Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Carbon 14 Dating and the possible effect of "leaching"
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 11 (340884)
08-17-2006 5:59 PM


The Carbon 14 "leaching" hypothesis:
Some creationists have proposed that 14C is preferentially leached out of samples, thus resulting in a false old age of samples in the Lake Suigetsu data.
First off we notice that their argument relies on transforming the actual samples from Lake Suigetsu into something else - the latest argument is that it decayed into humus - and they need to do this to make the 14C available for preferential digestion by a second set of microbes that then give off methane gas which bubbles up and out of the system. By this hypothesis they say 14C is removed from the samples.
First one set of microbes is required to make the kerogen like sludge, the kind that turns leaf mulch into humus, digesting the organic debris in the lake and breaking it down.
http://welcome.to/humics/structurems/humicms.htm
quote:
Solution IR and NMR spectra of some fractionated humic acid derivatives were similar to those of kerogen, bitumen, petroleum, and coal.
Or some other source of easily available carbon (14 and 12) mixed in with the varve layers.
http://nai.nasa.gov/news_stories/news_detail.cfm?ID=87
quote:
When microorganisms die in ponds of water or in the ocean, they slowly sink to the bottom, forming a thick black sludge. Over time, this sludge becomes buried and compacted by more organisms and layers of mud. If oxygen is left out of the mixture, the organic matter can’t decay and it eventually fossilizes into the material called kerogen.
Then we need a different kind of microbe to consume this kerogen with a preference for 14C over 12C, and produce methane so that the 14C is transported out of the lower layers (if not out of the lake altogether).
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/...99/07-09.1999.04Martens.pdf
quote:
Direct radiotracer measurements indicate that AMO rates of over 15mM yr-1 are focused at the base of the sulfate reduction zone. Diagenetic equations that describe the depth distributions of the δ13C and δD values of methane reproduce isotopic shifts observed throughout the methane oxidation zone and are best fit with kinetic isotope fractionation factors of 1.012 +/- 0.001 and 1.120 +/- 0.020 respectively.
Even more fascinating was the fact that variations in the concentration of dissolved methane in the sediments of Long Island Sound appeared to be inversely correlated to the concentration of dissolved sulfate in the pore waters. ... The field data demonstrated that dissolved methane occurred at shallower depths in anoxic sediments featuring almost complete sulfate depletion.
δ(O/OO) = {(Rsample/Rstandard - 1} x 1000
where R is the ratio of heavy to light isotope in the sample or the reference standard, and heavier (more positive) values have more of the heavier isotopes (13C or deuterium).
So a value of 10 means a 1% change from the standard amount of 13C that should be there. The data show that this δ13C (O/OO) varied a little over 1% in one core sample and a little over 2% in the other, a very slight bias. The microbes in question here prefer to metabolize sulfate and only turn to methane production when sulfate is depleted.
Note that δ14C (O/OO) was not measured in this study, however the natural variation in 14C in the atmosphere is more that +/-2%, so it would be relatively unimportant even if it is selected by these sulfur preferring methane producing microbes in a manner similar to 13C.
So for this 14C transport mechanism to work you need a breakdown\decay\digestion of the organic material in to a kerogen like sludge - that does NOT show up in the Lake Suigetsu varves - and an order of magnetude increase in bias selection of heavy isotope carbon by methane producing
Now we look at the actual samples found in the cores:
Just a moment...
quote:
The 14C/12C and 13C/12C ratios of more than 250 terrestrial macrofossils (leaves, twigs, and insect wings) in the sediments were measured by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) at the Groningen AMS facility (13), after proper sample pretreatment (14).
There is no mention of humus, or kerogen, nor are there any black layers in the varves - they are green (clay) or white (diatoms), with very occasional gray layers (volcanic ash).
But even IF there were anaerobic microbes in the Lake Suigetsu varves that digested some leaves and other organic material into this kerogen like black sludge, and then there were a second kind of anaerobic microbes with a preference for 14C that digests this sludge and exhales methane which then bubbles up through the varve layers, this still does not mean this is a mechanism for taking 14C out of the inside of intact specimens: all the samples used to find the 14C dates are not affected by this extremely unlikely hypothetical process, and so it is irrelevant.
But just for fun, let's look at what the data says about this hypothesis IF it could selectively remove 14C from leaf, twig and insect wing samples. We will ignore for now the total idiocy of arguing that leaching accounts for the Lake Suigetsu varve data so that the correlation between the varve age and the 14C age can be maintained (the annual varves cover a period of time in excess of any "Young Earth" scenario, and if we are not worried about a "Young Earth" scenario then there is no problem with 14C dating methods).
Next we'll use data from Lake Suigetsu. We could probably get the actual data from the sources, but this isn't necessary for our needs -- we can extract sufficient accuracy from this graph to show the concept is false:

{note: image originally from http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/PE-04.htm,
image copied to a mirror site to cut down on bandwidth usage for the original site}
The data from Lake Suigetsu is the small solid dots and it starts somewhere about 8000 or 9000 years ago according to the article "A 45.000 YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM JAPAN"
by H. Kitagawa and J. van der Plicht.
First lets match a straight line to the data points:

I've also highlighted the data from corals (purple circles) to show how they also fit the line. Note that this line covers and matches the line from the tree rings at the start of the diagram -- it has the same slope, so it correlates to that data as well.
We'll use this line to extract some 'normalized' data and then see where a leaching hypothesis takes us
From the line on this last image we see that it runs from the assumed zero point (at 0,0) to a 14C age of 38,000 years ago for an actual 45,000 years ago - based on the floating data match by Kitagawa and van der Plicht (a factor that we will eliminate from the process below)
So the correlation of 14C to age is:
varve age = 14C age x 45/38 = 1.1842f(14C/12C)
where f(14C/12C) is previously defined as
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks:
t = [ln(Nf/No)/(-0.693)]xt1/2

where t is the computed age, t1/2 is the half life (5715 years), Nf is the (final) ratio of 14C/12C atoms in the sample and No is the (original) ratio of 14C/12C atoms at the time of death.
Using these two formulas we can calculate the 'normalized' proportions of 14C/12C for samples at different base ages per the above graph:
The 14C age formula above rearranged becomes
-0.693*t14C/5715 = ln(Nf/No)

or
(Nf/No) = e^(-0.693*t14C/5715)
Substituting (varve age * 38/45) for t14C and working out all the constants we get:
(Nf/No) = e^(-0.693*(38 varve age/45)/5715)

or
(Nf/No) = 1/e^(varve age/9766)
And this gives us a table of data that we can use to represent the Lake Suigetsu floating data:
Varve Nf/No
Age Ratio
----- ------
0 1.0000
8000 0.4408
10000 0.3592
12000 0.2927
14000 0.2385
16000 0.1943
18000 0.1583
20000 0.1290
22000 0.1051
24000 0.0856
26000 0.0698
28000 0.0569
30000 0.0463
Next we'll remove the uncertainty of the floating start of the data by starting ours at the 8000 years ago and using deltas from that time and compare those to the actual Nf/No values:
 Time Actual
Interval Nf/No
-------- --------
0 0.4408
2000 0.3592
4000 0.2927
6000 0.2385
8000 0.1943
10000 0.1583
12000 0.1290
14000 0.1051
16000 0.0856
18000 0.0698
20000 0.0569
22000 0.0463

And when we graph this data we get the following:
Graph of actual 14C content versus actual time intervals from time "X"
In excel I can model a "trendline" through the data points and I can also have it tell me what the function is and what the "R^2" value is (a measure of the accuracy of the trendline formula in matching the actual points -- 1.0 means an exact match at every point).
When I do this for polynomial trendlines I can approach 1.0 with a function like
y = -1.41236465E-23x5 + 1.47427415E-18x4 - 7.33090220E-14x3 + 2.28417483E-09x2 - 4.50898602E-05x + 4.40788286E-01
(this uses 6 constants and has an R^2 value of 0.999999994)
When I do this for an exponential trendline I get:
y = 0.4407940132e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000
(which uses 2 constants and has a perfect match -- to data assuming (1) an 8000 year gap and (2) an exponential function)
Now the fun begins. We know there is an offset at the beginning of the data, but we don't know how big it is eh?
What we can do is model it a different initial time (ti) and see what effect this has on the curve.

If I set the ti at 2000 years ago I get:
y = 0.5409744643e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000
If I set the ti at 4,000 years ago I get:
y = 0.6639231983e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000
If I set the ti at 6,000 years ago I get:
y = 0.8148148245e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000
If I set the ti at 8,000 years ago I get:
y = 1.0000000000e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000
If I set the ti at 10,000 years ago I get:
y = 1.2272727126e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000
If I set the ti at 12,000 years ago I get:
y = 1.5061983111e-0.0001023972x
R2 = 1.0000000000
In each case I get a 100% match to the points on the curve, the formula is of the form:
y = Ae^(Bx)

Where y = Nf/No, x = time and A and B are constants.
In each case I get B = -0.0001023972 which means I can write the general formula as
y = Ae^(-0.0001023972x)
or
Nf/No = Ae^(-0.0001023972t)
or
Nf/No = A/e^(t/9766)
You will also note that A = 1.0 for ti = 8000 years (no surprise as this becomes the formula used to generate the data points).
The important point though, is that for any {delta t} you pick it doesn't matter what the real formula starting date is, the amount of change in Nf/No over that time period is perfectly modeled by the decay rate of 14C -- here carried out to 10 decimal places -- and only the decay rate of 14C.
There is no "room" for 14C to preferentially leach out of the objects compared to 12C without affecting this data, therefore there is absolutely no significant effect of preferential leaching on the objects over the whole period of the data.
If preferential leaching of 14C does not occur over 29,100 years it is not going to have occurred over a period shorter than that. Preferential leaching is falsified as a hypothesis.
One can quibble about the accuracy of the starting date used, but the fact remains that 14C dating {predicts\measures\confirms}the same time periods as are found by counting the annual layers.
Now remember that Nf is the (final) ratio of 14C/12C atoms in the sample and No is the (original) ratio of 14C/12C atoms at the time of death, and because 12C is stable (does not decay) this becomes:
Nf/No = (14C/12C)f/(14C/12C)o

and if the (14C/12C) ratios are expressed as a percentage, then the 12C's cancel (each set to 100 relative to the 14C content) and you end up with:
Nf/No = 14Cf/14Co
The other option for leaching is that it affects both 14C and 12C the same way. If this is the case then the measurement of (14C/12C) removes this effect from the data, and the results then accurately {predict\measure\confirm} the dates of the organic objects.
But it gets even better when you look at even more information from the Lake -- the correlation of both the varve ages and the 14C ages with the actual depth in the sediment.
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE
quote:
RESULTS
Figure 1 shows the varve and 14C chronologies as a function of depth of the SG core. Until now, the varve numbers have been counted in the 10.42-30.45 m deep section. The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1). The 14C ages at 10.42, 30.45 and 35 m depth are ca. 7800, 35,000 and 42,000 BP, respectively.

Note the correlation between C-14 and depth with C-14 and varve count. See how at about 1500 cm of depth and an age of about 10,000 years ago ("BP" means "before present" with "present" defined as 1950 CE), both show a matching change in slope of the curves with depth.
When you realize that one is a linear system of varve counting and the other is a mathematical model based on actual measurments that are along an exponential distribution (see the "Graph of actual 14C content versus actual time intervals from time "X" " above), you know that there is no rational reason for the 14C curve to make the same change in slope unless it measured the same thing that the varve counting does - age.
Conclusions:
(1) there is no measurable significant effect of leaching on the dates derived from 14C analysis. The hypothesis is falsified.
(2) there is no known way for some other system to cause a change to the amounts of 14C inside the specimens that were sampled in these studies.
(3) the correlations keep piling up with additional information that cannot be explained by the ad hoc fantasies of those in denial of reality.
(4) the earth is much older than any YEC scenario, and that continued denial of the evidence for an old earth is delusion.
Enjoy.
(dates and dating)
Edited by RAZD, : typotypicaltypos
Edited by RAZD, : updated with new information at the beginning and at the end, more consistent formating for 14C
Edited by RAZD, : changed file name on last graph

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-21-2006 3:10 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 7 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-28-2008 12:05 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 11 (341887)
08-21-2006 10:30 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 3 of 11 (342010)
08-21-2006 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-17-2006 5:59 PM


Effects of preferential leaching.
We do, however, know that under certain anaerobic conditions and in loosely packed "Gaseous" marine sediment beds, there can be a fractionation effect due to bacterial activity as part of methane production.
In such a setting, C14 at deeper depths will be preferentially metabolized by the bacteria during the methane conversion process.
This methane can sometimes bubble up through the sediment.
The obvious effect of this is that deep sediment (in these specific sediments) will be depleted in C14 and if it were to be dated by the radiocarbon method, it would read artificially old.
An additional effect of this scenario has been suggested. At shallow depth, aerobic bacteria will be able to metabolise some of the carbon from the methane bubbles and fix them back into the sediment.
The result of this is that shallow sediment (in these specific sediments) will be artificially enriched in C14 and will date unrealistically young.
While these mechanisms do, indeed exist and have been documented, it must be noted that the specific sediments in which these conditions are prevalent, are known to be unsuitable candidates for Carbon 14 dating methods.
Sediments such as this exist in many places around the world. The cited case study in the post by JohnFolton related to the sediments of Long Island Sound and the coast of germany.
Other such sites include the edge of the continental shelf along the eastern coast of Florida where landslides regularly release vast amounts of methane gas.
It has to be noted that this kind of fractionation will only occur in "Gaseous" loosely packed sediments with large particles and will not be found in lake varves such as Suigetsu, these sediments are tightly packed with very small particulate. They form a clay-like Consistency that would in no way be liable to allow "bubbling" of any kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2006 5:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2006 12:00 AM PurpleYouko has not replied
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2007 12:42 PM PurpleYouko has not replied
 Message 6 by kbertsche, posted 02-27-2008 2:09 AM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 4 of 11 (342203)
08-22-2006 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PurpleYouko
08-21-2006 3:10 PM


Re: Effects of preferential leaching.
In such a setting, C14 at deeper depths will be preferentially metabolized by the bacteria during the methane conversion process.
This methane can sometimes bubble up through the sediment.
The obvious effect of this is that deep sediment (in these specific sediments) will be depleted in C14 and if it were to be dated by the radiocarbon method, it would read artificially old.
It seems to me that we are already talking about C14 poor ratios to begin with. I don't know what they are dated to, but they also start with marine carbon in the sediments. Any idea what the real age of the sediments is? If it's older than 40k years the effect of fractioning would be rather minimal eh?
At shallow depth, aerobic bacteria will be able to metabolise some of the carbon from the methane bubbles and fix them back into the sediment.
The result of this is that shallow sediment (in these specific sediments) will be artificially enriched in C14 and will date unrealistically young.
I don't see it being necessarily that way -- they would incorporate the C14/C12 ratio of the methane into their metabolism. If the C14 is already old it will be depleted in relation to the C12, so if there is preferential selection of 1 in 100 atoms it could be overwhelmed by the loss in C14 due to decay in the original deep sediment.
This would also affect the background levels of C14, not necessarily the levels within any specif organic (non-bacteria\archaea) specimen. That means you can control for it the same way that radioactive generated C14 is controlled for in the testing.
We also need to know what the proportions involved really are to see whether it can have a significant effect on the dating.
The cited case study in the post by JohnFolton related to the sediments of Long Island Sound and the coast of germany.
They also talked about measuring the proportion of C13 isotopes in the samples and about injecting C14 "tagged" methane into the cultures of the microbes so that they could verify the metabolism of methane, but nowhere did I see any mention of measuring the "native" levels of C14 in the specimens -- again leading me to think we are dealing with archaic sediments and a C14 depleted resevoir system: if there is no natural C14 left to move then we don't know that it is being preferential in chosing the isotopes.
In fact this is the only place C14 is mentioned in the article:
Anaerobic methane oxidation (AMO) rates were determined by radiotracer techniques using 14C labelled methane as described previously by Hoehler and others (1994).
So it really is not talking about preferential selection of C14 as johnfulton implies. They do talk about preferential selection of C13 (another stable isotope), so one could assume a similar effect on C14 -- if there is C14 available. And the effect seems to be fairly restricted in depth rather than pervading the entire {core\column}. The shape of the curve shown should also then show up in any samples of C14 dating -- and this is NOT seen in the Lake Suigetsu data.
In any event C14 dating would not be used on these bacteria or archaea because they are NOT getting C14 from the atmosphere.
C14 might be used to date artifacts of surface life that had fallen to the bottom -- say shipwrecks and sunken logs the like -- but they would not be significantly affected by the C14/C12 ratios of bacteria in the surrounding sediments, as you would have to replace the carbon in the molecular structures of those samples with the carbon from the bacteria without destroying (consuming) the sample molecules in the process.
It has to be noted that this kind of fractionation will only occur in "Gaseous" loosely packed sediments with large particles and will not be found in lake varves such as Suigetsu, these sediments are tightly packed with very small particulate. They form a clay-like Consistency that would in no way be liable to allow "bubbling" of any kind.
Very important point here: leaching does not impact the dating of the Lake Suigetsu varves.
We definintely see a correlation of the depletion of C14 with the time marked layers that matches the age differentials and doesn't allow for significant addition to or deletion of C14 from the samples by any other method than radioactive decay over the time periods involved.
To challenge this relation in any way means having a mechanism that generates the varves on a different - and changing - time scale to match another mechanism that generates C14 levels.
AND: one system is linear and the other is expotential.
Thanks.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-21-2006 3:10 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 11 (437773)
12-01-2007 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by PurpleYouko
08-21-2006 3:10 PM


Invalidating preferential leaching.
Here's some additional information from another source:
http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf
quote:
Estimation of the eruption ages of five tephra layers at Ohnuma Moor based on AMS-14C dates
As the results of tephra correlation in the present paper and Katoh et al. (2006), six tephra layers included in the finer sediments about 17-m thick at the Ohnuma Moor were correlated with K-Ah, SUk, MsP, Sh, AT, and Nh in descending stratigraphic order. There was no age estimation of the tephra layers except for K-Ah and AT based on the precise AMS-14C dating.
We also obtained stratigraphically concordant AMS-14C ages from the same sediments (Table 2 and Fig. 2) that permit the estimation of eruption ages of SUk, MsP, Sh, and Nh. In addition to these tephra layers, we determine the eruption age of AT and compare it wisuth the previous precise age estimation (Matsumoto et al., 1987; Murayama et al., 1993; Miyairi et al., 2004) to asses our results.
This independent study uses 14C dating to date volcanic ash layers. When you draw a vertical line through the intersection of the 14C dating where it intersects the SUk (=Sakate) line you get a 14C age of ~16,500 BP.
Doing the same thing on that graph of varve and 14C dating versus sediment depth from Lake Suigetsu:
A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE
quote:

Gives me a 14C age of ~16,500 BP. The same 14C age for the same layer of volcanic ash from two (2) different environments (and the second full of humus - decayed peat).
This not only validates the 14C age but it invalidates the concept that the presence of humus can cause a change in the 14C age inside the samples used, as there should be a different effect in two (2) different environments, one full of observed humus and the other having no apparent humus.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-21-2006 3:10 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2132 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 6 of 11 (458064)
02-27-2008 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by PurpleYouko
08-21-2006 3:10 PM


Re: Effects of preferential leaching.
We do, however, know that under certain anaerobic conditions and in loosely packed "Gaseous" marine sediment beds, there can be a fractionation effect due to bacterial activity as part of methane production.
Note that fractionation should not affect radiocarbon dates if they are done properly. This is because fractionation effects can be measured by measuring the delta-13 value as mentioned earlier in this thread; the delta-13 data is then used to correct the 14-C fractionation, yielding the correct date.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by PurpleYouko, posted 08-21-2006 3:10 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 7 of 11 (458325)
02-28-2008 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
08-17-2006 5:59 PM


quote:
Some creationists have proposed that 14C is preferentially leached out of samples, thus resulting in a false old age of samples in the Lake Suigetsu data.
Could you provide a list of those creationists you have encountered who make this proposition. How many, exactly, have you personally noticed/known to make such statements. Can you with certainty claim that those people you are about to list, are creationists and don't just claim to be for the hell of it. Have you interviewed such people to see if they meet the correct standards of creationist, and do you know what these standards are or will they be told you by someone you believe to know these standards. Meaning, you must make a personal judgment that the standards you are being told are correct. Aside from rule of thumb, what rules do you use to identify any people as creationists, and make it short. Just having someone's word for it won't do.
Edited by ThreeDogs, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 08-17-2006 5:59 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 02-28-2008 12:09 PM ThreeDogs has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 11 (458327)
02-28-2008 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ThreeDogs
02-28-2008 12:05 PM


Can you with certainty claim that those people you are about to list, are creationists and don't just claim to be for the hell of it.
Good point. I have never noticed that anyone who has ever advocated Young Earth Creationism has ever been honest. Maybe they're all lying about that as well!

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-28-2008 12:05 PM ThreeDogs has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by ThreeDogs, posted 02-28-2008 12:27 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
ThreeDogs
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 77
From: noli me calcare
Joined: 01-08-2008


Message 9 of 11 (458330)
02-28-2008 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
02-28-2008 12:09 PM


quote:
Can you with certainty claim that those people you are about to list, are creationists and don't just claim to be for the hell of it.
Good point. I have never noticed that anyone who has ever advocated Young Earth Creationism has ever been honest. Maybe they're all lying about that as well!
Loads of liars living in the land. It's so Machiavellian, the land is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 02-28-2008 12:09 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
seomack123 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5803 days)
Posts: 1
Joined: 05-08-2008


Message 10 of 11 (465567)
05-08-2008 6:35 AM


Pity me, I'm a spammer!
Content hidden. --Admin
Edited by seomack123, : | online dating personals | adult dating websites | Internet Dating in Australia |
Edited by Admin, : Hide content.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 05-08-2008 7:58 AM seomack123 has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 11 of 11 (465572)
05-08-2008 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by seomack123
05-08-2008 6:35 AM


Spam glorious spam
Dear spambot,
Your semantics are letting you down.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by seomack123, posted 05-08-2008 6:35 AM seomack123 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