Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,858 Year: 12,970/6,534 Month: 253/2,210 Week: 194/390 Day: 0/50 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5475
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1 of 5 (899789)
10-19-2022 1:12 PM


This fulfills my promise in The Meaning Of The Trinity, Message 646, to open a new topic for discussing candle2's so-far unsupported claim of there being many flaws in dating methods since that discussion is off-topic there:
DWise1 writes:
Since it is off-topic here as pointed out by candle2, I will propose a new topic for this discussion, even though I have no doubt that candle2 will yet again cut and run or otherwise do his best to sabotage discussion -- ie, being a creationist, he will undoubtedly do what creationists always do.
Nonetheless, I will propose that new topic referring back to these messages and my request/demand that he first study up on the subject since his past lack of performance demonstrated that he clearly does not understand radiocarbon dating (despite his false claims to the contrary).
candle2 indicated that he is just now leaving vacation, so in order it doesn't scroll off the All Topics page before he gets back from vacation I will wait about a week or so before proposing the topic. After that, I will wait an appropriate amount of time before posting bump messages for him.
While waiting for this topic to be promoted, I'll copy key messages in the other topic over to here plus links to replies.
In Dates and Dating?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2022 2:30 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5475
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 2 of 5 (899795)
10-19-2022 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dwise1
10-19-2022 1:12 PM


I will now repost pertinent message content. My purpose in posting all this background information is to provide it here in this topic where all further discussion should be conducted. That way, you won't need to hunt it all down yourself in another topic, though I also provide links so that you can check the originals.
First, basically how it started. I'm just posting the pertinent parts of those messages:
Excerpt from my Message 576 reply to candle2's misconstruing of the Holy Roman Empire claiming it to be something else entirely different:
DWise1 writes:
First you lied about evolution and we checked your claims and exposed them to be lies.
Then you lied about the radiocarbon dating method and we checked your claims and exposed them to be lies.
Then you spread right wingnut conspiracy theories which we checked and exposed to be lies.
And now you make false statements about history which we have checked and exposed to be false.
Everything you've said that can be checked has been checked and proven to be false.
You also blather on about things that cannot be checked, namely about the supernatural. Why would you expect us to believe you about that and how could you possibly expect us to believe you about the supernatural when everything else you've posted has turned out to be false?
Excerpt from candle2's reply Message 576 to that:
candle2 writes:
This is little bit off the subject, but you brought it up.

You have done nothing to disprove that Radiocarbon
Dating is flawed.

Nor have you posted anything that cast doubt on
Creation.

In fact, you have increased my belief in God and
Creation.
Excerpt from my reply Message 586 to that:
dwise1 writes:
You have done nothing to disprove that Radiocarbon
Dating is flawed.
Do you think that radiocarbon dating is flawed? Then why don't you present those flaws? You have not done that yet that I can tell. Why not?
Besides your lie that you do understand radiocarbon dating (which you very obviously did not and undoubtedly still do not), all you mentioned was finding trace amounts of C14 in coal and in diamonds where they had been created recently from nearby radiation sources deep underground. Those trace amounts have nothing whatsoever to do with radiocarbon dating!
I will explain it to you YET AGAIN (which you wlll yet again ignore whining that your phone screen is too small (So read it on your computer, idiot!))
The only C14 that plays any role in radiocarbon dating is the C14 that has been incorporated into plant tissue, from which it can pass to animal tissue through the eating of the plants or of the plant-eaters. That means that the only C14 in radiocarbon dating is atmospheric C14, not subterranean C14. If you honestly and truly (two words foreign to creationists) believe that enough of those subterranean traces of C14 are getting into the plants and hence into the food chain, then tell us how!
That should be as glaringly obvious as Revelation having been written long before the Holy Roman Empire ever existed. Especially to anyone who actually does know something about radiocarbon dating, which you just as glaringly obviously do not!
If you know of any actual flaws in radiocarbon dating, then present them and we can discuss them (assuming you don't stay true to your MO and run away from it). So what's keeping you back?
Nor have you posted anything that cast doubt on
Creation.
Of course not, because that has never been my intent! Not even once in the four decades that I've been studying "creation science" (AKA creationism, not to be confused with belief in actual Creation).
Rather, I oppose "creation science" for being nothing but a pack of lies which has led believers to lose their faith. And I don't have to cast doubt on it because just exposing its lies should be enough if creationists were honest or the least bit interested in the truth (which sadly they are not, but rather go ever deeper into denial and self-delusion).
Rather, it is creationism that works to cast doubt on Creation. Creationism, and especially YEC, denies the Creation in all of its claims and even teaches that if the Creation is actually as we find it, then that somehow disproves God. Basically, that's spiritual suicide that you are promoting and many have taken that bullet.
But in addition, creationism and its glaringly false claims make Christianity look stupid, so much so that it drives many away from ever even beginning to consider becoming a Christian.
By destroying its followers' faith and warning other away from converting, creationism does truly contribute to the growth and spread of atheism.
You're doing a good job of it!
In fact, you have increased my belief in God and
Creation.
Yep, burrowing even deeper into denial and self-delusion in a desperate attempt to hide from the truth.
No reply from candle2, but he instead he replied to this excerpt from Tanypteryx' Message 587:
Tanypteryx writes:
You have done nothing to disprove that Radiocarbon Dating is flawed.
You have not presented a shred of evidence that radio dating is flawed.
candle2's reply Message 590 to that:
candle2 writes:
Tanyptery, we all know the limits and inaccuracies of
dating.

Basic assumptions used in dating methods are
are just that, assumptions. Wrong assumptions lead to
unreliable data.

Don't pretend that you don't know about the unreliability
of dating methods.

I know, beyond any doubt, that you and all evolutionists
have these huge doubts.

If a dating technique is found to be wrong just once, none
of the results can be trusted.

You know this, and I know this. And, you know that I
know this.
Lots of replies to that piece of work -- six replies including mine. Here is my reply Message 597:
DWise1 writes:
{ typical creationist BS lies about radiometric dating methods }
You know this, and I know this. And, you know that I
know this.
Yes, we do know about radiometric dating methods, but you do not! How do we know that you don't know what you're talking about? Because we have seen you repeatedly post utter nonsense on the subject.
IF YOU HAVE A CLAIM TO MAKE, THEN MAKE IT!
If you know of any actual flaws, then present them and include the reasoning behind presenting them as flaws. IOW, you need to demonstrate enough knowledge of those "flaws" to be able to discuss them and to support your contention that they present some kind of problem. IOW, stop playing your game of the willfully ignorant (your handlers) leading the willfully stupid (you).
No reply from candle2. No to me nor to anybody else that I can tell. I brought it up again in my reply Message 617 to his unrepentant nonsense about the Holy Roman Empire (excerpt pertinent to radiocarbon dating):
DWise1 writes:
And you are still avoiding your glaringly blatant falsehoods about "flaws in dating", which is not surprising since you have nothing and even you know that.
If you know of any actual flaws, then present them and include the reasoning behind presenting them as flaws. IOW, you need to demonstrate enough knowledge of those "flaws" to be able to discuss them and to support your contention that they present some kind of problem. IOW, stop playing your game of the willfully ignorant (your handlers) leading the willfully stupid (you).
Got nothing? Thought so!
To that candle2 did reply with his Message 619:
candle2 writes:
Dwise 1, this isn't a thread about evolution, nor is it a
thread about ridiculous dating techniques.

Stop pretending that evolutionists have crystal balls
that can tell us exactly what happened and when it
happened.

However, I will state my objections to carbon-dating
methods as soon as my wife and I return from our
vacation.

Study assumptions.
Three replies, two from me but only the second one is pertinent to this discussion. AZPaul3's reply Message 625:
AZPaul3 writes:
Stop pretending that evolutionists have crystal balls
that can tell us exactly what happened and when it
happened.
Avoiding an obvious joke, yes, we do have crystal balls. They are called museums, universities and like that. Loaded with millions of fossils and lots of people way smarter than you we get to look into the past, see the present and predict the future.
You are so far behind the reality of our knowledge you, of all people on this planet, have no way to challenge any of it.
However, I will state my objections to carbon-dating
methods as soon as my wife and I return from our
vacation.
Why? It will just be lies, half truths, misunderstandings, misinformation and religious bluster. Not worth the electrons. Don't bother.
Study assumptions.
Study reality, you imbecilic fool.
In my reply pertinent to this discussion, Message 646, I advised candle2 to prepare for the discussion following his vacation by studying up on radiocarbon dating since everything he has posted so far demonstrates his gross ignorance of the subject. I also added my proposal to propose this new topic so that we would no longer be off-topic. In its entirety:
DWise1 writes:
However, I will state my objections to carbon-dating
methods as soon as my wife and I return from our
vacation.

Study assumptions.
In the meantime, STUDY WHAT RADIOCARBON DATING IS AND WHAT IT'S BASED ON (ie, where the C14 comes from and where it DOESN'T)!
The Wikipedia article, Radiocarbon dating, would be a good place to start. . Pay particular attention to the section, Carbon exchange reservoir, and its accompanying graphic, "Simplified version of the carbon exchange reservoir, showing proportions of carbon and relative activity of the 14C in each reservoir". In particular, note in that graphic that it does not include subterranean C14 produced continuously by radiation sources deep underground, because that subterranean C14 plays no role in radiocarbon dating and has nothing to do with the method. That is important because that false creationist "objection" (ie, that trace C14 in coal and diamonds presents problems for radiocarbon dating) is so far the only "objection" that you have presented and it has been thoroughly debunked.
Learn something!
CAVEAT: DO NOT RELY ON A CREATIONIST SOURCE! Creationists are lying to you. If you do use a creationist source, then verify it thoroughly!
You admonish us to "Study assumptions"? We have! Why haven't you done the same? We have tried many times in vain to explain to you what the actual assumptions are, but you have steadfastly refused to explain what your creationist assumptions are!
Stop your hypocrisy! Put up or shut up!
 
ABE:
The reappearance of this issue arose organically in my Message 576 as one of the several examples of candle2's false claims that we have been able to check and which proved to be false, leading to the obvious (and so far ignored) question:
DWise1 writes:
You also blather on about things that cannot be checked, namely about the supernatural. Why would you expect us to believe you about that and how could you possibly expect us to believe you about the supernatural when everything else you've posted has turned out to be false?
Since it is off-topic here as pointed out by candle2, I will propose a new topic for this discussion, even though I have no doubt that candle2 will yet again cut and run or otherwise do his best to sabotage discussion -- ie, being a creationist, he will undoubtedly do what creationists always do.
Nonetheless, I will propose that new topic referring back to these messages and my request/demand that he first study up on the subject since his past lack of performance demonstrated that he clearly does not understand radiocarbon dating (despite his false claims to the contrary).
candle2 indicated that he is just now leaving vacation, so in order it doesn't scroll off the All Topics page before he gets back from vacation I will wait about a week or so before proposing the topic. After that, I will wait an appropriate amount of time before posting bump messages for him.
Then before I had time to propose this new topic (further delayed by my knee injury), he returned early.
I will take those messages up in my next message here.
BTW, my purpose in posting all this background information is to provide it here in this topic where all further discussion should be conducted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2022 1:12 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2022 3:34 PM dwise1 has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5475
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 5 (899802)
10-19-2022 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by dwise1
10-19-2022 2:30 PM


Continuing my reposting of message traffic in The Meaning Of The Trinity pertinent to this discussion and leading to this proposed new topic.
Here, the actual discussion starts with candle2's Message 655:
candle2 writes:
Dwise 1, one of the grandkids got sick, and granny had to
to come back home.
So here is what I mean by assumptions. Assuming
something to be true is not good science. In fact it is
not science at all.
Scientists who believe in evolution are among the most
assuming scientists in the world.
When dating dead organisms utilizing the Carbon-14
dating method two facts need to be established.
One is the decay rate of C-14.
The other is the starting amount.
There is no way to determine if the ratio of C-14 to C-12
in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is
today.
If one assumes that the ratio is true, and the assumption
is true, the dating method is valid up to perhaps 75,000
years.
If the assumption is not true the method will give
incorrect dates.
Since we have no way of knowing the ratio of C14 to C-12
5000 years ago, we do not have the empirical or
observational science necessary for interpretations of
past events.
When we lack observational knowledge/science, we are
left with historical science. Historical science can be
highly subjective. Evolutionists rely heavily on historical
science, which involves assumptions.
The founder of the Carbon-14 dating method, Dr. Willard
Libby, assumed (ain't this what evolutionists do) the rate
to be constant based on evolution.
Then he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be
in equilibrium.
By this I mean that the amount of Carbon atoms in the
atmosphere must equal the amount being removed.
The Specific Production Rate of C14 per gram is
currently twice that of Specific Decay Rate.
Dr. Libby ignored the nonequilibrium state.
By Dr. Libby's own estimation it would be 30,000 years
to reach equilibrium.
I am not even taking into account the effects of the
worldwide flood, or earth's changing magnetic field.
Nor am I taking into account contamination, or any of
the other issues involved with dating techniques.
Evolutionists thrive on assumptions, especially false
ones. But, even when wrong no one calls them on it.
Evolutionists are the ones who get the grants, and the
ones who run our universities.
They can and do distort facts to fit their agenda. I know
this as fact. And nobody is going to change my mind.
Basically, he has done nothing but to repeat false creationist claims (is there any other kind of creationist claim?) with no indication that he understands any of it. The six replies, including mine, address that while some also respond directly to specific claims (follow links to read them yourself):
So far, candle2 has replied to none of these replies except for Pollux' second one which has nothing to do with the subject; IOW, candle2 has so far avoided our replies to his claims.
Kind of, because he did reply to me without addressing the message to which he "replied". We'll look at that below.
First, here is my first reply Message 660. Rather than answering point-by-point just so that he can declared his refusal to read any of it because his phone screen is too small, I planned to post a separate reply for each point. I posted my first one and am writing the second. So here is the first:
DWise1 writes:
Dwise 1, one of the grandkids got sick, and granny had to
to come back home.
Short vacation! Though I shouldn't talk since I've been incapacitated by a knee injury the past few days. Getting better.
So here is what I mean by assumptions. Assuming
something to be true is not good science. In fact it is
not science at all.
True enough about making assumptions, which is why one must examine, test, and verify one's assumptions. And when assumptions are found to be wrong, then acting on that testing by correcting and refining those assumptions that can be corrected and dropping the ones that cannot be corrected.
That is what science and scientists do all the time, while it is the creationists who never test their own assumptions and will never ever act upon any of their assumptions found to be wrong.
Read my draft HTML page which examines the major differences between scientists and creationists: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists. A very quick summary is that scientists are trying to discover something, so they take their research seriously. Of necessity, they base their research in part on the research of other scientists (eg, "don't reinvent the wheel", "I stand on the shoulders of giants."), which means that scientists have a strong vested interest in the veracity and validity of that other research, which means that when a scientist publishes the findings of an experiment, other scientists will repeat that experiment to see if they get the same results; IOW, they test each other's work trying to prove them wrong. Science demands it.
Case in point was the bombshell news of the discovery of "cold fusion". The moment the paper was published, it was FAX'd out (remember, no Internet back then) throughout the physics community and everybody eagerly read it and repeated the experiments. They found that it wasn't true and they all dropped "cold fusion".
In contrast, creationists are not trying to discover anything, but rather they just want to convince others (and more importantly themselves) of their groundless, unverified, and never-tested assumptions. If another creationist comes up with a claim or argument, they never ever even think of testing it for being true, but rather they just blindly believe it and repeat it as long as it sounds convincing (at least to them in their willful ignorance, though not convincing to anyone who knows anything about the subject). They have no need for any of it to be true, just so long as it sounds convincing. And they will only stop using those groundless arguments when they get too much bad press for that argument (eg, moon dust, protein comparisons).
Case in point: leap seconds show that the earth's rotation is slowing down at a rate that would mean the mere millions of years ago it had to have been spinning impossibly fast. In reality, 4 billion years ago the earth would have been spinning only twice as fast. The originator, most likely Walter Brown in 1979, didn't understand what leap seconds are nor how they work. Even though the claim was decisively refuted in 1982, creationists keep repeating it -- a Canadian group proved that to 15 creationist sites and none of them repented of that particular lie. See my page on it, Earth's Rotation is Slowing for more information.
So you have our roles reversed: scientists test their assumptions (AKA "hypotheses") rigorously in order to eliminate the wrong assumptions, while it's the creationists who make refuse to test their assumptions and instead declare them to be Gospel.
What you're doing there is described as "the pot calling the silverware black."
 
More to come.
No reply from candle2, at least not a direct reply, so he's starting to make it weird.
In his reply Message 662 Tanypteryx responds to candle2's typical creationist mindless slander against scientists along with offering him links to previous topics which discuss how scientists do scientific work. I replied to that message with my Message 663:
DWise1 writes:
When thousands of other scientist may be relying on your data, cheating and fraud will be exposed, and would ruin a career.
Whereas all creationists rely on from other creationists' "work" is that it is sensationalist and sounds convincing. Cheating and fraud will never endanger any creationist's career, mainly because sensationalist claims are created through cheating and fraud.
I already pointed him to my draft web page which examines the major differences between scientists and creationists: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists. There I break down step-by-step the differences between how scientists do things in contrast to how creationists do things.
Since it presents that information in a two-column table, translating it to would be bothersome.
That is my message that candle2 finally "replied" to with his Message 669:
candle2 writes:
Dwise 1, I do read articles from both sides. A well
rounded individual will do this.

You can lay out articles day after day; month after
months; and, year after year, but dating methods rely on
assumptions. And, assuming something is not science;
it is guesswork.

It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was
like 5000 years ago.

It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was
like prior to the global flood.

Do you have the slightest idea how much carbon was
removed from the atmosphere and buried during and
after the flood?

I am not the one with the blinders on here, Dwise 1.
You are.
Except for the general subject, none of that had anything to do with any of my messages, especially not to the one to which he was "replying".
Since this proposed topic has not been promoted yet, I will reply to that in the former thread and repost it here in a reply to this message.
In the meantime, candle2's message was replied to by ringo (Message 671) and nwr (Message 672). candle2 "replied" only to nwr.
Here is the final chain at this time (19-Oct-2022 12:34 PM PDT):
nwr Message 672
nwr writes:
You can lay out articles day after day; month after
months; and, year after year, but dating methods rely on
assumptions. And, assuming something is not science;
it is guesswork.
Every time you take a step while walking, you assume that your foot won't fall through the ground. That's an assumption. All of life is full of assumptions. Even mathematics depends on assumptions (which we call axioms).
You cannot get away from depending on assumptions. The assumptions that science makes are well tested.
candle2 Message 673:
candle2 writes:
Nwr, the wrong assumption can lead to wrong conclusions.

The look of quicksand can be quite deceptive. A foot
stepping into quicksand can become entangled.

Or a foot stepping on a rattlesnake under a pile of leaves
can cost a person his life.

I do not have an issue with someone stating that they
believe in evolution, or that they have confidence in
dating methods.

Just don't try to pass it off as being fact. And don't say
that those who do not believe in these issues do not
support science.
AZPaul3 Message 674:
AZPaul3 writes:
Just don't try to pass it off as being fact. And don't say that those who do not believe in these issues do not support science.
We don't pass anything off as fact. We have the experiments and the data that show those facts precisely. We know, even if you don't, how and why the measurement works. And, yes, those who do not accept this science do so for religious reasons and do not support science. You are decidedly anti-science.
More to follow as it develops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2022 2:30 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2022 5:16 PM dwise1 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5475
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 4 of 5 (899813)
10-19-2022 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by dwise1
10-19-2022 3:34 PM


Here is my reply to candle2's "reply" to ... I honestly have no idea which of my messages he thought he was "replying to".
Although I reposed it in the previous message, I repeat it here to make the continuity easier for the reader. candle2's "reply" Message 669 is:
candle2 writes:
Dwise 1, I do read articles from both sides. A well
rounded individual will do this.
You can lay out articles day after day; month after
months; and, year after year, but dating methods rely on
assumptions. And, assuming something is not science;
it is guesswork.
It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was
like 5000 years ago.
It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was
like prior to the global flood.
Do you have the slightest idea how much carbon was
removed from the atmosphere and buried during and
after the flood?
I am not the one with the blinders on here, Dwise 1.
You are.
My reply Message 676 is:
DWise1 writes:
Dwise 1, I do read articles from both sides.
And yet you remain so profoundly ignorant? That tells us clearly that you do no such thing. Claiming to do something that you do not is an example of what's called lying. Like in Message 482 when you falsely claimed "I know how carbon dating works."
If I had a nickel for every time a creationist made that claim, I could go to Vegas and play Video Poker all weekend (not that I would want to do either). Why do creationists insist on making such statements when they are so glaringly false?
A well
rounded individual will do this.
True enough, but what is that supposed to have to do with you?
OTOH, I have read from both sides. I have even sat through several Kent Hovind "seminar" videos, which is how I learned about his utterly bogus solar-mass-loss claim (which is completely refuted just by doing the math, so now he forbids his audience to ever do the math or to listen to anyone who has done the math).
As General Sun-Tzu instructs us, we must know both the enemy and ourselves in order to be victorious in battle. That requires learning the enemy's side, but you do not allow yourself to do that. Furthermore, the need to know yourself requires you to know what your side is based on, but you do not allow yourself to do that either. That becomes so glaringly obvious when the most terrifying question you can ever ask a creationist is, "What are you saying?
Please explain your claim." I've even seen creationists cancel their email accounts in order to avoid that question. A question that any normal will freely answer, which we have done ... repeatedly, but not you.
In public education, the goal of education is that the student understand the subject matter, not that they be required to believe in it. An example was the Air Force Communications Command Leadership School (1982) where we learned what Marxism and Communism is; not to turn us all into Commies, but rather to help us know the enemy (remember, that was during the Cold War). Beneficiaries of public/secular education are able to investigate, research, and learn any subject that might catch their interest or that they might be required to learn about and to do so without any qualms. Such people are truly able to read and learn from both sides of any issue.
In sharp contrast, religious education is for the purpose of indoctrination, the purpose of which is to require the students to believe and believe in what is being taught. This perversion of education makes its victims incapable of learning anything else, since they have been made to think that learning something also requires that they believe in it. Quite literally, when I have urged a creationist to study and learn evolution so that he can discover its actual problems instead of the many creationist lies they have been indoctrinated in (and hence develop actual effective arguments instead of repeating stupid ineffective lies), he emphatically refused to do so because "that would require me to believe in evolution!"
You can lay out articles day after day; month after
months; and, year after year, but dating methods rely on
assumptions. And, assuming something is not science;
it is guesswork.
What the hell are you talking about?
And it has already been explained to you some many times that the next step in starting with an assumption is to test it! Science always tests its assumptions (usually AKA "hypotheses" -- but there are also axioms, mostly in mathematics (so go tell Kleinman that mathematics is bogus because it makes assumptions)). In sharp contrast, creationists never ever test their assumptions!
So just what the f**k are you talking about?
It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was
like 5000 years ago.
Bullshit! But then that's your profound ignorance speaking.
Gas bubbles trapped in glacial ice contain samples of the atmosphere from when they were trapped in the ice. Those have been studied extensively to analyze what the atmosphere was like so many thousands of years ago.
It is impossible to determine what the atmosphere was
like prior to the global flood.
Well, you do have me on that one. Because your "Global Floodye" never happened!
For that matter, the closest thing to a "global flood" started 11,000 years ago when the ice cap from the last ice age started to melt resulting in sea level rising about 200 feet -- and it is still on-going and even picking up steam. Many land bridges disappeared beneath the waves; eg, the Bering Strait, Indonesia (as evidenced by Wallace's Line which explains the biodistribution in those islands), Doggerland which formerly connected England to the Continent. There's also the Persian Gulf which used to be dry land (all depths in the Persian Gulf are less than 200 feet).
This next needs to be verified. A YouTube video of Easter eggs to be found in Star Trek episodes points to a graphic of the earth in DS9 in which we can see North America without Florida.
[voice=NY_NJ_stereotype_tough_guy]Yo! We got your global flood right here![/voice]
Do you have the slightest idea how much carbon was
removed from the atmosphere and buried during and
after the flood?
Same answer: Your silly global flood never existed, so your question is absolutely meaningless.
But just for fun, how do you propose that your imaginary floodye would have removed carbon from the atmosphere? Magick?
In the meantime, we do know that the amounts of CO2 and C14 have not been constant. We know that from several different lines of evidence, including the gas bubbles trapped in glacial ice. We understand a lot about that, whereas you are forever clueless. Hmm!
I am not the one with the blinders on here, Dwise 1.
You are.
Classic clueless projection.
It is your own choice to use willful stupidity to maintain your willful ignorance.
And it will have to be your choice to finally pull your head out and start to learn something. Too bad your sphincter is so tight that it's cutting off the blood supply to your brain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by dwise1, posted 10-19-2022 3:34 PM dwise1 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12868
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 5 of 5 (899845)
10-20-2022 7:38 AM


Thread Copied to Dates and Dating Forum
Thread copied to the Radiocarbon Dating Discussion with candle2 thread in the Dates and Dating forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022