Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radiocarbon dates -- young coal and natural gas (things that C14 date too young/old)
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 16 of 21 (483650)
09-23-2008 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by johnfolton
09-23-2008 4:11 PM


Re: Coyote, You are quoting material that contradicts your position right?
The article about peat bogs said no peat older than 11,500 years I quoted glaciers because non from your time line were capable of erasing peat bogs older than 11,500 years. It all comes out were talking an young universe. right?
P.S. If you have no life older than 11,500 years how pray tell did they date glaciers older. Is not this one more of your beliefs in dating methods based on myths like an old earth. From your myths these dates of 27,000 years were derived not from C14. right?
Johnfolton, your posts don't make much sense. Sometimes I think you must be an evolutionist posing as a creationist and trying to be as silly with creationist arguments as he can to make creationists look bad.
It would help if you concentrated and posted coherent arguments in readable sentences. The way you mix ideas and sentences makes understanding what you are trying to say very difficult.
I would appreciate it if you could restate what you said above to be more understandable. Thanks.
By the way, I have obtained radiocarbon dates older than 11,500 years myself.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by johnfolton, posted 09-23-2008 4:11 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by johnfolton, posted 09-23-2008 11:42 PM Coyote has not replied
 Message 19 by johnfolton, posted 09-23-2008 11:50 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 17 of 21 (483700)
09-23-2008 7:33 PM


Topic abandonment happening - Short term closure coming
The topic theme was well outlined in message 1 and the topic title. All messages should directly tie into carbon dating considerations (like, the words "carbon dating" should be used in every message).
In about 15 minutes I'm going to close this topic down for a while and decide what sort of housekeeping measures (message hiding, off-topic banners, etc.) are needed.
Adminnemooseus
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "comming" to "coming" in subtitle. "messge" to "message" in message. Haste causes edits.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Remove "I think going into similar considerations of other radiometric dating methods would be marginally on topic" sentence from message.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]
Admin writes:
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-23-2008 11:53 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 18 of 21 (483735)
09-23-2008 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
09-23-2008 4:38 PM


Re: Coyote, You are quoting material that contradicts your position right?
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2008 4:38 PM Coyote has not replied

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 19 of 21 (483737)
09-23-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
09-23-2008 4:38 PM


Re: Coyote, You are quoting material that contradicts your position right?
I would appreciate it if you could restate what you said above to be more understandable. Thanks.
The peat fossils dates by C14 were frozen not affected by mineralization, contamination, dilution, etc ... right? They all dated no older than 11,500 years. On this we agree. right?
Another poster suggested the last glacier answers why nothing older meaning the last glacier scraped the Siberian bogs of previous vegetation answers why nothing dated older from his old earth point of view.
The problem with this is the last major glacier is it had no moisture over Siberia. Without major amounts of ice it could not of scraped away previous peat bogs thus the present peat bogs suggest only that its an young earth. right? I mean if life has been growing on this earth for millions of years and this glacier was incapable of removing peat bogs before 11,500 years you should have plenty of stuff dating older than 11,500 years: like 17,000 year 15,000 years 19,000 years, 20,000 years instead only young earth biblical time ages is what you see in the natural and the only explanation why you don't see nothing is a glacier that was not capable of scraping away the previous peat bogs. If the earth is 13,000 years old you should see frozen peat not dating older than 11,500 years by C14(if they were sheltered being frozen in a peat bog from contamination). right? This means your in check right? No excuses other than denial. right? Ok can not or will not refute then guess its check mate!
By the way, I have obtained radiocarbon dates older than 11,500 years myself.
But were they frozen wood fossils sheltered from gamma rays, water leaching, mineralization, and other contaminations, etc...
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2008 4:38 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 09-25-2008 8:59 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 20 of 21 (483738)
09-23-2008 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Adminnemooseus
09-23-2008 7:33 PM


Topic reopened
I've added the "(things that C14 date too young/old)" part to the topic title.
I had "hide" a couple of messages, on the way to "hiding" even more. Then I decided that in a muddled sort of way they might be on topic.
Essentially, johnfolton is saying the peat dated (relatively) young, rather than millions of years old (which would be outside of the C14 dating range).
Coyote thinks that those (relatively) young ages are what could be expected from the glacial/non-glacial history of the area in question. The non-admin mode (Minnemooseus) would agree with that.
It seems to me that johnfolton is constructing a strawman (peatman?) in that he thinks the mainstream scientific perspective is that the peat in question is millions of years old. He needs to produce some sort of science side (not creationist) reference to support this millions years old peat concept. But that would be off-topic here. Maybe the place for such is in the Paging johnfolton. Bring your evidence for a young earth topic.
Bottom line - The previous peat discussion should stop.
My vision for this topic is as what I added to the topic title - "Things that C14 date too young/old".
Such as the message 1 material, the C14 dated "very old live seals or snails", or the C14 dated "young diamonds".
Or something like that - Topic drift control is a bitch.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Adminnemooseus, posted 09-23-2008 7:33 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 21 of 21 (484037)
09-25-2008 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by johnfolton
09-23-2008 11:50 PM


Re: Coyote, You are quoting material that contradicts your position right?
Hi JohnFolton,
Only just now noticed your posts to this thread. Please stop posting here. Thanks.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by johnfolton, posted 09-23-2008 11:50 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024