Geologists and dating (India Basins Half a Billion Years Older Than Thought)

I think Joe would be well advised to consider the words of hecd2 written in reply to Peaceharris's post: --Percy

Very interesting read. So, basically peaceharris has some massive conspiracy in the minds of geochronologists around the world. Furthermore, it's interesting that peaceharris feels that only he truly understands the data. Reminds me of the 'quack identifying characteristics':1. Quack scientists will always claim 'the revolution is here' when in fact their quack science is either old and discredited or based on other quack science.2. Quack scientists will usually claim bias by the 'blind mainstream'. In fact, mainstream science is all about overturning bad ideas. Ideas are constantly challenged. Scientists question and are accepting of questions. Quack scientists largely whine about science.3. Quack supporters tend to hop from quack hypothesis to quack hypothesis or cling dogmatically to a single quack hypothesis even when shown to be wrong.4. Quack supporters often have a hidden agenda like proving the earth is young.I was particularly amused at his accusations regarding Tom Krogh who is very well known for his expertise in developing new techniques and rigorous testing of the U-Pb system. This borders on the ridiculous and since the goal is to demonstrate that the earth is really 6000 years old, it has nothing at all to do with the very real controversy generated by our paper. It's also quite apparent that peaceharris has trouble understanding the raw data, but I will of course still provide it if he/she is willing to provide me the information I requested.

Thats a biggie but more than that when was the earth created might well be different when those elements that your dating were created by the big bang, cosmic radiation? I suspect a lot of other assumptions heck you kind of sound like an uniformitists?It seems you are talking about decay rates but how old are the elements since the big bang. Were they formed from a collapsing star, cosmic radiation, the big bang, etc...If you believe the earth was created from the elements in space like space dust travelling at near the speed of light. If so then these elements including lead would of not have been aging before the earth itself was created from these elements.If the space dust is not older than 6,000 years, just because their atomic clocks are wound up from the big bang means nothing as to the age of an element. The entire universe could be 13,000 years old but the space dust might not of aged at all, like a photon.If a photon is ageless well then the earth elements might well be only 6,000 perhaps 13,000 years old since the big bang. It might well be about relativity the spaceship twin analogy but do we really know when the elements were created all we have is different decay ratios it seems uniformitists? assume an old earth.But were the decay rates constant over time, before the earth was were the elements (space dust) aging since the big bang, before earth time was created through the creation of the earth from space dust 6,000 to 13,000 years ago, by our creator, etc...If you believe the decay rates have been constant then you don't believe neutrons or alpha radiation affects or contributes to the decay rates of lead, C14 within the earth. If the elements did not form within the earth then scientists really are clueless as to the exact age of the earth all these uniformitists can do is assume an old earth and that the decay rates have been constant over time.The space ship twin analogy kind of supports the young earthers, the decay rates were pretty much set in concrete before the earth was created. Does a photon age at the same rate as the earth presently ages, etc...P.S. Because of relativity the elements and the earth could well be only 6,000 to 13,000 years old since our creator created present earth time, etc...

Radiometric dating measures the age of rocks and minerals, not age of the atoms that make them up. So all of your message is meaningless gobbledygook, except for one sentence: Yup, you got it. It's not really "belief", it's a conclusion from masses of experimental and theoretical evidence.

quote:

---

Thats a biggie but more than that when was the earth created might well be different when those elements that your dating were created by the big bang, cosmic radiation? I suspect a lot of other assumptions heck you kind of sound like an uniformitists?

​

It seems you are talking about decay rates but how old are the elements since the big bang. Were they formed from a collapsing star, cosmic radiation, the big bang, etc...

​

If you believe the earth was created from the elements in space like space dust travelling at near the speed of light. If so then these elements including lead would of not have been aging before the earth itself was created from these elements.

​

If the space dust is not older than 6,000 years, just because their atomic clocks are wound up from the big bang means nothing as to the age of an element. The entire universe could be 13,000 years old but the space dust might not of aged at all, like a photon.

​

If a photon is ageless well then the earth elements might well be only 6,000 perhaps 13,000 years old since the big bang. It might well be about relativity the spaceship twin analogy but do we really know when the elements were created all we have is different decay ratios it seems uniformitists? assume an old earth.

​

But were the decay rates constant over time, before the earth was were the elements (space dust) aging since the big bang, before earth time was created through the creation of the earth from space dust 6,000 to 13,000 years ago, by our creator, etc...

​

If you believe the decay rates have been constant then you don't believe neutrons or alpha radiation affects or contributes to the decay rates of lead, C14 within the earth. If the elements did not form within the earth then scientists really are clueless as to the exact age of the earth all these uniformitists can do is assume an old earth and that the decay rates have been constant over time.

​

The space ship twin analogy kind of supports the young earthers, the decay rates were pretty much set in concrete before the earth was created. Does a photon age at the same rate as the earth presently ages, etc...

​

P.S. Because of relativity the elements and the earth could well be only 6,000 to 13,000 years old since our creator created present earth time, etc...

---

Hmm, the concept of 'desperate word salad' comes to mind. How about you make your arguments one at a time and in some coherent manner? Thanks in advance.CheersJoe Meert

I am not questioning your integrity. I have made it clear in a previous post that I don't believe you will manipulate your data. The very fact that I am asking you for raw data implies that I am not questioning the integrity of your raw data.What I intend to do is statistical tests and calculations on your raw data to see if it fits your model.Let's put it this way: I'm not questioning your integrity, but your method. Basically what I understand from your previous posts is this: If it fits the Concordia, there is very little common Pb. I will accept your raw data at face value without questioning it. I won't call it 'abuse', just doing my own calculation and sharing it with others. In which post did I call you a liar? Is asking for raw data and not accepting your word that your data fits the Concordia amount to calling you a liar? I prefer if you give me the data in a MS word format without printing and snail mailing it to me. If it's in a word format, I can copy and paste the data from Word to Excel. If you send me a printed copy, I will have to retype your data.Can you reconsider your deal to send me a printed copy? What if I can find statistical tests that prove that the raw data (not the common Pb corrected data) fits my model better than yours? Will you then admit that I am the only one who understands the data?

I will need your snail mail address (I can send a CD with digital data) along with the names of others you will be sharing the data with. If you do that, I have no issues with sending you the raw data. I have reservations about sending data to some anonymous individual. What's the problem with revealing your identity? I don't have an issue sharing my contact information.CheersJoe MeertPS: You have indeed questioned my integrity and you're blind if you can't see that.Edited by Joe Meert, : No reason given.

Sometimes wonder if the "old earth" is a better example of a desperate two word salad. Is it that they all know the missing links are not missing so all the old earthers have left is to press the earth is an old one and to somehow include the fossil record.Kent Hovind one of the greatest scientific minds of our day called this circular dating, or fraud saying a fossil is old. Thank God we have the RATE Boys, etc...They have found enough ratio left in most fossils to date them directly and interestingly all date young!!!!!!!! The old earthers cry foul, because its proving the earth is but a young one. Creationist are moving science forward yet the old earthers keep trying to take science backwards, etc...P.S. I think most people agree time is not relative meaning your seeing light photons that have not aged yet the earth is aging faster due to the earth resting on nothing (space curving inward not outward) propelling the earth forward not backwards in time.Since akjv genesis 1:1 says heaven does not say heavens like the altered bible versions. Its interesting one can press the case the earth is a young earth because the elements in space not believed to be aging at the same rate as the rest of the heavens. The rest of the heavens could be 10 billion years old yet the elements in space might well be not aging. The earth might truely be a young earth, etc...Since genesis creation days does not take credit for the creation of the heavens its no mystery that there was light from the heavens to shine thru the heaven of the earth on day 4 to provide light for the creatures and that this starlight is good.P.S. If the creationists would just read the bible as written they would not include the heavens in genesis 1:1. Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

And one of the greatest modern experts in US local, state, and Constitutional Law. Edited by anglagard, : title

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Shows we need more conservative federal judges, so science can move forward in respect to questioning the theory of evolution in public schools. Florida law (killed Terry in spite of her family willing to care for her)we all saw her slowly die after they took the feeding tube away, etc... however Kent suspect will be part of Zechariah 14:5.P.S. The Feds appeared to use Kent as an example so you too would not challenge the idiocy of the IRS.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Yes, you most definitly have. Message 36

If you would like to start a topic concerning the supposed 'genius' of Kent Hovind please feel free.I've said what needed to be said about his mental or moral 'superiority' over us mere intellectuals and US military veterans (whose pay and benefits you evidently don't support) and prefer to leave this discussion where it belongs -- far over your head. Edited by anglagard, : clarityEdited by anglagard, : more clarity

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

I may not get the opportunity to prove Joe’s analysis is wrong. The practice here is to close the thread after it reaches ~300 posts. There is already too much of noise in this thread, 20 posts per day (most of them being non-technical posts). At this rate, the 300 post limit will be reached before I even start to analyze Joe’s data.I have given my home address to Joe, and assuming that I get the data after 2 weeks, I will still need a few weeks to analyze his data. So my next post will definitely take some time, maybe a month or so. Can we use this thread just to discuss JM’s data and calculations?
As the owner of this website, can you close this thread temporarily to avoid this thread reaching the 300 post limit even before I start analyzing the data?
I don’t want to waste my time responding to this type of questions and accusations that I have called Joe a liar. I have every right to analyze his data before accepting his word and ignore questions not related to JM’s paper.

The subtitle warning is to johnfolton.It would really be nice if others didn't let themselves get dragged down to and into johnfolton's messes.Adminnemooseus

---

If this thread reaches 300 posts then just propose another thread to continue the discussion. Sequel threads are almost always promoted, and its opening post provides an opportunity to refocus discussion, which usually drifts in long threads.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director