Radioactive Half-life measurement

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, different tests have different sensitivities. If they used a test that is used to test the ages of things from tens of thousands or millions of years then yes, they'd get a wacky result. Would you use a tape measure to measure the distance to the next star across? Or to measure the size of an atomic nucleus? No? Well, you can't use radiocarbon ...[text shortened]... several hundred dollars to get something radiocarbon dated when he already knew the age?

It wasnt my Uncle BTW, My grandfather told me about this, I dont know the guy who did it, but I know my grandfather wouldnt lie to me. also this was like 20 years ago, so the testing methods may be outdated by now, I dont know

Originally posted by flyUnity
Thats the problem with with science in my opionion. They assume the age before they test it, so they know what test to use. Why dont they just assume that the earth is young when they do the test? because they "KNOW" that life evolved from nothing, and in order for that to happen, it wouldve taken millions of years. Get my drift?

I glanced at your thread ...[text shortened]... I got an online college test that needs to be done tonight, I may look into it further later.

That's cool. Real tests are more important for sure. Do check it out though because your exact assertion is addressed very well there, including a rigorous defense of why scientists are confident that they are using appropriate tests.

Originally posted by flyUnity
Thats the problem with with science in my opionion. They assume the age before they test it, so they know what test to use. Why dont they just assume that the earth is young when they do the test? because they "KNOW" that life evolved from nothing, and in order for that to happen, it wouldve taken millions of years. Get my drift?

I glanced at your thread ...[text shortened]... I got an online college test that needs to be done tonight, I may look into it further later.

We could try and use 14C to try and date the earth. We'd get results ranging from 5000 years in the futture to 60,000 years in the past, and everything in between.

We could use a lead/lead isochron which gives 4.5 billion years, a argon/argon method which gives 4.5 billion years, a rubidium-strontium method which gives 4.5 billion years, a samarium/neodymium method that gives 4.5 billion years.

Get MY drift?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
We could try and use 14C to try and date the earth. We'd get results ranging from 5000 years in the futture to 60,000 years in the past, and everything in between.

We could use a lead/lead isochron which gives 4.5 billion years, a argon/argon method which gives 4.5 billion years, a rubidium-strontium method which gives 4.5 billion years, a samarium/neodymium method that gives 4.5 billion years.

Get MY drift?

Yea, I get your drift, why dont while your at it, make a couple more methods?

Im not gonna debate further untill I read Tererion link, as I dont know much about it.

Originally posted by flyUnity
My grandfather had a friend who buried a dead cow, and like 20 or 30 years later dug it up, got a peice of a bone, and had it tested for its age, It came back with the test results saying it was like 1000 years old, when he told them that it was his cow, they said

"oh, if we wouldve known that, we wouldve done a different type of test, the test we did i ...[text shortened]... objects"

LOL, I forget what type of test it was, but I dont trust them so called scientist

So you dont trust scientists in general or just those ones? Do you drive a car, watch tv, use a computer? Then you trust scientists more than you realise.

I suspect the issue with the example you were given, if it is genuine at all, is that the scientists said that the bone was aprox 1000yrs +- 2000yrs and your grandfather, not knowing much about such things himself just jumped on the 1000. figure. In fact a figure of 1000 tells you straight away that it is an approximation rounded to the nearest 1000 or you would get a figure like 978 or 1023.

Another question, did the scientists know it was a cow bone? If so where would cows come from in america 1000 years ago?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
We could try and use 14C to try and date the earth. We'd get results ranging from 5000 years in the futture to 60,000 years in the past, and everything in between.

We could use a lead/lead isochron which gives 4.5 billion years, a argon/argon method which gives 4.5 billion years, a rubidium-strontium method which gives 4.5 billion years, a samarium/neodymium method that gives 4.5 billion years.

Get MY drift?

Don't you see you are being duped into believing you can actually change their minds with fully established scientific principles? I think they enjoy leading you on, just finding one stupidity after another, there are no end to the stupidities creationists can come up with. For ever scientific principle fully proven they will invent some self-imagined crack in the science involved, spout their nonsense off to the poor duped crowd of the christian right and all of a sudden, millions of people 'Know' science is false and god is real and then another classroom has to get stuffed with 'intelligent design' in a biology class. So we have to fight this crap with every breath but at least there are judges who, when presented with the so-called arguments of the christian right, see through the smoke and mirrors well enough to conclude all they are after is a to kill the concept of separation of church and state, veiled in scientific mumbo-jumbo,
and of course they could care less about the actual sciences, it doesn't matter who or what gets trampled as long as they get their worthless creationism billed as established fact.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
1. Daughter isotope. Estimated by taking a non-radioactive bit of the same strata in the same rock, which is necessarily the same age. I've explained this to you before dj, you just don't listen.

2. Decay constants have always been constant. See my explanation above. dj, you just don't listen.

3. Closed system. Theoretically correct ...[text shortened]... alter the ages predicted. Maybe by 5%, but not the 6 orders of magnitude that you require.

1. Daughter isotope. Estimated by taking a non-radioactive bit of the same strata in the same rock, which is necessarily the same age. I've explained this to you before dj, you just don't listen.

And how do know what the age of the rock is?

2. Decay constants have always been constant. See my explanation above. dj, you just don't listen.

Always? You mean the last 50 years?

Even with all of your "issues" deej, you still cannot fundamentally alter the ages predicted. Maybe by 5%, but not the 6 orders of magnitude that you require.

Of course not. I can never alter your presuppositions. But if I used a different set of presuppositions...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'll quote directly, ok?

"We have attempted to date several of the tuff units interbedded with the hominid-bearing sediments (Fig. 1) by the single crystal laser fusion 40Ar/39Ar method. Most of the feldspar grains separated for these analyses are contaminated by a dominant population of sanidine grains yielding an early Miocene age (~23.5 My ...[text shortened]... into it? Are you terminally stupid? Do you never bother to actually read anything?

So, basically, the rocks are comprised of two things, older sand grains identified to be from a nearby escarpment, and the younger parent clay derived material dated at 4.4 Myrs old.

And how do you date the younger parent clay derived material?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Always? You mean the last 50 years?

Always as in the last 50 years, and 4.5 billion years. If this were not the case, that
would require a change in the fundamentals of physics. If you want to assert that
physics changed such that essential forces within it acted in completely different ways,
that's your prerogative, but you must recognize that such an opinion is highly absurd
and, certainly, has no basis being taught in school.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Always as in the last 50 years, and 4.5 billion years. If this were not the case, that
would require a change in the fundamentals of physics. If you want to assert that
physics changed such that essential forces within it acted in completely different ways,
that's your prerogative, but you must recognize that such an opinion is highly absurd
and, certainly, has no basis being taught in school.

Nemesio

Based on the presupposition that matter has existed for 4.5 billion years, of course...

Originally posted by scottishinnz
deej. You, sir, are an idiot.

I have explined this many times. There are a huge number of websites that you have been directed to that explain this. You just refuse to switch your brain on, don't you?

deej, your lot always expound the fact that few evolutionary biologists are willing to debate with creationists; now I see why. You lot don't sti ...[text shortened]... es. Maybe if you spout off long enough the moon will become comprised of green cheese too.

I don't have a problem with Science my dear man.

You are the one that seems to have forgotten the roots of Science.

You also seem to have forgotten that almost every major branch of science was developed by a Bible believing Christian.

You also seem to forget that the University where you got your Phd was also started because of Christianity.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You also seem to have forgotten that almost every major branch of science was developed by a Bible believing Christian.

I seem to remember you saying this in the past and completely failing to come up with any kind of proof.

PS. Please claim that Lord Kelvin claimed that the Earth was Young.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I don't have a problem with Science my dear man.

You are the one that seems to have forgotten the roots of Science.

You also seem to have forgotten that almost every major branch of science was developed by a Bible believing Christian.

You also seem to forget that the University where you got your Phd was also started because of Christianity.

Just as easy to claim that all learning is rooted in the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Muslims etc. A surprising number of discoveries were actually made by the Chinese. IMHO science would have and would still be progressing much faster without religion. Many great scientific theories have been actively disputed by religious interests.

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
I seem to remember you saying this in the past and completely failing to come up with any kind of proof.

PS. Please claim that Lord Kelvin claimed that the Earth was Young.

I seem to remember you saying this in the past and completely failing to come up with any kind of proof.

Strange that recorded History is never sufficient proof for anything.

Yet you are so quick to fall for anything that supposedly happened 5 billion years ago.