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.

 

"Earth is 6,000 Years Old"

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Yes, you're right... I'm just a STUPID Bible guy...

Now run along Aloysius...

We are trying to get someone in here to show us the math/methodology/basis with regards to 'Radiometric dating'.





posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


There's papers referred to on that wiki page - why is their maths not worth your attention??

how about this then - INTCAL04 TERRESTRIAL RADIOCARBON AGE CALIBRATION, 0–26 CAL KYR BP

Plenty of maths in there for you to debunk.....show us how it is wrong.



posted on May, 4 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina
 


There's papers referred to on that wiki page - why is their maths not worth your attention??

how about this then - INTCAL04 TERRESTRIAL RADIOCARBON AGE CALIBRATION, 0–26 CAL KYR BP

Plenty of maths in there for you to debunk.....show us how it is wrong.


How could I possibly do that? I'm just a 'DISHONEST, STUPID, PLAYING GAMES' Bible guy!



I've GOT to tell you Aloysius, you might have winged me with THAT particular link...

I'm pretty sure I hurt myself laughing!



'Radiocarbon' dating is limited to dating ORGANIC matter, you know, using Carbon14...

Oops!





...why is their maths not worth your attention??

Plenty of maths in there for you to debunk.....show us how it is wrong.


That is a REALLY good question...

The word 'Math' is based on the Greek word Mathematikos.

It is it's own plural form.



Psst Aloysius! We're working with ROCKS...

Now run along and go play with your intellectual malady site (Read: Wiki).

Come on theComte... math/methodology/basis...

See how nice AND gentle I was with our special needs threadchild.




posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Hey guys.


Just little ole me... STILL waiting!



Tick! Tock! Tick! Tock!

So... to summarize the last few pages of these strange little thread...

The guys representing the 'Scientific' point of view that the Earth is 4.5 billions years old...

Are apparently unable to provide DETAILED information about the 'math/methodology/basis' of the dating technology...

In their OWN words!

Apparently the SUM TOTAL of their supposed expertise... Is to put up a LINK to a lame website (Read: Wiki
) and claim that THAT supposedly PROVES that we the 'Scientists' somehow automagically KNOW the date of the Earth.

From my viewpoint... As an HONEST OBSERVER (and INTERLOCUTOR for the 'truth')...

It just shows that those guys are pretty much just PARROTing what someone else has led them to believe.



I COULD go on... But it's fairly obvious to the most casual observer that these guys are unable to deliver the goods...

But as many of you have probably realized by now...

We are going to see this thing thru.



So...

We will wait a respectful amount of time... Just in case someone actually wants to COWBOY UP against a guy like [(just insert your favorite insult or any of those aimed my way during this thread). me?]...

Once this period has expired, we'll begin a systematic attack on this 'methodology'...

Including demonstrating how the very basic nature of 'radioactivity' (the foundation of the 'technology') is TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD!

Using input from from one of my very favorite goto guys... Nikola Tesla!

A tall order I know...

But it's really NOT that complicated.


edit on 5-5-2012 by golemina because: Minor edits.




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
We will wait a respectful amount of time... Just in case someone actually wants to COWBOY UP against a guy like [(just insert your favorite insult or any of those aimed my way during this thread). me?]...



Challenge accepted, all this talk of dating and ages brought something else to mind. Tell me, what do you know of genealogy and who wrote this bible you've been pulling your "facts" from? *Hint* don't waste a post by bringing up Veilkovsky, i'll get to that drivel momentarily



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina
 


There's papers referred to on that wiki page - why is their maths not worth your attention??

how about this then - INTCAL04 TERRESTRIAL RADIOCARBON AGE CALIBRATION, 0–26 CAL KYR BP

Plenty of maths in there for you to debunk.....show us how it is wrong.


How could I possibly do that? I'm just a 'DISHONEST, STUPID, PLAYING GAMES' Bible guy!


If you say so - but I thought you had said you were going to discuss the mathematics of radiometric dating. This paper is part of that - and yet you are refusing to discuss it - why is that??





I've GOT to tell you Aloysius, you might have winged me with THAT particular link...

I'm pretty sure I hurt myself laughing!



'Radiocarbon' dating is limited to dating ORGANIC matter, you know, using Carbon14...

Oops!



but you say you want to discuss radioMETRIC dating - of which radiocarbon dating is only 1 version - there are many others -

Uranium-lead dating method
Samarium-neodymium dating method
Potassium-argon dating method
Rubidium-strontium dating method
Uranium-thorium dating method
Radiocarbon dating method
Fission track dating method
Chlorine-36 dating method
Luminescence dating methods

Are you changing your story now??




...why is their maths not worth your attention??

Plenty of maths in there for you to debunk.....show us how it is wrong.


That is a REALLY good question...

The word 'Math' is based on the Greek word Mathematikos.

It is it's own plural form.



I don't speak or write Greek, modern or ancient - I write English. In English "maths" is a normal shortened form of mathematics.

Sorry about that - but perhaps you could just ask the question instead of introducing irrelevant ancient Greek grammar?


You know - just for a change...actually provide this evidence you say you have, instead of ducking and diving and avoiding the question?


Psst Aloysius! We're working with ROCKS...


And what - rocks can't be radiometrically dated??

how curious - radiometric dating of Mt Rainier rocks and curiouser - radiometric dating showshow long ago geological events on Mt Rainier occured.

also of course on Mt Rainier there is plenty of evidence of human habitation that can be Carbon-dated



Now run along and go play with your intellectual malady site (Read: Wiki).



Why? Because you cannot answer simple questions, cannot identify any evidence that you say you have provided "volumes" of? refuse to back up your claims? refuse to discuss the maths you say you are going to discuss? Make excuses, sidetrack the discussion, avoid the question, shift the goal posts and generally demonstrate all the shortcomings of believing something without any actual reason for doing so??

Hmm.....nah...there's plenty of time to watch your train wreck AND do anything else


I guess there is a lot more info in any article on wiki than you have ever provided ....but not nearly as much amusement!!



edit on 6-5-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

The guys representing the 'Scientific' point of view that the Earth is 4.5 billions years old...

Are apparently unable to provide DETAILED information about the 'math/methodology/basis' of the dating technology...

In their OWN words!


There has been a paper proffered discussing some VERY detailed information about the dating technology, and you have refused to discuss it - just 1 post above - apparently because it is not radio-CARBON dating...whereas you said you wanted to discuss the math of radio-METRIC dating.

Don't go blaming everyone else because you are either a coward or do not actually know what it is you are talking about.

Or both.

Here's another article discussing radiometric dating of rocks - of Zircons.


New techniques for oxygen isotope analysis, developed at UW-Madison, have lead to the first studies of oxygen isotope geochemistry of zircons (1, 2). Zircon is shown to be highly retentive of oxygen isotope ratios, preserving the best record of igneous composition even in samples that have enjoyed (not suffered!) high grade metamorphism or hydrothermal alteration.

Zircon is a ubiquitous trace mineral (ZrSiO4) in many igneous, metamorphic, and clastic sedimentary rocks. Its ability to concentrate uranium and exclude lead forms the basis of U-Pb geochronology and its refractory nature and concentric growth patterns create robust records of crystallization age.

The ability to analyze oxygen isotope ratios in a sample that has been dated, directly links the magmatic composition to known geologic events and has opened many new and exciting avenues for study.


So here's an article discussing the Oxygen isotope dating of Zircons


Abstract

The high-temperature and small sample size of an I.R. laser system has allowed the first detailed study of oxygen isotope ratios in zircon. Low-magnetism zircons that have grown during metamorphism in the Adirondack Mts., N.Y. preserve primary δ18O values and low-magnetism igneous zircons are likewise primary, showing no significant affect due to subsequent granulite facies metamorphism. The measured fractionation between zircon and garnet is [delta(Gt-Zrc)=0.0+/- 0.2%(1sigma)] (added by me as the symbols don't copy - ATG) for most low-magnetism zircons in meta-igneous rocks. The consistency of this value indicates equilibration at temperatures of 700–1100°C and little or no change in the equilibrium fractionation over this temperature range. In contrast, detrital low-magnetism zircons in quartzite preserve igneous compositions, up to 4‰ out of equilibrium with host quartz, in spite of granulite facies metamorphism. The oxygen isotope composition of zircon can be linked to UPb ages and can ‘see though’ metamorphism, providing a new tool for deciphering complex igneous, metamorphic and hydrothermal histories.

- the full article is available at the link

And here's an article discussing the basis of Uranium-lead dating


Of all the isotopic dating methods in use today, the uranium-lead method is the oldest and, when done carefully, the most reliable. Unlike any other method, uranium-lead has a natural cross-check built into it that shows when nature has tampered with the evidence.

Basics of Uranium-Lead

Uranium comes in two common isotopes with atomic weights of 235 and 238 (we'll call them 235U and 238U). Both are unstable and radioactive, shedding nuclear particles in a cascade that doesn't stop until they become lead (Pb). The two cascades are different—235U becomes 207Pb and 238U becomes 206Pb. What makes this fact useful is that they occur at different rates, as expressed in their half-lives (the time it takes for half the atoms to decay). The 235U–207Pb cascade has a half-life of 704 million years and the 238U–206Pb cascade is considerably slower, with a half-life of 4.47 billion years.


Plenty of math in those - I look forward to your discussions of them.


edit on 6-5-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzraelBane

Challenge accepted, all this talk of dating and ages brought something else to mind. Tell me, what do you know of genealogy and who wrote this bible you've been pulling your "facts" from? *Hint* don't waste a post by bringing up Veilkovsky, i'll get to that drivel momentarily


This was a call for KNOWLEDGEABLE people... (You know... Math/methodology/basis)

But welcome anyway.


Genealogy? What are you (be)getting at?



Veilkovsky?

Who's that?




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Hey Alyosius.


Do you REALLY think you're 'discussing' the math/methodology/basis of 'Radiometric dating'?



All you are doing is cutting and pasting these barely relevant links...

All you are accomplishing is making me feel TOTALLY sorry for your apparent lack of comprehension of what is ACTUALLY being discussed.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are an extremely efficient debunker and you're continuing your somewhat successful strategy of bugging the heck out of the people you seem to want to target...

(Big stretch... I know... But I'm a nice guy... Especially to those apparently LESS FORTUNATE
).



All right, Alyosius.

What is the first question you should be asking me?

Hmmm....

edit on 6-5-2012 by golemina because: Typos.




posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Hey Alyosius.


Do you REALLY think you're 'discussing' the math/methodology/basis of 'Radiometric dating'?



All you are doing is cutting and pasting these barely relevant links...


indeed - after I have read them - so I am expecting you to make some comment about them since they discuss some of the fundamentals of radiometric dating systems.


All you are accomplishing is making me feel TOTALLY sorry for your apparent lack of comprehension of what is ACTUALLY being discussed.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are an extremely efficient debunker and you're continuing your somewhat successful strategy of bugging the heck out of the people you seem to want to target...

(Big stretch... I know... But I'm a nice guy... Especially to those apparently LESS FORTUNATE
).



All right, Alyosius.

What is the first question you should be asking me?

Hmmm....


Why don't you provide any evidence to back up your claim that he world is only 6000 years old?

the 2nd question is - what is it you think is wrong with the basis for Uranium-lead radiometric dating as indicated in the link above?
edit on 6-5-2012 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 




All right Alyosius... I want to USE the methods that you CLAIM are included in your shotgun scattering of reference materials.

WHERE ARE THE DETAILS?

Math/methodology/basis?



Show me how it works.

(This out to be good.
)
edit on 6-5-2012 by golemina because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Which part of the basis of Uranium-lead method didn't you understand?

I thought you were going to discuss the maths - which seem simple enough - and show us all why it is wrong.

The basis of the U-Pb method seems simple enough - there are 2 isotopes of lead formed from 2 isotopes of Uranium.

U235 decays into Pb207 with a half life of about 0.7 giga-years.

U238 decays to Pb206 with a half life of about 4.47 G-years.

there is also Pb204 - a non-radiogenic lead isotope.

the ratio of Pb207/Pb 204 to Pb206/Pb204 produces a curve in time, or, by recalling that the ratio of U235/U238 is a constant, by the ratio of the Pb isotopes depending upon the amount of U238 in the mineral at the time of crystalisation.

So what is wrong with it?



posted on May, 6 2012 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


Nothing worse than some psychopath who has nothing better to do than troll the internet.

Not long untill everyone knows who you are and everything youve ever said.



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina
 


Which part of the basis of Uranium-lead method didn't you understand?

I thought you were going to discuss the maths - which seem simple enough - and show us all why it is wrong.

The basis of the U-Pb method seems simple enough - there are 2 isotopes of lead formed from 2 isotopes of Uranium.

U235 decays into Pb207 with a half life of about 0.7 giga-years.

U238 decays to Pb206 with a half life of about 4.47 G-years.

there is also Pb204 - a non-radiogenic lead isotope.

the ratio of Pb207/Pb 204 to Pb206/Pb204 produces a curve in time, or, by recalling that the ratio of U235/U238 is a constant, by the ratio of the Pb isotopes depending upon the amount of U238 in the mineral at the time of crystalisation.

So what is wrong with it?



Dude... All you are doing is PARROTING what you read.

You have absolutely ZERO comprehension of what you are saying.



Let me show you guys the 'technical' curve that is apparently the source of ole Alyosius's smugness.

Chart

Alyosius... I'm CONVINCED!




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by golemina
 


Nothing worse than some psychopath who has nothing better to do than troll the internet.

Not long untill everyone knows who you are and everything youve ever said.


Hey.


Let's see... Nasty name caller



Oh yeah... 'psychopath', 'troll'...

Got it!

Thank you for your contribution...

It seems like if you REALLY wanted to add something to this thread you would talk about the typical NONSENSE numbers these 'tried and true' dating methodologies provide as results ON NEWLY FORMED rocks.

Look at the results for new lava (Say Mt Saint Helens last eruption, or Kilauea in Hawaii, or how about new rocks from the slag at a foundry?)

What kind of numbers do you get for that Aloysius or Wertdagf?

Hmmm....




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


why do you assume i was talking about you?

Does everything have to be about you or this thread? Cant i just make a general statement about the internet without a creationist attacking me?



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by golemina
 


why do you assume i was talking about you?



Maybe it was the 'reply to post by golemina' part that threw me off...





Does everything have to be about you or this thread? Cant i just make a general statement about the internet without a creationist attacking me?


Who says I'm a 'creationist'?

Is this why you somehow feel liberated to depart from the norm behaviors that is encouraged at ATS?

'Attack' is such as strong word...

I was only documenting the fact that your only 'contribution' were the words 'psychopath' & 'troll'...

Thanks again!




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by golemina
 


Which part of the basis of Uranium-lead method didn't you understand?

I thought you were going to discuss the maths - which seem simple enough - and show us all why it is wrong.

The basis of the U-Pb method seems simple enough - there are 2 isotopes of lead formed from 2 isotopes of Uranium.

U235 decays into Pb207 with a half life of about 0.7 giga-years.

U238 decays to Pb206 with a half life of about 4.47 G-years.

there is also Pb204 - a non-radiogenic lead isotope.

the ratio of Pb207/Pb 204 to Pb206/Pb204 produces a curve in time, or, by recalling that the ratio of U235/U238 is a constant, by the ratio of the Pb isotopes depending upon the amount of U238 in the mineral at the time of crystalisation.

So what is wrong with it?



Dude... All you are doing is PARROTING what you read.

You have absolutely ZERO comprehension of what you are saying.


it seems perfectly clear to me at about a year 12 or 13 high school level of chemistry and physics - there's nothing particularly complicated about it at all really.



Let me show you guys the 'technical' curve that is apparently the source of ole Alyosius's smugness.

Chart

Alyosius... I'm CONVINCED!





That is part of the information that is around - so what is it that is actually wrong about it?

If someone could derive the information above solely from that graph they would certainly be a lot cleverer than me - I had to have a look at a whole bunch of text and formulae, and a similar but actually different graph that had more detail.

So - again - you have the mathematical basis for U-Pb radiometric dating, and apparently you are going to show us what the problem is with it?

How come you don't?

And how come you don't actually give us any evidence at all for your claim that the earth is only 6,000 years old?

You seem big on denigrating everyone else......but have no actual substance yourself despite your grand claims - is your inability to discuss any actual mathematics because, in fact, it is you that doesn't understand anty of it??



posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by samlf3rd
 


OMG you people are SO close minded... the earth isn't 6,000 years old, it is 5,997 years 11 months and 14 days old, come on a little precision please!

The Earth is also flat remember???

theflatearthsociety.org...




posted on May, 7 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bonsaihorn
 


complete BS - everyone knows that Steve Austin rates the age as 5,997 years 11 months, 14 days, 12 hours, 32 minutes and 21.6 seconds old.

accuracy indeed!!




top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join