Gays are criminals not equals.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#453 May 16, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
He is, like many of his other creationist buddies.
The oldest living tree is 9'550 years old.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/...
That tree's colony is approximated at 80'000 years old.
Yep.

The world is a really, really old place-- from our limited, 80+ year perspective.

:)

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#454 May 16, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Bawhahahaha
Now that's funny!!!
"Carbon dating proves the Earth to be approximately 4.54 billion years old. "
LOL
[/QUOTE]You missed the "among other things" entirely, didn't you?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#455 May 16, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You missed the "among other things" entirely, didn't you?
There are a great many things that he misses...

;)

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#456 May 16, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
We're you there when any of your bible's stories happened?
Glad to see you're finally admitting your entire book is a lie.
Carbon dating, among other things, proves the Earth to be approximately 4.54 billion years old.
Radiological dating does, but I understand that carbon isotopes' half lives are to short to provide measurements of that magnitude.
Thinking

Antrim, UK

#457 May 17, 2013
Correct, but C14 dating still works at around an order of magnitude greater than KJV's 6000 year old universe!
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Radiological dating does, but I understand that carbon isotopes' half lives are to short to provide measurements of that magnitude.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#458 May 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a great many things that he misses...
;)
Dassa fack.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#459 May 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
The roots are indeed important.
That's why morality came before today's religions.
<quoted text>
True, so true.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#460 May 17, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Show me on tree that dates older then the flood. Dolt
[/QUOTE]

I gave a link.
You have yet to prove a single global flood happened.
No credible historian teaches of global floods because there was never any evidence of one.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#461 May 17, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Bawhahahaha
Now that's funny!!!
"Carbon dating proves the Earth to be approximately 4.54 billion years old. "
LOL
[/QUOTE]

"...among other things..."

You can't read can you?

Oh, and what evidence do you have of the Earth being 6'000 years old?
You never answered my question either, where you there when any of your bible's stories happened?

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#462 May 17, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You missed the "among other things" entirely, didn't you?
THANK YOU!
I made the SAME exact comment, as you can see.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#463 May 17, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Radiological dating does, but I understand that carbon isotopes' half lives are to short to provide measurements of that magnitude.
That's why I said "among other things," because many things combined prove the Earth's age.

I also realized that in my comment, my phone auto(mis)corrected "were" to "we're."
I hate when it does that...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#464 May 17, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
THANK YOU!
I made the SAME exact comment, as you can see.
Hehehe. Yes.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#465 May 17, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Radiological dating does, but I understand that carbon isotopes' half lives are to short to provide measurements of that magnitude.
Correct: 50k or less. The "sweet" spot is roughly 30k to about 1k. Less than that, you are now within the margins of error for the method.

And in the majority of scientific papers, they seldom rely on a single dating method, but prefer multiple, confirming approaches.

A single method is seen as too weak.(in academic circles)

One of the reasons why the Shroud of Turin is still mildly controversial--scientists were not permitted multiple dating approaches, as the owners refused to permit more samples to be taken.

Of course-- keeping it "controversial" feeds into the mystique, and therefore, keeps ringing the cash register.

Paying that hush money isn't cheap-- and the Vatican has no real interest in proving beyond a doubt, the shroud is fake, but lots of interest in keeping the money coming in... so...

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#466 May 17, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why I said "among other things," because many things combined prove the Earth's age.
I also realized that in my comment, my phone auto(mis)corrected "were" to "we're."
I hate when it does that...
C-14 is depleted in under 100,000 years mostly, but different isotopes can measure longer ranges, none are perfect but give a +- approximation that is acceptable in determining the age of things.
It has been found that c-14 can in extreme cases not completely be depleted, the jury is still out exactly why. But this is actually a gift to us to help us understand the very oldest forms of life.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#467 May 17, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>Radiological dating does, but I understand that carbon isotopes' half lives are to short to provide measurements of that magnitude.
Just this one time KJV can do a victory dance. Carbon dating typically dates things no older than 50-60,000 years old. Certainly never anything past 100,000 years.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#468 May 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Just this one time KJV can do a victory dance. Carbon dating typically dates things no older than 50-60,000 years old. Certainly never anything past 100,000 years.
Right. So other isotopes, when present, are used to date objects that are older than that, the range for each one being determined by the length of its half life, right?

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#469 May 17, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. So other isotopes, when present, are used to date objects that are older than that, the range for each one being determined by the length of its half life, right?
A battery of tests is used to determine age, but for older than the 50-60 thousand year range it moves into other isotopes to get an accurate approximation.

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/artif...

“ad victoriam”

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#470 May 17, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. So other isotopes, when present, are used to date objects that are older than that, the range for each one being determined by the length of its half life, right?
Or exactly what you said , sorta...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#471 May 17, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
Right. So other isotopes, when present, are used to date objects that are older than that, the range for each one being determined by the length of its half life, right?
There are quite a number of methods, many of which depend on various concentrations of the radioactive decay products or so-called "daughter" atoms, that appear as the larger atoms decay.

A classic is Uranium 238 (the most common isotope), which has a half-life of 4.468 billion years-- very convenient.

The fact that it is that long, means that there will be naturally occurring U238 left in the Earth's crust-- fortunate for paleoscience.

But scientists have studied U238 extensively, and they know what the most common daughter products are, and have mapped the most likely breakdown sequence, from when the U238 atom first splits, and the final, more-or-less stable isotope (usually lead). Radium is in the chain, as I recall.

So by measuring what is trapped in the rocks, in the form of various break-down (decay) products, scientists can estimate the time the rock solidified from a liquid. Obviously, it would be an igneous rock here. It would be presumed that during the molten state, the lighter isotopes would have boiled off and escaped-- this being confirmed by sampling modern examples of molten rock, near currently active volcanoes.

So, as soon as the rock hardens, the clock starts ticking-- as the U238 decays, it's daughter atoms begin to accumulate in a predictable pattern.

Measuring the ratios of the various decay products to each other, and knowing their half-lives? You can calculate when the rock was last at a liquid state.

The math is pretty complicated--and beyond my meager skills, but it's possible to do, since none of the daughter atoms have the same 1/2 life, the ratios will change over time. Knowing the current ratios in the rock? You can then calculate backwards to the beginning.

This is but one method. There's others.

For example, Continental drift-- using complicated satellite positioning, scientists have calculated the actual rate of separation between Africa and South America. Assuming an average speed similar to modern observations (that is the rate has not changed significantly since it started) you can easily calculate how far back in time the continents were together. Identical fossils dating to before that period can be found on either continent. Fossils dating after that period are different on each continent. So you have a Time Stamp marker from which to test your other calculations.
KJV

United States

#472 May 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Speak English, cu*t.

[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Show me on tree that dates older then the flood. Dolt
"
Should have read:

Show me one tree that dates older then the flood. What a f.....n Dolt you are.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 45 min Endofdays 93,421
News Scientific, Philosophical Case for God's Existe... Mon blacklagoon 3 89
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) Mon superwilly 6,056
News American Atheists terminates its president over... Apr 20 Eagle 12 - 19
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Apr 14 blacklagoon 3 4,141
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Apr 14 Into The Night 258,515
News The Anti-Christian Movement Apr 10 blacklagoon 3 11