GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-23-2012, 07:02   #326
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post
I know exactly what it means, but apparently, you didn't drill deep enough when trying to find a rebuttal in your google search.

Please, PUHLEASE, grace the thread with your new found knowledge on this topic.
Oh, no, I don't have the article, I just have the abstract. Please, tell us what YOU think it means.... Obviously I missed something important that was covered in the main part of the study.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-23-2012 at 07:03..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 07:11   #327
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,190
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
So that we're clear, what is the assertion regarding a carbon-14 saturation point that you would like to advance?

Or you can return to providing scientific evidence that stars cannot form.

-ArtificialGrape
Most laypeople do not understand that C14 testing results rely on the ratio of C14 to C12 and both of these are dramatically affected by the Earth's magnetic field and changing atmospheric conditions respectively; however, the assumption is made that the amounts of C14 are stable, and the ratio of C14 to C12 is stable, or as Geko pointed out, they are stable within a 20% range.

One thing that is based on peer reviewed, empirical scientific data is the fact that the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing, which one could assume means that C14 levels are rising, and this would tend to lead to errors in radiocarbon dating if not taken in account prior to testing.
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" - Josey Wales

Last edited by Peace Warrior; 11-23-2012 at 07:15..
Peace Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 07:15   #328
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
This has gotta hurt...

C14 tests confirm age of Dead Sea Scrolls

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 07:34   #329
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post
Most laypeople do not understand that C14 testing results rely on the ratio of C14 to C12 and both of these are dramatically affected by the Earth's magnetic field and changing atmospheric conditions respectively; however, the assumption is made that the amounts of C14 are stable, and the ratio of C14 to C12 is stable, or as Geko pointed out, they are stable within a 20% range.

One thing that is based on peer reviewed, empirical scientific data is the fact that the Earth's magnetic field is decreasing, which one could assume means that C14 levels are rising, and this would tend to lead to errors in radiocarbon dating if not taken in account prior to testing.
No need to assume. You could try backing up your claim that the magnetic field is decreasing by posting a link to some of that scientific data you mentioned, preferably something that shows at what rate that's occurring.

Then you could always show how much error that change would introduce in the C14 dates. Since you're trying to prove that the earth is only around 10,000 or so years old, there better be a significant variation sufficient to throw the values off that much.

Or you could continue to just post vague generalizations without any hard data. One would think if you had something more concrete, you would post it. You present a nice story, but without running the numbers that's all it is. If all your assumptions turn out to be true, and would only yield a 10% error in C14 dates, you have simply proven you are wrong about these errors pointing to a young earth.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-23-2012 at 07:41..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 08:00   #330
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,190
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
No need to assume. You could try backing up your claim that the magnetic field is decreasing by posting a link to some of that scientific data you mentioned, preferably something that shows at what rate that's occurring.

Then you could always show how much error that change would introduce in the C14 dates. Since you're trying to prove that the earth is only around 10,000 or so years old, there better be a significant variation sufficient to throw the values off that much.

Or you could continue to just post vague generalizations without any hard data. One would think if you had something more concrete, you would post it. You present a nice story, but without running the numbers that's all it is. If all your assumptions turn out to be true, and would only yield a 10% error in C14 dates, you have simply proven you are wrong about these errors pointing to a young earth.

Randy
Okay, I am speaking with people who have at least a college level IQ, and we are constantly being interrupted by someone who seems to as yet barely be able to read proficiently. (hint hint- let the adults speak)
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" - Josey Wales

Last edited by Peace Warrior; 11-23-2012 at 08:01..
Peace Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 08:46   #331
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post
Okay, I am speaking with people who have at least a college level IQ,
Thank you, you are correct, maybe that's why you're having such a hard time following. Its certainly a pity you're continually ignoring all the useful information we are providing.
Quote:
and we are constantly being interrupted by someone who seems to as yet barely be able to read proficiently. (hint hint- let the adults speak)
So to be clear, you can't, or won't produce anything but a vague mention of potential sources of errors? You can't or won't provide any sort of quantification as to how large and or significant those resultant errors would be? You can't or won't provide any evidence that the assumptions you claim would result in errors are actually occurring, or to what degree they are occurring? That about right? It's fairly common once sources of error are determined to figure out the amount of error those sources could produce to be able to quantify the margin of error for a particular method of measurement. If the assumptions are off by so much, how much of a difference in the results would that cause. You have absolutely no idea how those changes would affect the precision of the C14 dates? Having trouble following adult conversations still? Let me know which words are too complex, I'll do my best to slow things down for you.

And as for the other article? You planning on addressing that, or going to continue to hide and evade? Here's a link for your convenience.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-23-2012 at 09:27..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 09:18   #332
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
So Peace Warrior, apparently I have to spell this one out for you. Seeing as how you mentioned you don't have a college level IQ and all.

If C14 dating massively overestimate the age of stuff, I guess you'll have to admit the dead sea scrolls are of relatively modern origin, since C14 shows they are about 2000 years old? So you'd say they are not really from biblical times?

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-23-2012 at 09:20..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 15:19   #333
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post
As for diamonds, when I said "out the yang," I was exaggerating the logic in relation to diamonds and C14. Even so, I'll say I was wrong in that assertion.

However, diamonds having ANY trace of C14 flies in the face of two assumptions from the evos. According to the evolutionary timeline, diamonds are anywhere millions to billions of years old. For the sake of argument, let's go with the lesser amount of time use the assumption they are merely millions of years old.

How can something a millions years old and as hard as a diamond be contaminated with "outside C14?" However, like the coal, even evos found measurable amounts of C14 within diamonds. In fact, one study, which this study was conducted by the evos themselves, found, and I quote, "essentially identical" values as far as C14.

... Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical 14C values 69.3 ± 0.5 ka 70.6 ± 0.5 ka BP. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields. ...

Okay, they cut a diamond into 6 parts, and each part showed essentially identical amounts of C14. Now I ask you, do you believe the C14 found in this diamond was derived due to contamination? Diamond itself seems too hard to allow for "outside C14" contamination.

If you do think it's contamination, how do you explain the almost perfectly equal diffusion of "contaminating" C14? I mean, coupled with roughly equal coal sample dates, I think contamination can be ruled out as the amounts of it are too precise and equal throughout the tested samples of both coal and diamonds respectively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Quote:
Title:
Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds
From your link above. Guess you don't know what that means, huh?

Any idea what that "same level of c14 detected in all 6 samples" refers to/implies in this case? I'm thinking....... No.

This should be entertaining.

Randy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior
I know exactly what it means


Religious Issues
From the link he posted:

Quote:
Title:
Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds
So since Peace Warrior is too embarrassed to address this, I'll explain why. Instrument backgrounds are tests are measuring the lower limits of test equipment/processes to measure miniscule C14 levels, not the C14 content of the diamonds.

If you have a ruler that is marked with 1/16ths of an inch, you can't use it to measure a few thousandths of an inch accurately. You need something with finer resolution, like a micrometer. Similarly, the tests tell you what the smallest unit of measure the equipment can accurately measure when it comes to C14 levels.

Monitoring instrument backgrounds find the trace amounts of C14 contamination registered by the instruments. The fact that 6 samples were used and agree with each other merely confirms the amount of C14 contamination/resolution in the equipment being calibrated, the sensitivity of the instruments. Not the amount of C14 in the diamonds.

When the sample is too old, the amount of C14 in the sample declines to levels too low for the equipment to accurately measure. Some labs have better equipment, less contamination, and can measure smaller values and accurately date older samples. So labs run tests to determine their instrument backgrounds so they know how low they can measure reliably. So when they get a really low result, they can determine if its so low that its an unreliable measurement.

Six pieces from the same sample diamond getting similar values validates the background contamination tests, so they can calculate the lower limit of C14 measurements they can do with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and those limits are checked multiple times to make sure the readings are repeatable, reliable, not a fluke.

The tests are measuring the test equipment, not the C14 levels in diamonds. PW's posting stuff without understanding. PW's not even aware of what the tests are actually measuring in the article linked to. Hint: It ain't the diamonds.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-23-2012 at 15:36..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 17:05   #334
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,190
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
So Peace Warrior, apparently I have to spell this one out for you. Seeing as how you mentioned you don't have a college level IQ and all.

If C14 dating massively overestimate the age of stuff, I guess you'll have to admit the dead sea scrolls are of relatively modern origin, since C14 shows they are about 2000 years old? So you'd say they are not really from biblical times?

Randy
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post


Religious Issues
From the link he posted:


So since Peace Warrior is too embarrassed to address this, I'll explain why. Instrument backgrounds are tests are measuring the lower limits of test equipment/processes to measure miniscule C14 levels, not the C14 content of the diamonds.

If you have a ruler that is marked with 1/16ths of an inch, you can't use it to measure a few thousandths of an inch accurately. You need something with finer resolution, like a micrometer. Similarly, the tests tell you what the smallest unit of measure the equipment can accurately measure when it comes to C14 levels.

Monitoring instrument backgrounds find the trace amounts of C14 contamination registered by the instruments. The fact that 6 samples were used and agree with each other merely confirms the amount of C14 contamination/resolution in the equipment being calibrated, the sensitivity of the instruments. Not the amount of C14 in the diamonds.

When the sample is too old, the amount of C14 in the sample declines to levels too low for the equipment to accurately measure. Some labs have better equipment, less contamination, and can measure smaller values and accurately date older samples. So labs run tests to determine their instrument backgrounds so they know how low they can measure reliably. So when they get a really low result, they can determine if its so low that its an unreliable measurement.

Six pieces from the same sample diamond getting similar values validates the background contamination tests, so they can calculate the lower limit of C14 measurements they can do with a reasonable degree of accuracy, and those limits are checked multiple times to make sure the readings are repeatable, reliable, not a fluke.

The tests are measuring the test equipment, not the C14 levels in diamonds. PW's posting stuff without understanding. PW's not even aware of what the tests are actually measuring in the article linked to. Hint: It ain't the diamonds.

Randy
Even after being warned you didn't go deeper into your google search to find a more substantial rebuttal.

Pitiful. Funny, but still pitiful...
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" - Josey Wales

Last edited by Peace Warrior; 11-23-2012 at 17:07..
Peace Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 17:06   #335
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,190
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Thank you, you are correct, maybe that's why you're having such a hard time following. Its certainly a pity you're continually ignoring all the useful information we are providing.
So to be clear, you can't, or won't produce anything but a vague mention of potential sources of errors? You can't or won't provide any sort of quantification as to how large and or significant those resultant errors would be? You can't or won't provide any evidence that the assumptions you claim would result in errors are actually occurring, or to what degree they are occurring? That about right? It's fairly common once sources of error are determined to figure out the amount of error those sources could produce to be able to quantify the margin of error for a particular method of measurement. If the assumptions are off by so much, how much of a difference in the results would that cause. You have absolutely no idea how those changes would affect the precision of the C14 dates? Having trouble following adult conversations still? Let me know which words are too complex, I'll do my best to slow things down for you.

And as for the other article? You planning on addressing that, or going to continue to hide and evade? Here's a link for your convenience.

Randy
Let the adults speak please. K-thx.
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" - Josey Wales
Peace Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2012, 18:48   #336
Animal Mother
Not Enough Gun
 
Animal Mother's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post
You're again not to well kept up to date on these matters... See, the nuclear testing done by Russia and the uSA threw "a monkey in the wrench," to quote a bruce willis movie character, as far as radiocarbon testing is concerned. Regardless, anyone obtaining "conclusions" from CURRENT radiometric or radiocarbon dating methods always rely on assumptions, which IMHO, at best leaves room for serious errors, and or at worst opens the door for manipulating the results.

...This regional difference from the average global marine reservoir correction is designated ΔR (Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993) As a first approximation, ΔR is assumed to be a constant for a given region...
I'm quite "well kept up to date on these matters", it just happens that I keep up to date by reading the scientific literature which offers actual observations and data to support the conclusions put forth. Not the fringe nuttiness you seem to find so attractive.

Are you under the impression that scientists are unaware of the effects of nuclear events on general background radiation?
__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

Last edited by Animal Mother; 11-23-2012 at 18:48..
Animal Mother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 07:11   #337
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post
Let the adults speak please. K-thx.
Poof goes the irony meter.
ksg0245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 07:19   #338
ksg0245
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post
By evos and creationists alike I might add.
Well, you could, but it'd just be another incorrect statement on your part.
ksg0245 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 10:55   #339
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post



Even after being warned you didn't go deeper into your google search to find a more substantial rebuttal.

Pitiful. Funny, but still pitiful...
Know what's really funny? No need to google. I simply followed the link you provided which led to the abstract. Which specifies that the tests are instrument baselines. You were hoisted on your own petard on this one, sweetie.

That alone was sufficient to prove you don't even understand what the tests were about, let alone what they "prove". I asked you to post a link to the whole article, which of course you won't, as you have more than enough egg on your face as it is.

But by all means, prove me wrong.

You posted the equivalent of citing vehicle crash tests as evidence that the car companies are hiding brake defects. Apparently unaware that the vehicles aren't even using the brakes because the test is testing the crashworthiness of the vehicle. The tests are not intended to test the capabilities of the brakes.

The tests you cite (instrument backgrounds) are to determine the limits of measurement errors in the equipment used to measure C14 for carbon dating.

Instrument backgrounds. You probably should have googled that before posting a link to that article abstract.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-24-2012 at 13:30..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 13:12   #340
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post
Let the adults speak please. K-thx.
So it appears you have discovered the old adage "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".

The honorable thing to do would be to admit your mistake and move on. Ironically enough, its the adult thing to do also.

We await with baited breath...

I'll leave you with this timeless piece of advice. If you're going to cite tests to prove your point, make sure you understand what the tests are designed to measure. It's embarrassing enough when the test results don't back up your claims. It's doubly embarrassing when it becomes obvious you don't even understand what the tests are supposed to be measuring and that they don't even measure a) what you claim they measure and b) what you need them to measure to prove your point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior
I know exactly what it means

Yes, of course you do. And you meant to do that, too...
Religious Issues

You could prove you know what it means and prove I am wrong, rather than hiding behind snide remarks that just make you look more foolish at this point. I don't think you're fooling anyone but yourself by evading this issue.

Instrument backgrounds. Off to google with you! That's your assignment for today.

Isn't lying against the Christian ethos, by the way? Come on, try to tell the truth for a change. It only hurts for a moment. Especially when you're buried in a couple layers of mistakes.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-24-2012 at 13:29..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 13:34   #341
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksg0245 View Post
Poof goes the irony meter.
I had circuit breakers installed on mine. Got tired of replacing blown meters....

Randy
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 13:39   #342
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
So Peace Warrior, given this quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior
Now, I do not understand macro-evolutionary beliefs as they would indicate that a couple of roses, "cross-pollinating," would beget a dog. This I do NOT understand, and as well, I can find no actual science that supports such an evolutionary definition
Would you say you are
a) more familiar
b) less familiar or
c) just as familiar

with evolution as you are with C14 dating?

I'm beginning to think you believe the C in "C14 dating" refers to Cousins dating. At least it seems your ancestors were intimately familiar with the concept.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-24-2012 at 13:40..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 13:46   #343
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post



Even after being warned you didn't go deeper into your google search to find a more substantial rebuttal.

Pitiful. Funny, but still pitiful...
You combined 2 separate issues in your rush to hide from the painful truth I pointed out.

What about Dead Sea Scrolls C14 dated to 2000 years ago

So you will now admit the Dead Sea scrolls are of relatively modern origin, rather than from Biblical times, since you claim C14 dating leads to grossly exaggerated ages of objects? Or is it you only find C14 data suspect when it doesn't fit your agenda?

If samples of fossils C14 dated at millions of years old are actually < 13,000 years old as you claim, what date does that imply for the actual creation date of the scrolls? That's quite a substantial error, when do you think that indicates the Dead Sea Scrolls were created? 1950 AD? I wonder if your theory would have the Dead Sea Scrolls created AFTER they were actually found...

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-24-2012 at 13:50..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 06:39   #344
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,190
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Know what's really funny? No need to google. I simply followed the link you provided which led to the abstract. Which specifies that the tests are instrument baselines. ...
Precisely, and you have yet to think that fact through to a logical extrapolation as far as C14 being found in diamonds at all, in a general sense, and or as far as what these baseline tests specifically indicate with regards to the C14 found in diamonds by this equipment.

I'll give ya one more shot... then to iggy land you go.
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" - Josey Wales

Last edited by Peace Warrior; 11-25-2012 at 06:40..
Peace Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 06:46   #345
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,190
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animal Mother View Post
I'm quite "well kept up to date on these matters", it just happens that I keep up to date by reading the scientific literature which offers actual observations and data to support the conclusions put forth. Not the fringe nuttiness you seem to find so attractive.

Are you under the impression that scientists are unaware of the effects of nuclear events on general background radiation?
No, I believe scientists are aware of these effects, I also believe some of your responses on this topic point to you being unaware of the effects of such testing. Well, until it was pointed out to you.
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" - Josey Wales
Peace Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 06:50   #346
Peace Warrior
CLM Number 221
Am Yisrael Chai
 
Peace Warrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: With the other 7,999,999
Posts: 26,190
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
... Instrument backgrounds. Off to google with you! That's your assignment for today. ...
I obviously struck a nerve. Hey, sorry man, don't get butt-sore over this thread... there's a big internet out there.

I'm going back to talk with the adults. Bah-bye now.
__________________
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.” - William S. Burroughs
"Nothing we're gonna do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that [our gun ban legislation] will bring gun deaths down..." - VPOTUS Joe Biden
"Love 'Em All!!! Let Jehovah sort 'em out." - The Holy Bible
"You gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?" - Josey Wales
Peace Warrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 08:17   #347
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post
Precisely, and you have yet to think that fact through to a logical extrapolation as far as C14 being found in diamonds at all, in a general sense, and or as far as what these baseline tests specifically indicate with regards to the C14 found in diamonds by this equipment.

I'll give ya one more shot... then to iggy land you go.
You posted a link to an abstract whose title clearly refutes what you are claiming. Specifically doing instrument background testing.

They are measuring baseline C14 levels in the equipment to determine the smallest level of C14 they can detect reliably, i.e. levels sufficiently higher than the background contamination of the equipment.

Now, if the actual article you supposedly have access to referred to in the abstract happens to contains anything regarding surprise that the C14 levels measured are higher than typical lab contamination levels, and the extra C14 measured came from the diamonds, it should be a simple matter for you to post links to the actual article which state this.

Pretty simple to prove me wrong. Yet you seem unwilling or unable to do so. This is the third time I have asked you to post links to the relevant article listed in the abstract you linked to. Seems to me you're already ignoring me. And its pretty obvious why.

Time to decide if your pride or your credibility are more important to you. You'll have to sacrifice one of them unless you can post the article contents and they back up your position.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-25-2012 at 08:26..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 08:27   #348
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peace Warrior View Post
I obviously struck a nerve. Hey, sorry man, don't get butt-sore over this thread... there's a big internet out there.

I'm going back to talk with the adults. Bah-bye now.
I think you meant to say you're going back to hiding from the adults... It's only sore from laughing my ass off over your blunder.

Rather than trying to pretend you're not the one butt-hurt over being publicly humiliated because you didn't understand what you posted, you could prove me wrong.

What DO you think instrument backgounds are?
Where's a link to the article that the abstract references. It will prove one of us wrong. Odd that I'm the one asking for it and you're the one refusing to show it. Repeatedly.

Guess you're afraid of what it contains, eh? Can't blame you, you didn't even understand the implications of the title of the abstract. You're afraid you don't understand what's in the article either, and posting it could make you look even worse after all the posturing and false bravado when it also doesn't say what you thought it said.

And I realize it goes much deeper than that. It strikes to the very core of your belief system. I understand how it happened. I don't think you're dishonest. You googled up some links from creationist websites. They either didn't understand it either, or are deliberately misleading folks like you. It started out an innocent honest mistake on your part. The problem is you don't want to confront that, you can't bring yourself to face the fact that they are wrong, or lying, because they are at the heart of what you base your worldview on. If they're wrong or lying about this, it makes everything else they claim suspect.

There's a reason there's only a few fringe Christian groups that believe the earth is 10,000 or so years old, and the majority of Christians accept the fact that the Earth and the universe are billions of years old. The vast majority of the worlds Christians have no trouble reconciling the Bible with the fact that the earth is not 10,000 years old, give or take a few thousand years.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-25-2012 at 11:25..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 09:26   #349
Geko45
CLM Number 135
Smartass Pilot
 
Geko45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Short final
Posts: 13,405


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
It's only sore from laughing my ass off over your blunder.
Randy, just got back from the holiday visit with family and have been reading this thread to catch up. It has been quite entertaining to see how you've been intellectually dominating junior here.

__________________
CavDoc: "If you have to pretend that a person with a different opinion has an opinion other than his own in order to score points in an argument, you've forfeited any points that you pretended to have."
CavDoc: "You consider yourself as non-religious, and I consider you a religious zealot."

JBnTX: "Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can worship any God, anyway you see fit or not even worship any God if you so choose. [...] Christianity should be the only religion protected under the constitution, and congress shall make no law restricting its practice."

Last edited by Geko45; 11-25-2012 at 10:17..
Geko45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 11:42   #350
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geko45 View Post
Randy, just got back from the holiday visit with family and have been reading this thread to catch up. It has been quite entertaining to see how you've been intellectually dominating junior here.

Hope you had a great holiday...

Yeah, I couldn't hardly believe my eyes when I saw the title of the abstract, had to laugh out loud at that point. There may not be a word for that sort of multiple layers of being mistaken, like peeling back the layers of an onion. But Schadenfreude covers the entertainment value of someone trying desperately to dance their way out of it pretty well.

I'm not sure if its worse than when someone posts a link to the Onion website, not realizing its satire. Maybe not, as the Onion should be obvious to anyone, and this sort of thing will trip up anyone just passing on links cribbed from like minded websites without having any real understanding of what they're trying to argue about.

But I suppose it's not unexpected for someone with a sig line of
Quote:
I err, therefore I am.
to aspire to greatness in the field of errordology. Starts to look more like a Raison d'être at that point...

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 11-25-2012 at 16:00..
steveksux is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:31.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,139
322 Members
817 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42