millions of years

[UnVoid]

How can they say it takes millions of years for trees to petrify or
turn in to coal, when people have seen it happen within days if not
hours (Prime example: Mt. St. Helen's)?

Or the Grand Canyon? honestly, it is more accurate that this was
formed in a matter of days rather than millions of years. The Grand
Canyon actually cuts back on itself (like it would if a large amount
of water had rushed into one location easily but hit a harder rock
area that forced it to move backwards on itself, natural running
streams of water cannot do that!) and cut through hills.

Are carbon dating systems manipulated to fit the millions of years
idea?

[Drafterman]

On Apr 13, 5:02 pm, UnVoid <unv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How can they say it takes millions of years for trees to petrify or
> turn in to coal, when people have seen it happen within days if not
> hours (Prime example: Mt. St. Helen's)?

This is a misrepresentation of a misrepresentation. The claim with Mt.
St. Helens is not that trees petrified and turned into coal within
days/hours but that thick layers of peat have accumulated over a
relatively short period of time. The additional claim is that all it
will take is an application of heat and pressure to turn that peat
into coal.

The reference of trees taking millions of years to turn into coal is
also a misrepresentation.

What we have here is a straw man combated with several
misrepresentations of actual events. For further details, try here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html

>
> Or the Grand Canyon? honestly, it is more accurate that this was
> formed in a matter of days rather than millions of years. The Grand
> Canyon actually cuts back on itself (like it would if a large amount
> of water had rushed into one location easily but hit a harder rock
> area that forced it to move backwards on itself, natural running
> streams of water cannot do that!) and cut through hills.

Ok, well I did your homework for the first part, but that's my quota.
I don't particularly like this tactic of making wild assertions
without any support.

>
> Are carbon dating systems manipulated to fit the millions of years
> idea?

No. Nor are they the only dating systems in use.

[Joanne Bob]

That's what i meant.Not seeing or comprehending the small things you don't think about. There is alot of things that happen and we don't see the natural occurance of daily life.

How does the earth recycle ? it doesn't really without our help.

[John Stockwell]

On Apr 13, 3:02 pm, UnVoid <unv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How can they say it takes millions of years for trees to petrify or
> turn in to coal, when people have seen it happen within days if not
> hours (Prime example: Mt. St. Helen's)?

Nobody but creationists make the claim that "they say it
takes milions of years..." Just because the items are
millions of years old does not mean that it took millions of
years for them to fossilize.

>
> Or the Grand Canyon? honestly, it is more accurate that this was
> formed in a matter of days rather than millions of years. The Grand
> Canyon actually cuts back on itself (like it would if a large amount
> of water had rushed into one location easily but hit a harder rock
> area that forced it to move backwards on itself, natural running
> streams of water cannot do that!) and cut through hills.

No. It took a minimum of half a million years to make large
portions of the Grand canyon. It was all solidified rock when
the GC was formed.

>
> Are carbon dating systems manipulated to fit the millions of years
> idea?

Carbon dating is not used to date items that are millions of
years old. There are more than 200 radiometric dating systems,
each with an appropriate age range for application.

See: www.talkorigins.org
for information about these basic scientific issues.

[Stonethatbleeds]

off your meds? No you are some kind of flake that thinks things can
become fossils in hours.
do you know what a fossil is???
Grand canyon in days? And you really thinking you are normal?
Did you even read a bible in your life? God makes laws you jump over
to claim hiom creator as he say it take 2 wittness and you make up
stories he did and think he said it! he did not create the world and
is of this world! it is clearly told in the story that who ever wrote
it did so many generations later because in the time of IAM no one of
your kind could read or write and so think he is creator when he
himself say never such things... learn to learn and not learn to be
fools! Kick who told you other than the actual truth! God is not
magical and never once did magic and all that claim he is and does are
fools just as it is written they be at the wid4e Gate as we of the
real God are in the narrow path in wonder how your fool can treat your
religions like shit then claim so many in greed and vanity that no god
could reward your kind... you are living sin of vanity and greed of
life after life when tyhe teachings are clear only the spirit can
survive and it does as it did for all others IN RECORDINGS! don't like
it and think other..dam you all to being away from God forever. We of
God will seek and destroy all your records of ever beiong alive so
none know you ever existed like your victims.
so God has spoken and your SATAN side is showing. your following of
money and politics makes you all traitors for god is against
Capitalism and you are for it... so use not his name again as it is
not for your kind to claim.

[Dave]

It doesn't matter which isometric dating was used.  Do they know what the beginning level of that isotope that is being tested?  If not then they are guessing and whenever you guess it becomes inaccurate.  Where's the control?  Do we have something that can verify that the dating is working?  Do we have something that known to be over 100,000 years old by other means (not radiometric dating)?   If the Grand Canyon was formed in millions of years, where's the delta at the end of the river?  If it was solid rock to begin with, wouldn't the water have to travel uphill since the Colorado River is below the top of the canyon?  How do you explain petrified trees through earth strata that's supposed to be millions of years old?  See if you can find the oldest living tree?  How old is it?  What does that tell you about the flood in the Bible?  My only quest is to stop the teaching of evolution in science class in school.  Evolution should be an elective just like creation.

[Stonethatbleeds]

You do not know what you say and NO mount st Helens diod not create
anything like you claim and fossils and mummification are not the same
thing as Science is logic and your claims are uneducated. The grand
Canyon is beyond your ability to reason and see truth so you make up
lies to claim other than the real events.
Sad to be you! Logic and reality are something other than what you are
giving.

[Matt Berlin]

To all involved:

Try not to use: "I", "My", "You", and the like.

More might get done.

--
Matt Berlin
484-832-1055
http://psOFe.org

[Drafterman]

Dave, Dave, Dave:

 

You and I have been talking privately about this, but you do not seem to have listened to anything I've said. As I showed you, several methods of dating either A) Do not require knowledge of the initial isotope level or B) can make a reasonable assumption about the initial level of the isotope (such that it does not occur naturally in the object being tested without decaying from a parent element).

 

The verification of the dating comes from (as I explained to you) agreement among different dating types including those that do not require radioactive decay (such as dendocrhonology). If the dating methods we as unreliable as you (and other creationists) claim, then that unreliability would present itself differently for different methods. That is, they would not be consistent. Essentially what you are proposing is not just that they are inaccurate but they are all inaccurate int he same exact way to give the illusion of accuracy through consistency including methods which would not be affected by the proposed unreliability of radiometric dating!

 

You also show your dishonesty in reference to the lack of a delta at the end of the Colorado river. You made this mistake with me, and acknowledged the mistake when I informed you that there is a very expansive Colorado River Delta. I also explained to you that the source of the Colorado river is 1,000 feet higher than the Grand Canyon.

 

It's a shame, really. You seemed truly interested in finding answers but it is clear you are not. You simply want to regurgitate answers spoon fed to you by creationist apologist sites whose goal is not to find the truth, but to use whatever tactics are available to give the illusion that there predetermined conclusion is true.

The only thing I have to add are a couple very serious, non-rhetorical questions: Yes, as an atheist I do not believe in the divinity or savior-hood of Jesus Christ, but as a Christian I think it's safe to assume that you do. That he exists as a divine entity responsible for your judgement. Do you think he approves of this type of dishonesty?

 

Either you're lying to me when you imply that you are interested in learning, or that you acknowledge your mistakes, or you are lying here when you present answered questions as though they are unanswered. Either way, you're lying. If your goal as a Christian is to prove the truth of Christianity, don't you think it would be more appropriate to use methods your savior would approve of?

[Dave]

Forgot the link for the recalibration of the Geomagnetic Polarity Time Scale  http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~dvk/Time%20scale%20papers/Cande+Kent1995.pdf

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Dave <bibleh...@gmail.com> wrote:

I did admit to making a mistake on the river delta, but I have been doing research on those dating methods.  I think that too much weight is placed in them.  This article clearly states the problems with Ar/Ar, which does not require an initial isotope.  The interesting part is as follows:  http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/labs/argon/methods/home.html
"

Standard Intercalibration

In order for an age to be calculated by the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar technique, the J parameter must be known. For the J to be determined, a standard of known age must be irradiated with the samples of unknown age. Because this (primary) standard ultimately cannot be determined by ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar, it must be first determined by another isotopic dating method. The method most commonly used to date the primary standard is the conventional K/Ar technique. The primary standard must be a mineral that is homogeneous, abundant and easily dated by the K/Ar and ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar methods. Traditionally, this primary standard has been a hornblende from the McClure Mountains, Colorado (a.k.a. MMhb-1). Once an accurate and precise age is determined for the primary standard, other minerals can be dated relative to it by the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar method. These secondary minerals are often more convenient to date by the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar technique (e.g. sanidine). However, while it is often easy to determine the age of the primary standard by the K/Ar method, it is difficult for different dating laboratories to agree on the final age. Likewise, because of heterogeneity problems with the MMhb-1 sample, the K/Ar ages are not always reproducible. This imprecision (and inaccuracy) is transferred to the secondary minerals used daily by the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar technique. Fortunately, other techniques are available to re-evaluate and test the absolute ages of the standards used by the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar technique. Some of these include other isotopic dating techniques (e.g. U/Pb) and the astronomical polarity time scale (APTS).

Decay Constants

Another issue affecting the ultimate precision and accuracy of the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar technique is the uncertainty in the decay constants for ⁴⁰K. This uncertainty results from 1) the branched decay scheme of ⁴⁰K and 2) the long half-life of ⁴⁰K (1.25 billion years). As technology advances, it is likely that the decay constants used in the ⁴⁰Ar/³⁹Ar age equation will become continually more refined allowing much more accurate and precise ages to be determined.

J Factor

Because the J value is extrapolated from a standard to an unknown, the accuracy and precision on that J value is critical. J value uncertainty can be minimized by constraining the geometry of the standard relative to the unknown, both vertically and horizontally. The NMGRL does this by irradiating samples in machined aluminum disks where standards and unknowns alternate every other position. J error can also be reduced by analyzing more flux monitor aliquots per standard location.

³⁹Ar Recoil

The affects of irradiation on potassium-bearing rocks/minerals can sometimes result in anomalously old apparent ages. This is caused by the net loss of ³⁹Ar_K from the sample by recoil (the kinetic energy imparted on a ³⁹Ar_K atom by the emission of a proton during the (n,p) reaction). Recoil is likely in every potassium-bearing sample, but only becomes a significant problem with very fine grained minerals (e.g. clays) and glass. For multi-phase samples such as basaltic wholerocks, ³⁹Ar_K redistribution may be more of a problem than net ³⁹Ar_K loss. In this case, ³⁹Ar may recoil out of a low-temperature, high-potassium mineral (e.g. K-feldspar) into a high-temperature, low potassium mineral (e.g. pyroxene). Such a phenomenon would great affect the shape of the age spectrum."

I did some research on APTS and U/Pb.  First APTS http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1995/94GL03214.shtml  This clearly states that to put dates with APTS (geomagnetic polarity time scale) they used Ar/Ar method of dating.  But if K/Ar are not always accurate and they use other methods.  One of the other methods, APTS, is based on dating done by Ar/Ar.  http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/32/2/137 How is that not circular?  This next article states that they need to recalibrate GPTS because of incorrect Ar/Ar dating and furthermore they need the dating to come out to match their adopted date of 65 ma at the KP boundry.  U/Pb has significate problems with being a closed system.  http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i2/uranium.asp 

I have not researched dendocrhonology (counting of tree rings, etc) so I will not comment on this until I'm prepared.  I have not responded to you because I just don't believe anything that is said, for example the river delta, and am researching to make sure that the statements made by you and talkorigins are verified by other means.  Yes I did link an article from answersingenesis and I'm searching for something secular views on the subject.  I am truly interested in finding out correct answers, not assumed or half-baked points of view.  You can call me what you want and say I'm a liar, but you really think I'm going to just take your word for it?  I need your point of view so I can study the pieces that could change my mind. Second, please do not speak to me as if you know anything about me.  I asked you some questions and said something incorrectly which I told you that it was incorrect.  That was my mistake.  And I told you right away that I was in error.  What part of that is a lie?  It was misinformation and I corrected it.  You sir also regurgitate answers from your religion, talkorigins.  Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you don't have a religion. 

[Stonethatbleeds]

nothing to get done... we know what is what and no magial ways are
permited to pass as lies for truth...grand canyon is not proof of a
giant flood and no fossils were created in the volcanic event... there
is nothing to talk about!