It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

page: 25
42
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: John333



couldnt trees grow faster during higher mineral concentration and slow down as that decreases.. other environmental factors can affect rate of growth.

Rate of growth has nothing to do with the number of rings. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?


by now you should know that had i said anything that wasnt in keeping with the proces as defined by science Phage wouldve been sure to point it out
Incorrect. I have pointed out your errors about science multiple times. And, just to be clear, so you cannot again claim I support you, I am again pointing out your errors.



the dating process for a piece of fossilized bone for instance will produce different dates for samples taken at different parts of the bone.
Citation? And please describe the methods which are used to date fossilized bone?

edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: peter vlar

come on i said all that already. when i said carbon dating i say it to mean all the methods under it's umbrella of dating methods.


So you attack a science you don't understand by creating your own arbitrary definitions but I'm the disingenuous one? Can I get a cup of the Kool Aid? It must be awfully tasty!

And your first reply, none of what you spout has any affect a tell, ever, on the number of tree rings during a growth period. You get one ring per season no matter how much or how little that tree grows. This is a fact. Choose to ignore it like all other science if you prefer but it just makes you willfully ignorant which is far worse than simply being ignorant or under educated.



used in conjunction with eachother to cross-verify for the "most logical true answer". there are a variety of dating methods and the margin for error is considered.. negligible. why u think i dont get that is silly. lets just assume ive studied for many years quite diligently ok?


Let's not assume that because based on your replies, you demonstrate a serious deficit of knowledge in regards to all of your claims. You made many claims about 14C dating and not one of them has a basis in reality. Sort of like your statements regarding g the age of the earth based on biblical text and your reliance on AIG as a source while claiming that the earth isn't 6-10KA out one side of your mouth and then claiming AIG is science based from the other. There's no science from AIG. If there is, please link me to a peer reviewed journal that has published the data in favor of your supposition.

I'll also take that citation proving your assertion that a 14C test came back with dates ranging from 5KA-50KA and then the oldest date was arbitrarily used. Don't hide behind Phage, show me the citations. Or admit you made up arbitrary numbers to support a claim that benefits your position.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333



couldnt trees grow faster during higher mineral concentration and slow down as that decreases.. other environmental factors can affect rate of growth.

Rate of growth has nothing to do with the number of rings. You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?


by now you should know that had i said anything that wasnt in keeping with the proces as defined by science Phage wouldve been sure to point it out
Incorrect. I have pointed out your errors about science multiple times. And, just to be clear, so you cannot again claim I support you, I am again doing so.



the dating process for a piece of fossilized bone for instance will produce different dates for samples taken at different parts of the bone.
Citation? What methods are used to date fossilized bone?


good job flipping everything upside down. where did u figure i was making the point rate of growth has to do with rings? for sure it has to do with Age though. and thats why you use it for dating. that isnt even the issue. the issue is when i find a piece of bone, under 15 layers of sedimentation in the vicinity of that tree. so u predict that 15 layers of sedimentation wouldve taken 3000yrs, the age of the tree is then determined via analysis of it's concentric circles for annual growth rings which also gives us an ESTIMATE of say between 2500-3000 years and use that to support just one of the radiocarbon dating results that seemed to re-occur within the most frequent RANGE?

what are you trying to tell me? i should accept this as an exact science?

citation? so u mean there's something about science and in particular the dating process that occurs in the lab that you dont know?

yet you were able to point out my error? interesting.
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

i did say "Dating Methods" in my post. carbon dating was just a reference and i also acknowledge the other supporting methods. so who didnt read who's posts?

my response to phage is my point. it cannot be accepted as an exact science. it falls under science. it is the scientific process at work. incomplete as it is it gives us something we can work with and thats what we're doing. working with it until its perfected. but dont tell me i must accept it as defined and infallible. it's theoretical at it's core and is currently being explored. so dont bark at me for pointing that out. too many people are naively believing it's exact and even defending it's exactness it seems.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: John333






Twetter and dryer periods does not account for mineral concentrations of the soil nor rate of absorption. couldnt trees grow faster during higher mineral concentration and slow down as that decreases.. other environmental factors can affect rate of growth. also the actual gap in the margin for error is quite wide here. but hey truly i got nothing against all this. like i said its the scientific process with science in development. if science knew everything then all our sciences would be considered "Perfected". and we know it isnt.. thats not my argument.
ext


If what you say about C14 dating or any other dating method for that matter, is true and you have hard evidence for your opinion, where is that evidence? All you do is post lengthy diatribes about why the science doesn't work and yet, you can't produce a single citation to support your case.

And why are these guys still in business? How do you explain away what they're doing? Do you think your tree ring hypothesis would hold up under scrutiny of their instrumentation? How about a direct answer?




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: peter vlar

i did say "Dating Methods" in my post. carbon dating was just a reference and i also acknowledge the other supporting methods. so who didnt read who's posts?


I read your posts just fine. You specifically said that all inclusive methods were referred to as Carbon Dating when this is absolutely false. You are creating arbitrary definitions to suit your faulty supposition.


my response to phage is my point. it cannot be accepted as an exact science. it falls under science. it is the scientific process at work. incomplete as it is it gives us something we can work with and thats what we're doing. working with it until its perfected. but dont tell me i must accept it as defined and infallible. it's theoretical at it's core and is currently being explored. so dont bark at me for pointing that out. too many people are naively believing it's exact and even defending it's exactness it seems.


So you are willfully ignorant and you will not provide a single citation that supports your position. Gotcha. You have made many claims but can not support them with science or refute the science aside from blanket statements. And science is wrong? Whatever floats your boat I guess. The bottom line though is that you're claiming that errors exist but can't support those claims aside from vague references to how long your studied and how people are making assumptions. That you can't see how ludicrous that is while moving your goal posts is very telling.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

we got some communication barrier. so i used carbon dating interchangeably with dating methods a few times. maybe now u see how i fee when u try to pass "scientific facts" as "facts". the two arent always the same. a scientific fact like say "pluto is a planet" can change tomorrow to "pluto is an asteroid". now i know facts dont change. so unless a planet is an asteroid i dont see how either is a fact when ur obviously still guessing.
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)


i will have to search a citation for u. i studied this years ago. i do not forget what i study.
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

where did u figure i was making the point rate of growth has to do with rings? for sure it has to do with Age though.
How do you think the age of a tree is determined?

I, and others, are telling you that everything you just said is wrong. All of it. You have once again demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about the actual methodology.


citation? so u mean there's something about science and in particular the dating process that occurs in the lab that you dont know?
You made this claim:

the dating process for a piece of fossilized bone for instance will produce different dates for samples taken at different parts of the bone.
I asked you to provide evidence to support it.

edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John333

where did u figure i was making the point rate of growth has to do with rings? for sure it has to do with Age though.
How do you think the age of a tree is determined?



what are you trying to tell me? i should accept this as an exact science?
I, and others, are telling you that everything you just said is wrong. All of it. You have once again demonstrated that you know absolutely nothing about the actual methodology.



citation? so u mean there's something about science and in particular the dating process that occurs in the lab that you dont know?
You made this claim:

the dating process for a piece of fossilized bone for instance will produce different dates for samples taken at different parts of the bone.
I asked you to provide evidence to support it.


oh really. well why dont you enlighten me. you define the entire process.

and in being as merciless as you.. i dont want a summary .. as i tried to do.. summarize. i want you to post the whole thing.

TELL US

How do you go about dating a fossilize piece of bone found under 15 layers of sedimentation where a river once flowed near to a tree with 3000 concentric rings.. approximately. educate me on this process of which i know nothing about.

and really, im expected to publish a citation when uve already shut down what ive said? so wait a minute. doesnt you asking me for a citation mean that you are not aware of any such thing in the scientific method of dating a fossil? if ur not aware of it. couldnt it be that your knowledge of the dating methods is incomplete? thus how could you with incomplete knowledge, correct my error??

i will search for the citation. no need to bully me about it. ill tell u now im absolutely sure it's credible. i read it myself in a paper on dating methods.
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: John333




How do you go about dating a fossilize piece of bone found under 15 layers of sedimentation where a river once flowed near to a tree with 3000 concentric rings.. approximately. educate me on this process of which i know nothing about.
Others have tried to do so. To no avail.


You made this claim:

the dating process for a piece of fossilized bone for instance will produce different dates for samples taken at different parts of the bone.
I asked you to provide evidence to support it.
edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: John333





How do you go about dating a fossilize piece of bone found under 15 layers of sedimentation where a river once flowed near to a tree with 3000 concentric rings.. approximately. educate me on this process of which i know nothing about.



Easy. Read the science. And that's your problem. You don't read. You don't research. You only reiterate whatever seems to support your claim. But you have no hard evidence.

There are dozens of research papers in archeological journals documenting how fossils are retrieved and analyzed. I'll post a few - let's see if you can tell us why they're all wrong.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: John333
a reply to: peter vlar

we got some communication barrier. so i used carbon dating interchangeably with dating methods a few times. maybe now u see how i fee when u try to pass "scientific facts" as "facts". the two arent always the same. a scientific fact like say "pluto is a planet" can change tomorrow to "pluto is an asteroid". now i know facts dont change. so unless a planet is an asteroid i dont see how either is a fact when ur obviously still guessing.


Except that radioisotope half lives don't change, they are a constant. This is a fact, it is supported by science. If you feel this is wrong provide something that supports your assertion instead of a wall of meaningless text. This isn't a communication error, it's a gap in knowledge. Likewise with tree rings, none of the variables you mention affect the FACT since you lime that word so much, that every ring corresponds to one year. Can you provide evidence that this isn't the case or are you just purposely claiming that it could change because the science doesn't jive with your world view?


i will have to search a citation for u. i studied this years ago. i do not forget what i study.


You may have studied but you haven't learned anything. This is clearly evident in your posts.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Calling you on BS.

i explain it in my own words.. u ask for citation

i ask you for a citation on your disagreement you tell me check the research.

BS... produce your citation too. describe it to me in your own words. ive studied the scientific sources already. this is why i have my opinion as it stands.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

Citation No. 1:


Geology and preliminary dating of the hominid-bearing sedimentary fill of the Sima de los Huesos Chamber, Cueva Mayor of the Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain ☆
J.L. Bischoffa,
J.A. Fitzpatricka,
L. Leónb,
J.L. Arsuagab,
C. Falgueresc,
J.J. Bahainc,
T. Bullend




Abstract

Sediments of the Sima de los Huesos vary greatly over distances of a few meters. This is typical of interior cave facies, and caused by cycles of cut and fill. Mud breccias containing human bones, grading upwards to mud containing bear bones, fill an irregular surface cut into basal marls and sands. The lack of bedding and the chaotic abundance of fragile speleothem clasts in the fossiliferous muds suggests that the deposit was originally a subterranean pond facies, and that after emplacement of the human remains, underwent vigorous post-depositional rotation and collapse and brecciation, caused by underlying bedrock dissolution and undermining. The fossiliferous deposits are capped by flowstone and guano-bearing muds which lack large-mammal fossils. U-series and radiocarbon dating indicates the capping flowstones formed from about 68 ka to about 25 ka. U-series analyses of speleothem clasts among the human fossils indicate that all are at, or close to, isotopic equilibrium (>350 ka). The distribution of U-series dates for 25 bear bones (154±66 ka) and for 16 human bones (148±34 ka) is similar and rather broad. Because the human bones seem to be stratigraphically older than those of the bears, the results would indicate that most of the bones have been accumulating uranium irregularly with time. Electron spin resonance (ESR) analyses of six selected bear bones indicates dates of 189±28 ka, for which each is concordant with their corresponding U-series date (181±41 ka). Combined ESR and U-series dates for these samples yielded 200±4 ka. Such agreement is highly suggestive that uranium uptake in these bones was close to the early-uptake (EU) model, and the dates are essentially correct. Another three selected samples yielded combined ESR–U-series dates of 320±4 ka with a modeled intermediate-mode of uranium uptake. The dating results, therefore, seem to provide a firm minimum age of about 200 ka for the human entry; and suggestive evidence of entry before 320 ka.

Text



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

Citation No. 2:

Direct U-Pb dating of Cretaceous and Paleocene dinosaur bones, San Juan Basin, New Mexico

James E. Fassett1,
Larry M. Heaman2 and
Antonio Simonetti3
geology.gsapubs.org...

Abstract

Vertebrate fossils have been important for relative dating of terrestrial rocks for decades, but direct dating of these fossils has heretofore been unsuccessful. In this study we employ recent advances in laser ablation in situ U-Pb dating techniques to directly date two dinosaur fossils from the San Juan Basin of northwestern New Mexico and southwestern Colorado, United States. A Cretaceous dinosaur bone collected from just below the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a U-Pb date of 73.6 ± 0.9 Ma, in excellent agreement with a previously determined 40Ar/39Ar date of 73.04 ± 0.25 Ma for an ash bed near this site. The second dinosaur bone sample from Paleocene strata just above the Cretaceous-Paleogene interface yielded a Paleocene U-Pb date of 64.8 ± 0.9 Ma, consistent with palynologic, paleomagnetic, and fossil-mammal biochronologic data. This first successful direct dating of fossil vertebrate bone provides a new methodology with the potential to directly obtain accurate dates for any vertebrate fossil.



Text



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

I wouldn't want to confuse you with the facts. I've posted 2 citations above. If you can explain away one, you get a gold star.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

Citation No. 3: And this is one was conducted UNDER THE NILE RIVER


Archaeometric classification of ancient human fossil bones, with particular attention to their carbonate content, using chemometrics, thermogravimetry and ICP emission
journal.chemistrycentral.com...



Abstract
Background
The potential of coupling chemometric data processing techniques to thermal analysis for formulating an “archaeometric” classification of fossil bones was investigated. Moreover, the possibility of integrating the outcomes of this approach with the results of inductively coupled plasma (ICP) emission spectroscopy for an anthropological interpretation of the observed patterns was also examined.

Results
Several fossil bone samples coming from the necropolis of El Geili, in the middle Nile, an important archaeological site, were first of all subjected to thermogravimetric (TG) and derivative thermogravimetric (DTG) analysis and the main steps of the curves were analyzed. This allowed fossil bone samples to be differentiated, both by means of classical bidimensional and chemometric representations, namely Principal Component Analysis (PCA). In particular, two clusters were observed, attributable to samples of different antiquity. In addition, inductively coupled plasma (ICP) emission spectroscopy showed that the samples in the cluster corresponding to more recent burials are characterized by a higher Zn content, suggesting a more varied diet.

Conclusions
The experimental data obtained using thermogravimetry (TG-DTG) allows us to differentiate all the fossil bone samples analyzed into two separate clusters and to interpret this differentiation in terms of the observed transitions.

Keywords: Thermal analysis; Fossil bones; Inductively coupled plasma (ICP); Principal component analysis (PCA); Carbonate thermal decomposition
Graphical abstract

Background
Thermogravimetric curves (TG-DTG) of several human fossil bone samples, all belonging to the necropolis of El Geili [1] have been recorded. In this archeological site, burials from different ages (at least covering the period 3000 B.C.-400 A.D., according to the literature [1]) have been unearthed. An in-depth analysis of the mass losses was carried out as a function of temperature during a linear scan in the range 25–1000°C, focusing in particular on the decomposition processes of carbonate materials [2,3]. Indeed, not only has been the carbonate content in the samples determined, but also it was possible to differentiate between traces of the carbonate originally present in the hydroxyapatite matrix and the so-called “re-formation” or “secondary” carbonate, i.e., the carbonate of pedogenic origin which is formed by reprecipitation on the buried bones as a result of soil processes [4]. In this respect, to characterize the analyze samples we propose a chemometric representation base on Principal Component Analysis which is compared to the ones based only on the relative amount of the two types of carbonate or on carbonate and collagen. The results obtained were then examined with the aim of formulating an “archaeometric” classification of the analyzed samples on the basis of the considerations reported in the literature in this regard [2-6]. The main TG/DTG [7,8] outcomes were then organized into a data matrix that was processed by exploratory chemometric [9] methods, which allowed a satisfactory classification of all the samples into two homogeneous clusters. A quantitative analysis of the calcium, zinc and strontium content of these samples determined using ICP spectroscopy was also carried out. Strontium vs zinc and calcium vs strontium contents [10-12] (which can be plotted as binary diagrams) provided a further confirmation of the archaeometric evaluation based on thermal analysis but, above all, allowed important anthropologic considerations to be formulated regarding the food habits and the sociological status of the individuals the fossil finds belonged to.

Results and Discussion
Several old bone samples, taken from the El Geili necropolis, which is known to contain tombs of various periods, both prehistoric and belonging to the early centuries of the Christian age [1], were subjected to TG and DTG analysis.

Typical examples of recorded TG-DTG curves are shown in Figure 1. The main steps in the thermogravimetric curves were linked: (a) to moisture loss, (b) to organic components (i.e. collagen) decomposition, sometimes including two partly overlapped DTG peaks, at about 330 and 460°C, respectively, and sometimes only one DTG peak at about 335°C.

thumbnailFigure 1. TG and DTG profiles of typical bone samples showing collagen and carbonates decomposition steps; heating rate 10°C min-1 under an air stream of 100 cm3 min-1 (The numbers in Figure refer to sample indices).

At higher temperatures, different TG-DTG steps are evidenced between about 600 and 850°C, all linked to carbonate decomposition from carbonated hydroxylapatite [4].

The main thermal data (i.e. mass loss and temperatures, recorded in the principal steps of collagen and carbonate thermal decomposition) are set out in Table 1.


Text



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

besides that being a whole lot of nothing. can i ask you something?

do you understand what you just read? because i do. and it agrees with everything ive said.

this is the conclusive statement here that is noteworthy...


The dating results, therefore, seem to provide a firm minimum age of about 200 ka for the human entry; and suggestive evidence of entry (some time) before 320 ka.


im sorry but im rolling here. how is this an exact science? there is nothing definitive here.

again im not saying theres anything really wrong with how ur going about it. its jut part of the process. itll improve. and well some of ur guesses will pan out. but until they do, i have clear sight of the difference between what is an actual fact.. and what is still scientific theory a work in progress. im not going to allow scientific theories to hard code me into a definitive belief in life when it is still a theory under examination. and i know enough about mystical scripts to interpret them in their section where applicable. to superimpose the metaphor unto its relevant micro or macro-scale application. so im not hardcoded into a literalist translation like Ken Ham may be. Ask Ham to explain the story of moses in the wilderness with the serpent and the pole and he most likely may not know where to begin. because he may believe moses actually wrapped a real live snake around a pole.

so u see. i am objective. TRULY OBJECTIVE.

theories exist to be tested. and stress tested. thats how they make it into fact. all new discovery must support rather than throw conventional belief into question. discovering this, is grounds for greater investigation. met with insufficient answers and circular logic prompts intrigue in the assumptions that can be gleaned.
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: John333

how is this an exact science?
Who has claimed it is exact? Show one example of someone making that claim, or admit it is a strawman argument. Every dating technique comes with a range of dates. That one provides a minimum date of 200,000 years with a suggestion of older. Every science admits and provides a margin of error.



so u see. i am objective. TRULY OBJECTIVE.
There is nothing objective about the subjective application of metaphor at your whim.



because of the 7 chakras. which funny enough were anciently referred to as deities.. where a a deity is a God.. as in the same as the word itself Dei.. which eventually became Day.

so a day is actually a dei. a dei is actually a God. and teh 7 Deis are the foundations for the creation of a man/God.
Yes. Very objective there.

edit on 1/1/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

well all i did was say that it wasnt exact and a bunch of u threw a hissy fit. forcing me to describe almost everything ive studied and why my analysis of the "evidence" provides me with an alternate interpretation to yours.

so my question is..

why did you throw a hissy fit just because i said it wasnt an exact science?

and well about the chakras thing. dont worry about it. u dont have the key so i understand. but that is just one of the metaphorical conceptualizations that is aimed to be transmitted throughout the bible.. and every other religion. its the most important thing a mystic has to teach about. since the beginning.its the most important thing in the whole world through all the millenia for man to achieve.
edit on 1-1-2016 by John333 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join