Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[Mikeenders]

Anything else you want to say about the contents of the source I didn't cite that you haven't read?

Sure. Who cares because like a nitwit you haven't read multiple sources in the scientific literature that relate the word growth with growth band? IF you think a matter comes down to a single source cited by your buddie, or by you, you have even less sense than I thought (which is impressive in a reverse kinda way).

and yes silly - you attached yourself to your atheist comrades source when you confirmed that was what you were talking about previously AND you are showing you hve abosluteLY NO IDEA WHATSOEVER about CORAL growth bands if you can be so blithering IGNORANT to claim growth does not relate to growth band when that is actually how they form. Here silly. read for extra credit. This one even has a purdy picture so I picked it for you to hold your interest

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/pictu...n-learn-corals

As corals grow, they form skeletons by making calcium carbonate from the ocean waters. The density of these calcium carbonate skeletons changes as the water temperature, light, and nutrient conditions change, giving coral skeletons formed in the summer a different density than those formed in the winter. These seasonal variations in density produce growth rings similar to those in trees. Scientists can study these rings and other characteristics to determine the climatic conditions during the seasons in which the coral grew. These growth bands also allow scientists to date coral samples to an exact year and season.

saying the corals growth is separate from the growth bands is asinine. the growth is what gives us skeleton and then the bands to look at. you all need to take a bow. You put on a great comedy show!! (PS notice how growth and growth bands are associated in this source too you poor soul?)


Meanwhile.....Anyone else wish to do a victory lap before I topple over the whole claim (much more than just the issue of the word growth).


Last call people!! :) I'll make it fun with charts and everything for those of you with comprehension deficit disorder.

[JonF]

Second as I have pointed out radiometric dating is not completely different mechanism as you so poorly understand and claim. decay is tied to mechanism at the atomic and sub atomic level.

The strong force and the weak force. Two independent and significantly different mechanisms.

some of it covered in quantum mechanic...

That's mechanics.

And there are things we don't understand, but we understand radioactive decay very well.

you have nothing but radioactive dating.

And the established fact (as far as any science is established) that there have been no change in fundamental physics in the life of the Earth.

Can you hold more than one idea in your head at one time?

and yes..sorry I will continue to ignore most of your posts like i said unless there is something worth addressing. By your writing and words you are obviously quite young and think everything you type is somehow of value where it isn't and has even been addressed many times in conversations with the grown ups here.

ROFLMAO cubed! You sure can't infer very well. Or read for comprehension.

I'm 67 and collecting my late wife's Social Security. I'm a former Marine Vietnam vet. I have two degrees from MIT. I've been involved in this "controversy" for about twenty years, and I've read extensively and studied and even contributed a few articles to the Web. What experience and qualifications do you have? Hum?

Some radioactive decay is mediated by the strong force and some is mediated by the weak force. That makes them fundamentally different. All you'e come up with is "nuh uh!". Why is that not worth addressing?

Radiometric dating into the billions of years is valid because we know (as well as anything is known in science) that fundamental physics has not changed significantly in that time (no response from you to that point in the many times I've posted that.. why is that not worth addressing?) and there is no reason to believe any significant changes under terrestrial conditions is possible.

Sorry that you can't address the issues, it would be fun to debate with someone who had a clue. Right now I'm just here for the lulz.

[Mikeenders]

some of it covered in quantum mechanic...

That's mechanics.

Oh Sweet Jesus help the mind of this poor child.

this is why I can't bother reading you much. Stop texting in your class at school

I'm 67 and collecting my late wife's Social Security.

dead serious and no insults if thats true then you may have some serious issues. I don't know many intelligent 67 year olds using "duh" and "cubed" and so silly as to think Quantum mechanics is just umm mechanics so a separate issue. radioactive decays is reliant on QM so you are no expert as you claim for yourself on an anonymous board. At any age you are totally clueless.

[JonF]

Ahem coral itself is not a clock no more than people say rock clocks or meteor clock. Radiometric dating is the clock you silly teen souls. I would not think an atheist would be bright enough to understand that on their own so I understand having to spoon feed you the difference and yes I am now accustomed to your density and know the point will fly over your head regardless - all hail the coral clocks

Radiometric dating and accumulation dating are both used on corals.

Accumulation dating is a clock just as ice core layers are a clock just as varves are a clock.

Got any evidence that is not so?

Didn't think so.

Of course the article you refused to read says:

On the other hand, calcium carbonates produced biologically (such as in corals, shells, teeth, and bones) take in small amounts of uranium, but essentially no thorium (because of its much lower concentrations in the water). This allows the dating of these materials by their lack of thorium. A brand-new coral reef will have essentially no thorium-230. As it ages, some of its uranium decays to thorium-230. While the thorium-230 itself is radioactive, this can be corrected for. The equations are more complex than for the simple systems described earlier, but the uranium-234 / thorium-230 method has been used to date corals now for several decades. Comparison of uranium-234 ages with ages obtained by counting annual growth bands of corals proves that the technique is highly accurate when properly used (Edwards et al., Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 90, 371, 1988).

...

Other annual layering methods. Besides tree rings, ice cores, and sediment varves, there are other processes that result in yearly layers that can be counted to determine an age. Annual layering in coral reefs can be used to date sections of coral. Coral generally grows at rates of around 1 cm per year, and these layers are easily visible. As was mentioned in the uranium-series section, the counting of annual coral layers was used to verify the accuracy of the thorium-230 method.

[JonF]

Oh Sweet Jesus help the mind of this poor child.

this is why I can't bother reading you much. Stop texting in your class at school

Can't acknowledge my expertise, huh? Or my valid criticisms of your silly and unsupported claims. Just another fundy ignoramus.

What expertise do you have? How old are you?

[JonF]

Funny how you can't read. I never said I didn't read it. I said i didn't remember it. Now go ahead and fabricate you remember all my posts and what I covered in each.....sheeesh can't stop fabricating in any of your posts. Conscience?

IOW you made a false claim, got caught, and you are blustering and bloviating in a vain attempt to avoid admitting it.

Reported.

[JonF]

and the young pup beagle tries to use rhetoric yaps to cover for the fact that "coral clocks" as a thing is found almost nowhere in the literature because its radiometric dating thats the clock.

Maybe the phrase "coral clocks" doesn't appear often but coral layers are regularly used for dating and calibration. E.g. see my message a few above. Got any meaningful response?

As if.

[JonF]

and Roy desperately tries to save his claim that his coral clocks term is well attested to as a popular term in scientific literature to no avail.

Nobody other than you said the term is used in scientific literature.

But "coral clocks" as in the obvious meaning of counting layers is widely used.

[JonF]

and you use the known rates at which coral grows to make the calculation you poor ignorant soul.

Nope.

[Mikeenders]

Maybe the phrase "coral clocks"

Do tell. the light bulb finally went off in your head at last. there is no such thing as a coral clock - its radioactive clock used on corals.

[JonF]

Poor pup beagle doesn;t even read his won source



So your all yibber yabber for the last five pages about their being some way besides Growth has proven to be just that yibber yabber . it is based upon observing growth and extrapolating form that as i stated.

With a clock you can independently state a date. You cannot with what you presented represent coral as a clock. You can cry till the cows come home. there is no coral clock.

Can't even remember what you wrote for 143 minutes. Yuppers.

and you use the known rates at which coral grows to make the calculation you poor ignorant soul.

No, we use the layers. As the source you quoted says. And you've been talking about growth [b[]rate[/b] for [pages and pages, including this one.

Is this an early indication that we've always been at war with Eastasia? Or is that too arcane a reference for you?

[JonF]

Drivel - you r own source cites rates as key component that goes into the calculation. You end up observing both. As usual you have fallen on your head




LOL.... the sad thing for your latest attempts to change what was said is oooops you just quoted me Your very own self saying exactly what I said - You cannot use Coral as a clock except through its growth.

The quote you provided does not say that. Got a quote that does?

Yeah, right.

[JonF]

That is growth rate you poor nit.they are tied together.

Nope. Growth rate is a function of layer accumulation, but what is measured and used is layer accumulation.

[Mikeenders]

Nope.

Yep.... your are clueless to the end.

even from your own comrades link

In certain modern corals and shellfish, we find growth-bands that indicate yearly, monthly, and even daily growth, rather like the annual rings that trees produce. By counting these bands, we can determine how long a particular coral or shellfish lived just as we can for a tree by counting its rings. We can also see that there are about thirty daily bands per month and about 365 daily bands per year for modern corals and shellfish.

You measure the growth today in order to make comparison calculations in the past. Like I said you are totally clueless. the only time thing you have going for you is a lot of time to regularly post 5-7 posts one after the other at a time.

I think you should try going for the Beagles' silly claim next that growth is only in mm in year when growth is not limited to that but density etc as well.

[JonF]

Sigh...you mean like your own source lumps growth and growth-bands together?

Not in the quote you provided.

Yawn......how lame do you have to be to claim growth is totally separate from growth bands when your own source links the same together. tsk tsk.

Boy, you're as bad as AFDave for reading comprehension.

Nobody has claimed growth rate and layer accumulation are not connected. Duh to the max.

But layer accumulation is what's counted and measured, not total thickness as you've been claiming for so long.