The Atheist Thread

[avxo]

Now you asked for proof that Carbon dating can be altered through certain events that give off enormous amounts of carbon to the atmosphere such as volcanoes.

Actually, I asked for proof about your specific example about the seals but a general case example will do fine.

THANKS NECROSIS FOR THE WIKI LINK, HERE IS A PARAGRAPGH FROM YOUR LINK  

The rate of creation of carbon-14 appears to be roughly constant, as cross-checks of carbon-14 dating with other dating methods show it gives consistent results. However, local eruptions of volcanoes or other events that give off large amounts of carbon dioxide can reduce local concentrations of carbon-14 and give inaccurate dates.

Interesting. I didn't know about the effects of volcanoes and excess carbon dioxide, although in retrospect it's reasonable. But I will add that ¹⁴C dating techniques that account for reservoir correction techniques can easily deal with this sort of thing, but obviously no correction is 100% perfect. None of this inherently makes ¹⁴C unreliable or problematic in the way that you have previously suggested though.

Now admit you were wrong again axvo and believe me 200 example of every single dating method having wacky numbers are coming your way bro. So I don't want to hear oh well they dated this to 15000 years in your argument again as we just confirmed that dates can be inaccurate

I learned something new. However, I wouldn't say I was wrong, since I never said that the scenario you described was impossible. I asked you to back it up instead of just saying "I once read in an article" which is about as good as "my grandfather's neighbor had a cousin that once heard..." It's ironic that you only did after Necrosis posted the link.

I would be interested in seeing examples of "wacky" Sm-Nd or Ur-Pb dating results, out of personal curiosity.

You just don't get it do you. Unbelievable how stubborn you can be. Listen carefully bro. I have been debating this for 15 years and I have learned a few things along the way. 1 is no one on the planet dates dinosaur bones, they just don't, ask any professor and ask any archaeologist and they will tell you this, not hard to understand any archaeologist who finds a dinosaur bone will not conduct any radio metric dating on it, in fact everyone in this field knows this, EVERYONE.

The number of years you've been debating something doesn't necessarily make you an authority. But let's assume, arguendo, that they aren't dated. The fact that they've these bones have been found below the K-T boundary strongly hints at their age. Of course, I'm sure you'll now challenge the dating of the K-T boundary too...

2 is they do not conduct radio metric dating on cave drawings, they simply don't, so get over yourself for 5 seconds and accept this. Dating things cost a lot of money and they tend to use it conservatively so it is a custom to not date dinosaur bones and cave drawings and I mean NEVER, now go google this as you always do and see for yourself, woooooooooooooooooooooos h

Right... We can't waste money on this sort of nonsense. It's way too expensive! Why, last I checked at http://paleoresearch.com/services/14C.html it costs $500 a pop! That's like more expensive than a test-tube! And a test tube is reusable! We aren't made of money! Besides, that's like... 100 Frappuccinos at Starbucks! Why do science when you can sip delicious ice coffee?

[avxo]

No, I have no beef with radio metric dating, scroll up this page and find the wikipedia link and I agree with everything it says. What I meant is I have been debating along the lines of these subjects long enough to know that no archaeologist on the planet has ever nor will ever radio metric date a dinosaur bone.

Perhaps 15 years isn't quite enough debating... In 2011 Fassett et al. published their paper on Uranium-Lead radiometric dating of fossilized dinosaur bones. Find out more at http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/2/159.abstract

[garebear]

.

[OTHstrong]

Actually, I asked for proof about your specific example about the seals but a general case example will do fine.


Interesting. I didn't know about the effects of volcanoes and excess carbon dioxide, although in retrospect it's reasonable. But I will add that ¹⁴C dating techniques that account for reservoir correction techniques can easily deal with this sort of thing, but obviously no correction is 100% perfect. None of this inherently makes ¹⁴C unreliable or problematic in the way that you have previously suggested though.


I learned something new. However, I wouldn't say I was wrong, since I never said that the scenario you described was impossible. I asked you to back it up instead of just saying "I once read in an article" which is about as good as "my grandfather's neighbor had a cousin that once heard..." It's ironic that you only did after Necrosis posted the link.

I would be interested in seeing examples of "wacky" Sm-Nd or Ur-Pb dating results, out of personal curiosity.


The number of years you've been debating something doesn't necessarily make you an authority. But let's assume, arguendo, that they aren't dated. The fact that they've these bones have been found below the K-T boundary strongly hints at their age. Of course, I'm sure you'll now challenge the dating of the K-T boundary too...



Right... We can't waste money on this sort of nonsense. It's way too expensive! Why, last I checked at http://paleoresearch.com/services/14C.html it costs $500 a pop! That's like more expensive than a test-tube! And a test tube is reusable! We aren't made of money! Besides, that's like... 100 Frappuccinos at Starbucks! Why do science when you can sip delicious ice coffee?

You are missing the point completely, there is certain things they don't radio metric date and that's the bottom line.


"None of this inherently makes 14C unreliable or problematic in the way that you have previously suggested though."

Ahh, but it does, you see if the atmospheric pressure in the pre-flood era was drastically different then what we have today the % of carbon in our atmosphere would have been way higher, furthermore if you have a different pressure you have a different decay rate.


The number of years you've been debating something doesn't necessarily make you an authority.

Of course not, but my point was that they don't use radio metric dating on cave drawings and dinosaur bones and in 15 years I have only learned this a billion times

[avxo]

You are missing the point completely, there is certain things they don't radio metric date and that's the bottom line.

Like powder? Which you claimed you can't date? In 15 years nobody told you about isochron dating?

"None of this inherently makes 14C unreliable or problematic in the way that you have previously suggested though."

Ahh, but it does, you see if the atmospheric pressure in the pre-flood era was drastically different then what we have today the % of carbon in our atmosphere would have been way higher, furthermore if you have a different pressure you have a different decay rate.

You realize that is what reservoir corrections and calibration are for, right? Haven't those techniques come up during your debates? And do you have any evidence about the difference in atmospheric pressures?

The number of years you've been debating something doesn't necessarily make you an authority.

Of course not, but my point was that they don't use radio metric dating on cave drawings and dinosaur bones and in 15 years I have only learned this a billion times

First you claim you can't radio-date scraped pigment. I provide a link to isochron dating. Then you claim that they don't date because it's expensive. I provide you a link to very low and very reasonable prices. Then you say nobody dates dinosaur bones. I provide you with a link to a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal about U-Pb dating of dinosaur bones.

Apparently what you've learned 15 billion times isn't accurate. For future reference, you may want to consider doing your learning at an accredited institution of higher education.

[a_ahmed]

Did anyone ever tell you that you're annoying and a fraud?

[garebear]

Did anyone ever tell you that you're annoying and a fraud?

All of your arguments have been destroyed.

You are relying on tradition to guide your life, and all evidence, no matter how sound, you dismiss in that aim.

YOU are the fraud.

It's grow up time and you're late.

[a_ahmed]

You haven't defeated anything. I just stopped responding to an individual who is a fraud and who can't seem to have a discussion without having saracasm in every one of his one thousand quotations. Waste of my screen space.

[garebear]

You haven't defeated anything. I just stopped responding to an individual who is a fraud and who can't seem to have a discussion without having saracasm in every one of his one thousand quotations. Waste of my screen space.

Log off.

[OTHstrong]

Like powder? Which you claimed you can't date? In 15 years nobody told you about isochron dating?


You realize that is what reservoir corrections and calibration are for, right? Haven't those techniques come up during your debates? And do you have any evidence about the difference in atmospheric pressures?


First you claim you can't radio-date scraped pigment. I provide a link to isochron dating. Then you claim that they don't date because it's expensive. I provide you a link to very low and very reasonable prices. Then you say nobody dates dinosaur bones. I provide you with a link to a published paper in a peer-reviewed journal about U-Pb dating of dinosaur bones.

Apparently what you've learned 15 billion times isn't accurate. For future reference, you may want to consider doing your learning at an accredited institution of higher education.

why are you lying? why?..., You did not prove that they an date the pigment of the drawings and to think they can shows how little you know. read below../

Isochron dating is useful in the determination of the age of igneous rocks, which have their initial origin in the cooling of liquid magma. It is also useful to determine the time of metamorphism, shock events (such as the consequence of an asteroid impact) and other events depending of the behaviour of the particular isotopic systems under such events.


^^^^^ you see from your link, so stop making up lies, that is far from being able to date some writing on a rock.

Lie number 2 proving that archaeology have money to throw away, ya OK 500 dollars on a simple date when they have over 100 different artifacts and findings to date is an insane amount of money when the are on a limited bugdet, so you proved me right, not wrong, you are really exposing yourself on how very little you know in these areas.

Good day and stop lying. Isochron dating to date some marking on cave wall? hahahahhah that is halirious, lol  


Oh and another lie, saying they date the dinosaur bones. The way they date them is to categorize them into their mythological column, that's it that is how they come up with the dates. You are so funny, I thought you where freaking smart bro but recently you have exposed yourself now I know for sure you just front and google everything cause damn some of the stuff your getting wrong is pathetic, especially not knowing that archaeologist never use a radio metric method to date dinosaur bones. Try sending a dinosaur bone to any radio metric testing facility and they will send you the bone back and say it's policy that we can NOT date these bones cause they are dinosaur bones.

[Stefano]

You haven't defeated anything. I just stopped responding to an individual who is a fraud and who can't seem to have a discussion without having saracasm in every one of his one thousand quotations. Waste of my screen space.

Typical of someone who cowers when his make believe world gets demolished in front of his eyes. Your pathetic threads are a waste of getbig space. I suppose you've never used sarcasm in your posts right taliban boy? I read someof your past posts and it seems though you're a drug addict who injects himself with various drug cocktails to get big. LOL.  What a pious life you lead.

[OTHstrong]

Typical of someone who cowers when his make believe world gets demolished in front of his eyes. Your pathetic threads are a waste of getbig space. I suppose you've never used sarcasm in your posts right taliban boy? I read someof your past posts and it seems though you're a drug addict who injects himself with various drug cocktails to get big. LOL.  What a pious life you lead.

bro you said nothing meaningful and if your so against people injecting you are in the wrong place, 75 % of getbig inject.

[Stefano]

bro you said nothing meaningful and if your so against people injecting you are in the wrong place, 75 % of getbig inject.

Im not against people injecting themselves but this guy has thris holier than thou attitude and seems to be only here to assert that his religion is better and attack christianity and the west. He goes on about muslims leading clean lives when in reality they are no better than the rest of the world.

He also claims that he is a former christian and white. I think that is a lie. He's muslim since birth and just pretends to be white as if that will add more weight to his arguements

[OTHstrong]

Im not against people injecting themselves but this guy has thris holier than thou attitude and seems to be only here to assert that his religion is better and attack christianity and the west. He goes on about muslims leading clean lives when in reality they are no better than the rest of the world.

He also claims that he is a former christian and white. I think that is a lie. He's muslim since birth and just pretends to be white as if that will add more weight to his arguements

Oh, I see

[Stefano]

Oh, I see

In one thread he claims muslims are tolerant and accept other faiths and yet in another thread he sees nothing wrong with the destruction of buddhist statues simply becuase it was done by muslims and muslims can do no wrong. .

Typical shut in...blames the west for everything despite living in a western country.

[avxo]

why are you lying? why?..., You did not prove that they an date the pigment of the drawings and to think they can shows how little you know. read below../

According to wikipedia, we know that "based on radiocarbon dating of 'black [pigment] from drawings, from torch marks and from the floors' [...] the dates fall into two groups, one centred around 27,000 - 26,000 BP and the other around 32,000 - 30,000 BP." So clearly they are able to extract and date the pigment used to make those paintings. So even if I wasn't confident in my knowledge that such dating was possible, you will forgive me for not buying your hysterical screams that this is impossible especially when presented with evidence that this has actually been done by scientists who have published results that have stood up to peer-review and scrutiny.

Isochron dating is useful in the determination of the age of igneous rocks, which have their initial origin in the cooling of liquid magma. It is also useful to determine the time of metamorphism, shock events (such as the consequence of an asteroid impact) and other events depending of the behaviour of the particular isotopic systems under such events.

It's useful yes, because for things like meteorites because using it "no assumptions are needed about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence." A useful property for rocks of extraterrestrial origin. But that's not it's only application and the isochron methodology, especially using Rubidium-Strontium dating is widely used and very accurate on systems that are closed to those elements since their formation.

^^^^^ you see from your link, so stop making up lies, that is far from being able to date some writing on a rock.

All I see from the link is that isochron methodologies are especially useful in certain situation when non-isochron dating attempts could not be utilized..

Lie number 2 proving that archaeology have money to throw away, ya OK 500 dollars on a simple date when they have over 100 different artifacts and findings to date is an insane amount of money when the are on a limited bugdet, so you proved me right, not wrong, you are really exposing yourself on how very little you know in these areas.

I wasn't aiming to prove that archeologists have money to throw away. You asserted that nobody dates bones because it's expensive. In less than 5 minutes I found a service that allows one to date anything for a price of $500 which isn't expensive at all. I'm sure that bulk pricing would be even cheaper, and frankly the equipment necessary to perform ¹⁴C dating is almost certainly present at most State Universities and would be readily be made available for a small fee for research purposes; perhaps even free.

Good day and stop lying. Isochron dating to date some marking on cave wall? hahahahhah that is halirious, lol  

Considering that you didn't even know about isochron dating until I pointed it out to you and that you probably cannot explain the methodology or the science behind it, I don't think that your little laugh-fest is appropriate. But whatever. You may want to reconsider your view since scientists have, as I showed you above, actually dated the paintings at Chauvet cave using such techniques.

Oh and another lie, saying they date the dinosaur bones. The way they date them is to categorize them into their mythological column, that's it that is how they come up with the dates. You are so funny, I thought you where freaking smart bro but recently you have exposed yourself now I know for sure you just front and google everything cause damn some of the stuff your getting wrong is pathetic, especially not knowing that archaeologist never use a radio metric method to date dinosaur bones. Try sending a dinosaur bone to any radio metric testing facility and they will send you the bone back and say it's policy that we can NOT date these bones cause they are dinosaur bones.

Well, considering that I posted a link to an actual article published in 2011  in a peer-reviewed journal, detailing how Uranium-Lead dating techniques were applied on actual dinosaur bones and tabulate their results and how they compare with the dating derived from the K-T boundary dating method. Meanwhile you continue insisting that not only are bones not dated but you raise the states and assert that they actually cannot be.

So on the one hand I have articles from scientists published in peer review journals that show that dinosaur bones can and have been dated and on the other hand I have a crackpot on the Internet who makes assertions that contradict said scientists and evidence and backs them up with the "few things" he learned "debating this for 15 years."

bro [...] if your so against people injecting you are in the wrong place, 75 % of getbig inject.

Hahaha... that was an excellent double entendre.

[OTHstrong]

You have made a few grammar and spelling mistakes yourself stud 
Just the other day I saw one and was going to mock you but decided not to scoop to your level   

bro research shows everything you can possibly think of, does not make it true and the research you provided does not say what you are saying and it is vague. I can also show you scientific research that states steroids does not build muscle. Biased, full of assumptions. Let`s pretend you are right for a second, still doesn`t change the fact that when archaeologist find cave drawings and dinosaur bones they don`t use these methods. If you found an example of someone that did, it is a horrible lie and even if it was not, it would represent 0.00001 % of the findings cause it is not a practice of the archaeologist. I know of one time that a dinosaur bone was carbon dated and guess what the test result said, lmao, it said 30 000 years. You see that`s why they don`t do it cause it will expose their mythological column.

[avxo]

You have made a few grammar and spelling mistakes yourself stud  
Just the other day I saw one and was going to mock you but decided not to scoop to your level  

Was that aimed at me? I don't think I've ever called out anyone for bad grammar or bad spelling. As for mistakes, I've never claimed to have perfect spelling or perfect grammar and I'm sure I make my share of them although I actively try to avoid making any.

Oh by the way - just for shits and giggles... it's stoop not scoop. 

bro research shows everything you can possibly think of, does not make it true and the research you provided does not say what you are saying and it is vague.

Can you be more specific? How exactly does it not say what I claim it says? The article very clearly states that they applied Uranium-Lead dating to dinosaur bones and came up with dates that were consistent with the dates that were derived from using K-T boundary layer dating techniques.

I can also show you scientific research that states steroids does not build muscle. Biased, full of assumptions.

I'd be interested to see this "scientific" research. Can you show me?

Let`s pretend you are right for a second, still doesn`t change the fact that when archaeologist find cave drawings and dinosaur bones they don`t use these methods.

It doesn't prove that they do it in every occasion - and they don't have to. But it proves that they can and do do it on some occasions.

If you found an example of someone that did, it is a horrible lie

In other words your position is: "If someone says something that goes against what my beliefs are or contradicts what I say, then that person is ipso facto a liar!"

and even if it was not, it would represent 0.00001 % of the findings cause it is not a practice of the archaeologist.

0.00001%? Really? Damn. That changes everything. I had assumed it was only 0.0001%...

I know of one time that a dinosaur bone was carbon dated and guess what the test result said, lmao, it said 30 000 years. You see that`s why they don`t do it cause it will expose their mythological column.

I'm sure that the third cousin of your uncle's neighbor who heard this story from a friend is very reliable source and relayed it to you accurately and correctly, but just for the record, could we perhaps know some more details? It's not that I don't believe you... I just don't believe you

But in all seriousness, you are asserting that there exists a global conspiracy, involving hundreds of thousands of scientists of all ages, nationalities and affiliations, with diverse backgrounds, educations and personal beliefs. What possible motive could they all have to weave such a complex conspiracy to support a lie that, ultimately, doesn't benefit them in the slightest?

[OTHstrong]

actually here in Canada we say scoop 

[avxo]

actually here in Canada we say scoop 

Canadians... *shakes head* 

[OTHstrong]

Regrettably, the medical and scientific community has historically been less than truthful in presenting information about anabolic steroids to the general public. For example, for many years their position was that steroids do not build muscle. (For an interesting examination of how study results were engineered to show that steroids do not work through the use of intentionally flawed designs, see, Taylor, 1982, pp. 16-19.) Even as late as 1984, in the highly publicized anti-steroid book Death in the Locker Room: Steroids & Sports (Goldman, 1984), then-medical student Bob Goldman seriously presented his theory about how steroids work in a subchapter devoted to the "placebo effect." It is unclear whether such faulty opinions were based upon ignorance of the overwhelming anecdotal evidence or upon an attempt to protect the public by concealing the truth. Whatever the reason, "[t]he medical community lost much credibility as a result of repeated denials that [steroids] enhance performance" (Yesalis, Kennedy, et al., 1993, p. 1217). Of course, the athletes themselves knew decades earlier about the dramatic effects of anabolics on sports performance and appearance.

[avxo]

Cool, thanks. I'll have to pull some of those books from the library and try to dig a bit more into this. I haven't really studied this topic, so I know very little about the history and the literature.

By the way I think that this quote alone serves to reinforce the point that I was making earlier. Scientists (regardless of field) have very little to gain from lying, because ultimately the truth will come out. Of course, I don't suggest that scientists never lie, only that there are built-in mechanisms to try to prevent this from happening and to correct things and set the record straight when it does happen, which ultimately makes lying in the first place a bad idea.

[OTHstrong]

Cool, thanks. I'll have to pull some of those books from the library and try to dig a bit more into this. I haven't really studied this topic, so I know very little about the history and the literature.

By the way I think that this quote alone serves to reinforce the point that I was making earlier. Scientists (regardless of field) have very little to gain from lying, because ultimately the truth will come out. Of course, I don't suggest that scientists never lie, only that there are built-in mechanisms to try to prevent this from happening and to correct things and set the record straight when it does happen, which ultimately makes lying in the first place a bad idea.

I don`t think anyone intentionally lies, but they are convinced of something and the truth is exaggerated and altered. Some archaeologist find artifacts and claim they are from some distant date in antiquity just so they can get more funding, this happens a lot.

[avxo]

I don`t think anyone intentionally lies, but they are convinced of something and the truth is exaggerated and altered. Some archaeologist find artifacts and claim they are from some distant date in antiquity just so they can get more funding, this happens a lot.

People are biased and that's hard to shake, even when they try to be objective. So such a thing is plausible. But that's where peer-review comes in. If Professor X is convinced that the shiny penny he found is actually from 1943, and writes a paper about it, would a journal relying on peer review publish it? And let's say it does, what would stop Professor Y, who unlike Professor X, is fair and not biased and relies on evidence from exposing the fraud by pointing out that the penny's composition isn't what one would expect from a coin stuck in 1943?

Another thing to keep in mind is that not every find deserves exhaustive research. Again, consider the situation with dinosaur bones. We have already established a date for the KT boundary layer, with the scientific consensus being that it's about 65.5 million years old. If we find something beneath that layer, then chances are overwhelming that it's not 30,000 or 100,000 years old. Unless other evidence suggests that the find merits a reexamination, then it's reasonable to just use the already established timelines.

This isn't part of some conspiracy theory. It's reasonable, sane behavior. If you are a Ford Mechanic and a Mustang comes in to the shop with problems with its airbag, then you are justified in skipping the manuals for the Mustang from the '60s and going straight to the Mustangs from, say, the mid '90s to try and find out the process to troubleshoot, remove and replace the faulty airbag. Why? Because your extensive experience as a mechanic and your knowledge tells you that the Mustang, like most cars, probably didn't have an airbag for model years before 1995. It's conceivable that you're wrong of course, and the Mustang got airbags in, say, 1991. In which case, you will eventually go back and reexamine your original assumption. But the point is that you don't have to start from the first Mustang ever produced and go forward; you can apply your existing knowledge to the situation; if your knowledge is faulty, that's no problem - the situation is self-correcting.

And what if you don't self-correct? Well, you will hand back the car to the customer and say "I know the airbag warning is on, but I didn't find any matching description about airbags in my research of Mustangs. So your car doesn't have an airbag, despite what the warning may indicate." The customer will most likely go to another mechanic, who will have no incentive to lie to a customer protect your reputation and will happily fix the airbag and tell the customer "and don't go back to that idiot."

[Griffith]

So according to the Creationists all the worlds leading scientists, archaeologists, paleontologists, geologists, biologists, astronomers, anthropologists and geneticists are completely wrong.

The Grand Canyon itself displays 2 billion years of the Earth's history and shows all the different layers of soil.

There are even sea shells at the top of Mount Everest, and before you say 'Noah' they are ancient and contain fossil remains.
Mountain ranges are formed by uplifting tectonic plates moving underneath other plates. Some mountain tops were once at the bottom of the sea.

Some mountains and stones have also been formed by compacted shells over a period of millions of years.

The Marianas Trench is also the deepest canyon in the word and is in fact underwater and created by the movement of tectonic plates.
The continents of the world used to be connected and formed a singular land mass.

Africa and South America clearly fit like a jigsaw puzzle. The continents are in fact still moving apart.
But for the land masses to have broken apart and be where they are today would have taken BILLIONS of years.