14
   

How can dino bones be millions of year old?

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
cameronleon
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 03:39 pm
It happens that the radiometric method has never been verified.

Science requires the verification of everything before taking it as a fact or a reliable source of information or data.

Unfortunately, the whole idea of a regular isotope decay over millions of years is just an assumption, because thinking that because such is what detect in one hour of test will imply that such is what will continue for years or centuries or millions of years, such is just ridiculous.

For example, astronauts in space show a fast osteoporosis as a consequence of living in outer space for six months. Then, a test was made with a Russian and an America astronaut to live an entire year in outer space.


The osteoporosis increased but not at the rate which usually is the observation of osteoporosis of a 70 years old person in a 30 years old astronaut living six months in the space station.

As it was observed when the two astronauts returned back to earth, the regular decay slowed a little but the decay continued anyway. Anyways, the American astronaut was declared no more good for space traveling for the poor healthy condition and was obligated to retire.

(so, be careful if you incite your children to become astronauts, they will age fast and with lots of medical conditions because living in outer space makes you older rather than younger, and with lots of medical problems)

When we translate this decay to radioactive isotopes at the long run of centuries or thousand of years, the scenario might be the same or different. However, we must understand that because a knife is known to be made in the 4th century BC doesn't mean that the metal belongs to that time, and for this reason, it is completely a waste to use it as a reliable source of comparison.

For this reason, we must be honest about the age of the earth and the universe by simply saying: No one knows.

For this reason, the whole data obtained by radiometric methods are the whole nothing but conjectures.

Then, those "millions of years" assumed to be the age of strata is just that, mere assumptions, no facts.

A verification made with Carbon 14 was to take a sample of an old tree, and compare the data obtained by radiometric method against the counting of the rings of the tree, which are one internal ring per year.

The result of both were similar, and the Carbon 14 method was verified. The real limit is 5 thousand years, the extension up to 10/15 thousand years, the rest, like 50 thousand years for Carbon 14 are conjectures and lies.

As nobody has verified the data of millions of years, then the assumption of those 65 millions of years is not valid to establish that amount of years as a reliable information, but solely as speculation, educated guess or simple assumption.

The fact that soft tissue was found in the bone of a dinosaur is enough to establish that those "millions of years of age" for dinosaurs are more than conjecture: those are a joke.

farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 04:27 pm
@cameronleon,
Quote:
It happens that the radiometric method has never been verified.
Youre speaking total bullshit (most of it bers that "made up" crap of Creation SCience. Isotopic methods are verified everytime a method is used used. There are new analytics sheets produced annually of disintregration rates for unstable isotopes. The radioisotopic method is measured in seconds , not years or weeks.
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 05:29 pm
There is an assumption built into radiocarbon dating that the ratios of isotopes have always been as they are now but, basically, the fact that something radiocarbon dates at all says that it cannot be more than around 60,000 years old. The fact that dinosaur soft tissue is now rc dating (at 20K - 40K years) says it cannot be more than around 60K years old.

That says that Chuck Darwin is screwed...

https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/wikiality/images/c/c4/Darwin_ape.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20080501102557
gungasnake
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 05:30 pm
Also all of the academic dead wood (like "Formerman" here) who still believe in that garbage are screwed).
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 05:35 pm
I just love these threads.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 06:05 pm
@gungasnake,
With all the "garbage" Ive managed to learn, I can earn a damn good living solving problems and producing resources as a proud "Deadwooder". What can gunga do I wonder?.

"ya want fries wid dat?"
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 06:12 pm
@gungasnake,
actually your quite wrong. Carbon 14 data has been adjusted several times to account for atmospheric radio N acting as a source of intensified C14 since the nuke age began. This probably accounts for a 1% error in Recent C 14 use, (hich is more important when it comes to dating stuff like ground wter flow than actual date determination.

We can verify all this because we can cross check recent dates against dates on Newspapers and magazines.

Are you always this dumb gunga? or do you just put duck tape over your eyes so you cant read or stick plugs in yer ears so nothing factual or offensive to your silly worldview enters that ganglial bundle what passes for your brain.

0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 08:25 pm
@farmerman,
Oh, yeah?

how the hell you say the radiometric method has been verified?

Lets see, inn order to verify a method of measure, you must use a different method of measure that is established as reliable, and compare the results on the same test one against the another.

That is the only way for scientifically verify a method of measure.

Understood?

Comprende?
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 08:54 pm
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Deadwood_Season3.jpg
0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 18 Aug, 2017 08:55 pm
@gungasnake,
The fraud of millions of years goes in accord with the fake theory called the theory of evolution.

The same Libby, the discoverer and inventor of the Carbon 14 radiometric method of measure, took samples of the Gulf of Mexico to obtain the data of the age of the hydrocarbon sediments.

The data obtained in the 1950s was 11,800-14,600 years of age with a tolerance of 1,400 years.

This result was written in Science Magazine by Paul V Smith Jr in the article:

"The Occurrence of Hydrocarbons in Recent Sediments from the Gulf of Mexico."

Today, a bunch of liars, those fraudulent dudes called scientists with diploma, are deceiving people telling them that those sediments indicate millions of years of age for bacteria that existed in such far era "according to the radiometric method of measure".

Lies and fraud.

Life on earth is no more than a few thousand of years. The idea of millions of years of survival of species on earth is ridiculous when observing the continuing and current extinction of tens of species in a barely few hundreds of years.

No doubt that evolutionists are a bunch of ignorant people.
gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 02:33 am
@cameronleon,
We have one fairly new planet in our system which is actually ballpark for some sort of a 5K - 15K year age, but Venus LOOKS like that, 850F surface temperature, 90-bar CO2 atmosphere, massive thermal imbalance, massive upwards IR flux, total lack of regolith etc. etc.

Earth and Mars do not look like that at all and have to be much older, but not billions of years old. If you take that 40K year outside RC date for the one set of dino remains and plug it into the standard little 24-hour clock model of Earth's age which has dinosaurs arriving at 10:40 PM, you get an age of around 700,000 years which seems reasonable.

All you're really trying to do is come up with a halfway rational guess or approximation since nobody knows what sort of conditions prevailed prior to the flood and for me at least, the 700K year idea works. You could multiply that by five or ten to give the evolosersd every possible shot and you're still only talking about a few million years which is nowhere near enough.

Basically, we're only waiting for one more generation of academic dead wood to die out....
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 04:19 am
@cameronleon,

Certain isotopic tests should not be used in specific cases based upon the following reasoning. ALL atoms of a specific element have the same number of protons in their nucleus.However they they have differing numbers of neutrons based upon whicheverisotope they are. U-238 has 3 more neutrons than U-235 bt the same number of protons. Protons determines its atomic number and protons plus neutrons is its atomic mass. We can calculate the age of an isotope by a simple relationship
log (F)=(N/H) log(0.5).F=fraction of an isotope that remains;H= an isotopes half life;N=number of years isotope has been in the sample of (whatever media were interested in). If we can accurately measure the amount of element in a sample when it was emplaced the manner of age detn is merely a matter of good lab technique and sufficiently accurate GC/MS's . The amount that has been in the sample since it was emplaced is easily determined by comparing it to other isotopes (non rad) of the same element, Tey were, at emplacement roughly all the same. So by determining a ratio of what was there at the outst, we can determine. We use K/Ar technique based upon the 3 principle isotopes (that constitute a common ratio at "birth" and these are fixed by physical chem). We accurately recheck half lives all the time , and we know the amt of a traget radioactive isotope that is NOW in a sample. So all the rest is easily determined (and checked by QA measurements and system standards and multiple runs and 5 point determinations to make sure that really low levels of rad nuclides are determined.
EACH element in the "cookbook" of rad nuclide determination has a slightly diff methods and givens.

The various methods of rad age determination and decay LAW can be empirically determined as well as rigorous mathematics. It depends heavily upon quantum considerations and Fermi-Dirac distribution stats. Pauli exclusion principles apply for the transformation of nuclear structure which are well known and determined.

Sounds like Henry Morris has got you convinced about "The great radionuclide hoax". Quite the contrary, rad nuclide labs (At least the ones I use are quite open and QA sensitive) BUT human nture being what it is, occasionally we make mistakes . and because rad nuclide chemistry LEAVES a TRAIL to follow. These mistakes can be detected and rerun.
To willfully CHEAT C14 samples by

1 fooling the lbs doing the MA work (this happened in the first cases of stegosaurs and Triceratops that yielded ages of 20K years.(The paleontology and stratigraphy of the HELL CREEK samples were determined to be of very old age.(This was done by correlation and the mere fact that only Cretaceous fossils were found there. NO younger fossils, (like a mammoth) were ever found "mixed in" HOWCOME?

2Doctoring the samples with shellac (that hppened in the original samples)



This "logic" thats used by the Creation clowns who actually go out and waste money by collecting samples of fossils and then doctoring them or just submitting them knowing their geological ages(there is always a certain amt of C14 formed in soils but this is NOT C14 that is atmospherically induced by removing neutrons from N14(which is the one we are interested in nd labs try to remove all other interferences.

I suggest that you obtain a copy of the Morris and Whitcomb book The GENESIS FLOOD and look at pages 357 to 359 where you see the most blatant bullshit about isotope age determination.

It talks about a worldwide flood. (Evidence of which has NEVER been found, let alone published in peer reviewed journals). Morris developed an assumptive equation of what "Should be" the way nucllide decay is determined (According to Creationist logic). He doesnt even use half lives or decay constants. (which are constantly being checked in science)

Morris was a Hydraulics engineer so he used his math knowledge to develop tricks in how to "manufacture fake ages" for fossils and strat samples. He was a sneaky sumbitch. I think that Creation "Science" counts on their fans to be just undereducated enough to accept the "scientistic BS" that is conveyed as facts and evidence.

What gets me overall though.
On one hand you guys state emphatically that radioisotope chemistry doesnt work , yet at the same time you have someone actually work with C14 and K/Ar to show that the ages determined are ACCURATE when you misuse a technique.

1Theres over 45 seprate isotopic dating techniques plus a lot of other techniques like spin resonance, alpha tracking,thermoluminescence (several kinds of thermo) and more classical techniques to cross check the rdioisotope techniques.
2ALL THE DIFFERENT RADIOISOTOPE TECHNIQUES AGREE WITH EACH OTHER
3. There are about 700 labs worldwide that focus on doing radionuclide dating. WOW, we really have a conspiracy going here. TO WhAT PURPOSE is this "conspiracy" being perped??

4.Weve been measuring radioactive clocks for about 70 years . The uranium 238 clock has been determined about 120 years ago and without any changes.

Id suggest you read an old paper by Roger Wiems . Its called "Radiometric Dating-A Christian PErspective" . Roger is a Christian and a geophysicist whose made a practice in debating the Fundamentalists about why they are wrong in believing in a Young Earth (he bases his determinations using radiochemistry).








farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 04:25 am
@cameronleon,
"evolutionists" have one thing going for their science compared to the frudulent BS of the Cretion "Scientists". Our science works. e use it for mining and resource development. We use it in environmental dating and determining the age of planets and by looking at spectral ratios of isotopes, the ages of the various galxies.

What have you got,? Mot all of your sciencs has been either totally debunked or shown that it was actual fraud going in (like the 20 K yar old stegosaurs and Ceratopsians.


lthough, you can believe whatever story you want and you have that right, jut dont interefere with my rights by trying to teach your stuff as science
cameronleon
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 08:14 am
@gungasnake,
You don't understand.

Who is talking about the age of the planet?

We are talking about the age of life in the planet. The age of living creatures in our planet.

I will explain better.

There are some ceramic figures from Mexico where you can see strange creatures that look like dinosaurs even having sex with women. The place where these figures were found also has underground old ceramic which is recognized as coming from ancient cultures in that area.

An investigator went over there to check the different ceramic figures. He was told that a dude used to make them for fun and the whole figures found in an empty storage place was his work of months doing those ceramics.

The investigator sent to a lab in New York to verify the age of the ceramics in question and also a ceramic that is conventionally accepted by the museum of Mexico.

The results was that the ceramic figures of the dinosaurs were "older" than the ceramic of the ancient culture in that area.

But, it was understood as well, that there is the great possibility that the dinosaur figures were made with an older clay, this is to say, it is not about when they were made but about how old was the clay used to make the ceramic figures.

In other words, we can have a trillion years old planet with life starting five thousand years ago.

Any comments?

edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 08:21 am
Any comments?

Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 08:29 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
"evolutionists" have one thing going for their science compared to the frudulent BS of the Cretion "Scientists". Our science works.


Only in the sense of reducing the IQs of its adherents, as in your case. Most people don't want their IQs reduced....
cameronleon
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 08:30 am
@farmerman,
Your "decay law" stinks.

You don't know anything about the behavior of isotopes thru thousand of years.

You just ASSUME that such is their behavior.

The tests made are just about their behavior today, with the current atmospheric pressure, gravity, and so forth.

It should be stupid from your part assuming that isotopes will react the same in a different environment.

For example, liquid metals can't be mixed on earth ground zero, but they do can be mixed in the space station under a different environment.

The whole radiometric method is just assumptions over assumptions and as I have established, this radiometric method has never ever been verified.

You must learn how to verify a method of measure before coming back with bubbling of lots of numbers of protons and neutrons and isotopes remains, and use a different method of measure, (nothing related to radiometric) and compare the results of both methods.

In case you can't find a different method of measure to verify those "millions of years data", then... sorry, your data still is pure conjecture until you verify it properly.

The whole data given as billions of years for planet earth, millions of years for dinosaurs, etc, are nothing but pure conjectures.

So, don't come here and try to discuss the fact that the radiometric method has never been verified, you have assumptions only, and science is not based in assumptions.

You are not talking science, you are using known facts to obtain superfluous conclusions.

Otherwise, you should show without problems the verification of those millions of years of age for dinosaurs. The radiometric method alone is just a flower, and a single flower doesn't make Spring season.





0 Replies
 
cameronleon
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 08:34 am
@farmerman,
Very well.

Show here the process and explanation of the existence of humans from single cells.

Every step must show the correspondent evidence and explanation of the process.

A theory of science is not about what scientists believe, but about the explanation of the mechanism involved for the consequence of the phenomena of certain class from a former phenomena of the same class.

So, if your "theory" has explained the process, then write it here.

Show what you have.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 19 Aug, 2017 08:35 am
@cameronleon,
Which is at least a few tens of thousands of years. The Bible in particular is reasonably good history as far as it goes but it only goes back about 5K - 6K years. Many creatures including Cro Magnon man and hominids have more of a history than that.

The authors of the Bible apparently viewed leftover Cro Magnons as a sort of non-people and mention them only in the sense of inferences such as Cain's wife or whoever Cain was worried might kill him when, supposedly, he and Adam and Eve were the only three humans on the planet.

Cro Magnon people and their descendants such as the native Australians and Spanish Basque are genetically more or less the same as all other humans but their cultures and technologies at first at least were totally different from those of the people of Genesis due to the huge space of time between the saltations.
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/25/2019 at 11:50:51