? NONE!

Marcel Proust.

fm beieves himself directly in contact with material form Herald. Whatever it is he has a name for it and the name suffices for understanding.

The thing about never using cooking oil that has been used before is old hat.

I laughed too when he said "from 300 years ago" LOL. What an ignorant little ****.

well, I wasn't going for being that derisive but, he does strain the edges of credulity.

BTB Herald, who first suggested that Carbon has a naturally occurring, radioactive isotope?

Who first discovered C14, when? and with what famous work was this person (persons) associated?

Who first (if a different person) discovered the significance of the decay half life for C14 and when?

Who coined the term ISOTOPE and why? and when?

That's not true. I've seen the Indian guide in a movie sniff at a dead fire to tell how many days the posse is behind its quarry. So it must have been a tradition going way back. That's carbon dating.

But Herald didn't say "from 300 years ago" James. fm said that and it is kind of him to draw your attention to your gross error so delicately.

People who can't read should go around belittling others. And especially those who have had a long drawn out and expensive education.

Spendius, when will you learn that nobody on this forum takes you seriously?

You obviously missed me winning the NFL Pick-um title two years running.

I am waiting to hear how Herald will attempt to spin his ignorance of 300year old C14 testing (hell, even 200 or 100)

You changed his wording fm. And thereby his meaning.

I took him to mean, by 300 years, the history of modern science, and to put in perspective carbon dating in relation to all the discoveries of science made in that time without that method being in use.

But you did change his wording and that was devious. Most people would think it shameful. And it made one of your claque look sillier than usual.

One thing you have said, loud and clear, is that anybody who asks you the eugenics question will have to put up with the sight of you boo-hooing into Mom's comforting apron and being peer-reviewed in the appropriate manner.

He didn't change the wording LOL.

Herald clearly inferred that carbon dating has been around for 300 years. Don't try to defend a clear mistake and showing of ignorance.

Herald said--"how many research articles in the past 300 years for example". . .

fm said he said --"From 300 years ago ? NONE! " fm was telling us there were none in 1714.

If that is not changing the wording what is?

I very much doubt you understood what Herald meant in referring to volcanic carbon compounds. I'm not sure fm did either.

spendi has always had a reading comprehension deficit, he will neither admit it nor try to correct it.

Herald was clearly uninformed about when it was that carbon dating first came into prominence. Just admit it and we can move on.

If Hawaii is too far away ... from your laptop, you may go to the Grand Canyon, where 'obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows'.
How does that happen, FM? How will you explain the observed 'deviation' in the measurements by C14 and by 87-Rb to 87-Sr ... in the amount of 2 billion years? A 'statistical error' of 2 billion years goes far beyond anything you can imagine.
For further details see: https://www.icr.org/article/42/

'Most people believe that when the different radioisotope dating methods are used on the same rock unit they all yield the same age.'
... What are you going to say about the truth value of that statement, FM? ... and you may pay attention that the key word here is 'believe'.