candle-less, please learn
something about science. Your abject ignorance is almost as painful to watch as is your lies to support it.
Look dwise don't insult my intelligence
with radiocarbon dating crap. It is extremely
unreliable.
If you don't want your intelligence insulted,
then stop saying such utterly stupid things!
How would you know since you have demonstrated conclusively that you have no clue what you are talking about.
You claim that trace C-14 found in dino fossils (mike the wiz also includes C-14 found in diamonds) somehow contradict radiocarbon dating, when the simple fact is that
that trace C-14 formed recently by subterranean sources of radioactivity have absolutely nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.
In
Message 482 you lied when you wrote, "I know how carbon dating works." Proof of that is that you have absolutely no clue
that radiocarbon dating only makes use of atmospheric C-14 which is incorporated into plant tissue (and from there into animals). Recently produced subterranean C-14
is not and has never been a factor! But you keep telling that same stupid lie! And that you keep running away from it (which is precisely what you have just done!) demonstrates that you know full well that it's a lie.
What is wrong with you? Are you so utterly stupid? Insulting your intelligence is clearly not possible since you display no evidence of possessing any intelligence.
Simple test: can you recognize the significance of C-14 formed in the atmosphere versus C-14 formed deep underground? Do you know which is used in radiocarbon dating and which is not?
If you can answer those questions, then
why do you persist in lying about it?
If you still want to persist in your lie about knowing how radiocarbon dating works,
then describe it in detail! Specifically, describe where the C-14 comes from and how it gets into organic material. That should be trivially simple for anyone even only casually engaged with reality could answer it. But can
you answer it? I doubt it very much, but do please give it a try. And, of course, if you still want to include C-14 produced by subterranean radiation then you must also describe
in sufficient detail how
that C-14 is supposed to get into organic material.
IOW, I'm calling your bluff.
General speaking, the results are manipulated
to obtain the expected age. Deny all you
want, but we both know this is true.
No, that is not true, but rather that is just yet another creationist lie that you've swallowed whole like a camel (while straining at the gnats of reality -- it's from the Gospels, so I doubt that you have ever encountered it).
Please cite examples, since your reference is so vague. But what I have heard from stupid creationists in the past was that they were talking about how when you submit a sample to a lab for testing you provide an estimate of its age. The very practical reason for that is for the lab to apply the right test: testing a millions-years-old sample with radiocarbon (especially if it is inorganic
like a dino fossil) would yield bad results as would testing the Shroud of Turin (not old geologically speaking) with a uranium method (which test very old things).
It's like deciding whether to weigh something with a trucking scale, a bathroom scale, or a postal scale. You wouldn't weigh a letter on a trucking scale because the weight of that letter wouldn't even be detected by the scale giving a weight of zero. And you wouldn't weigh your car on your bathroom scale because that would just peg the scale at its maximum value (eg, 400 lb) giving a weight for your car of 400 pounds. Nor would you weigh yourself on either a trucking scale or a postal scale.
Before you weigh something you need to choose a scale that would give you a meaningful weight.
That's about all that that is about. Or were you talking about something different? Do you even know the answer to that question?
In some instances the head and the tail of the
same fossils have been dated as much as
20,000 years between.
Yeah, you'll have to give a reference (from Hovind, I'm sure). Since we don't date a fossil directly but rather from its
in situ location, there would be no such thing as different dates for head and tail
both found in the same layer.
Are you talking about radiocarbon dating of frozen mammoths? I heard of that "different parts of the same body had different ages" claim before. It turns out that those were three different mammoths,
not a single mammoth.
That's another creationist camel that you gulped right down.
Also, fossils are dated by the strata that they
are found in, and the strata is dated by the
fossils they contain.
Yes, and? But the way you say that means that you are insinuating circular reasoning. Same dishonest creationist lie, hasn't changed a bit.
Radiometric dating on rock is how long ago it solidified from being molten.
Radiometric dating cannot be performed on sedimentary rock since it is ground down and recycled older rock, so radiometric dating would just get the age of bit of old rock tested. However, we can tell which layers are older than others by the order in which they are stacked. We can also establish dates for layers from
igneous intrusions which bracket them in. Therefore we can determine the age of a particular layer.
Fossils cannot dated directly (excluding organic specimens). For one thing, if you melt the fossil in order to "start its clock", then you have destroyed that fossil -- if it's a fossil, it hasn't been melted, so no radiometrically dating a fossil. Fossils result from burial and so are most commonly found in sedimentary rock, but we can arrive at a date for the layer it's found in as described above (
extremely important that you don't just pull a fossil out of the ground and carry it to a museum).
So how do we identify a layer here to be part of that other layer way over there?
In geology it's done by with identifying characteristics which have been determined empirically, which includes
index fossils. However, many of those index fossils are microscopic, eg diatom shells which evolve over time. Fossils such as the ones that we are interested in (eg, dinos) are not used a index fossils. Thus
the fossils identifying the stratum (from which we know its age) are not the same as the fossils that get their age from which stratum they're in. There is no circular reasoning here.
There is absolutely nothing that supports
evolution.
Evolution is supported by almost everything since it's based in reality. However, creationism is divorced from reality and so has nothing to support it.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
