close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

The Holy Bible is both historically and scientifically correct.

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Peace Warrior, Oct 17, 2012.

  1. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,262
    5,582
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    I know exactly what it means, but apparently, you didn't drill deep enough when trying to find a rebuttal in your google search. :supergrin:

    Please, PUHLEASE, grace the thread with your new found knowledge on this topic. :whistling:
     
  2. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,262
    5,582
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious.
     


  3. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,262
    5,582
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    By evos and creationists alike I might add.
     
  4. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,262
    5,582
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    No, but I am also suspect of ALL radiometric dating methods due to the assumptions made prior to testing samples.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  5. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,262
    5,582
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    Well, take it from, how did you put it, "a self-delusional, barely educated fool...," utilizing the posts from you on this thread alone, I have deduced you're always preoccupied and concerned with how others think or act based on your beliefs or actions, and accordingly, you will change and alter your life and decisions so as to conform to their expectations; MOREOVER, you expect the same lemming like qualities from others who you perceive to not be conforming to what you believe is normal for yourself and the rest of the "herd."

    But yet, your individual, personal perception(s) of "normal" have you blinded to the fact that a lot of people do not lives their lives concerned with being wholly accepted as part of a societal norm. (((Hey, if you could, in your own words, adequately/correctly define either the term society, civilization, or both, I would be highly inclined to reevaluate my first ever opinion of you.)))

    Sorry to have insulted your sense of right and wrong, but in my defense, so to speak, I am NOT a cultural Marxist (i.e., proponent/activist of political correctness).
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  6. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,636
    1,945
    Jul 12, 2007
    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: Nov 23, 2012
  7. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,262
    5,582
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    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.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  8. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,636
    1,945
    Jul 12, 2007
    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: Nov 23, 2012
  9. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,262
    5,582
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    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)
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  10. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,636
    1,945
    Jul 12, 2007
    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
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  11. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,636
    1,945
    Jul 12, 2007
    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: Nov 23, 2012
  12. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,636
    1,945
    Jul 12, 2007
    :rofl:

    [​IMG]
    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
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  13. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,262
    5,582
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    :tongueout:
    Even after being warned you didn't go deeper into your google search to find a more substantial rebuttal.

    Pitiful. Funny, but still pitiful... :supergrin:
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  14. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,262
    5,582
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    Let the adults speak please. K-thx.
     
  15. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    13,373
    252
    Mar 22, 2004
    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?
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  16. ksg0245

    ksg0245

    3,852
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    California
    Poof goes the irony meter.
     
  17. ksg0245

    ksg0245

    3,852
    0
    Feb 28, 2008
    California
    Well, you could, but it'd just be another incorrect statement on your part.
     
  18. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,636
    1,945
    Jul 12, 2007
    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. :rofl::rofl::rofl: 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: Nov 24, 2012
  19. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,636
    1,945
    Jul 12, 2007
    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... :rofl:

    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. :rofl:

    :rofl::rofl::rofl:
    Yes, of course you do. And you meant to do that, too...
    [​IMG]

    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: Nov 24, 2012