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

[Mikeenders]

Once again we see the clowning to distract from his ignorance of the science being discussed. Pathetic.

Poor baby. trying hard to ignore Post 348 ( that sunk his battleship) with rhetoric just like Prophet Mike said he would.

I think i will all let you simmer in your juices for awhile. Its been a blast though!!. See you lata :) CARM where you at?

[JonF]

Definitely shows you have the vocabulary of an expert. the only question is expert in what - young teen surfer talk?

As I said, I use the vocabulary that seems appropriate for you, and find that amusing. My posts stand on their own, demonstrating my knowledge and capabilities. Your posts are unresponsive blather and unsupported claims. (the links you've posted don't say what you think they do, as has been pointed out in exquisite detail.)

Of course you have ignored all my many valid points about your egregious repeated errors. A few examples:

This is a discussion group, discuss. Why do you think they are fundamentally the same?

Beta decay is mediated by the weak force. Alpha decay is mediated by the strong force. Electron capture is also mediated by the weak force but involves electrons.

Duh.

Duh .....I posted pages ago several links to several fields of study kid not one claim. Like five links of various studies and research lines including though mediums and outside of mediums even involving cosmological models being researched based on the possibility of the variability of the speed of light- None from creationists sites. did you read all of them? No obviously you didn't

are you always so dense when you are using words such as duh? only shows you don't even know the extent of what is being discussed (or how to use google)

Keep trying though. If you write anything interesting worth responding I'll respond but if not then have fun.
Yup, perhaps. You still did not know that the speed of light in a vacuum is the appropriate value in this discussion. You thought that the slowing of light in a non-vacuum was relevant

Yup, perhaps. You still did not know that the speed of light in a vacuum is the appropriate value in this discussion. You thought that the slowing of light in a non-vacuum was relevant.

That's worth a big fat duh!!

[QUOTE=JonF;271980]

You ignored "the fact that the basic laws of physics have been the same for the life of the Earth and well before. That means radiometric decay rates have not changed. That means the clock is right."

You as usual are distorting my views simply because I will not buy your silly unscientific premise that radioactive dating is not conceivably falsifiable.

Radiometric dating is conceivably falsifiable. As I explicitly said in my message:

"Science doesn't do beyond a shadow of a doubt.'

Nobody's come close to falsifying it.

As of this moment as I have said the science is behind radioactive decay. however when there is something that possibly could raise some issues about it ( like a consensus of science that held its unlikely that organic material can last 80 MILLION YEARS then its something to look at not in your fundy dogmatic manner claim its beyond being questioned.]/quote]
I haven't claimed it's beyond questioning.

I've linked to several you poor soul. SEVERAL and none of them were creationist sites. In your fundy theology you can't conceive of something so you claim it doesn't exist. Talk about YECs all you wish you just demonstrated the same tendency

Identify any place I've been dogmatic. Bet you can't.

Are you referring to linking to any publications other than the ones I and Dr. Bertsche have acknowledged? If so, please post them again. If not, they form no basis for questioning radiometric dating.

[JonF]

Moah! Moah! let me laugh harder. So you can be off my 5O - 100 million years and it proves theres a match and um consilience? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeppers, he's right. Absolute error is misleading and inappropriate. Percentage error is the appropriate measure.

If you measure the height of Everest and are off by an inch how serious is that? It your measure the width of a cockroach's leg and are off by an inch, how serious is that? You need to consider what's being measured as well as the error. But you've already demonstrated you can't keep two things in your head at once, as in "Calibration + no change in basic physics = accurate radiometric dating to billions of years". Maybe even with a hundred million years error at the far end of the range.

Oh, and just to keep me amused, duh.

[JonF]

Jon F ....I saw you posted something but you are not even worth reading. "duh cubed" has relegated you to the very young kid's table in my book.

Yeppery-doodles, terrified of addressing the substance.

Duh.

[Mikeenders]

Once again we see the clowning to distract from his ignorance of the science being discussed. Pathetic.

poor baby is getting slapped left and right by the facts today (still no answer for post 348)

a thing? one of its uses confirmed

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/i...9233146AAkldku

thing in this context means a fad or a fashion. example

A thing" is a current slang term for "a popular phenomenon."

At one time there was a similar slang term "quite the thing."

In this case "a thing" means "a fad" or "a popular item"

Oops! Beagle has flopped on his ears again. Coral rock is not a popular expression - a thing.

The end.

[JonF]

Coral rock is not a popular expression - a thing.

Which as usual has nothing to do with the science of dating corals by counting the accumulated layers, not extrapolating any growth rate.

Yippity-doo-dah,

[Mikeenders]

Which as usual has nothing to do with the science of dating corals

NO that would be post 348 which you are all scurrying like cockroaches from with these pages of rhetoric and childish images which have nothing to do with either data or science


its quite obvious you are all still trying to find something coherent to answer with and stupid images and personal accusation of troll is all you got to distract from your ineptitude.

before you make my adult mind gag with your "duh cubed" pre puberty comments again i'll give you some more time - you (collectively i mean because you rarely come up with anything at all ) obviously need it.

[JonF]

NO that would be post 348 which you are all scurrying like cockroaches from with these pages of rhetoric and childish images which have nothing to do with either data or science

And post 348 has nothing to do with the fact that coral dating is performed by counting layers, not extrapolating any growth rate. As both your source and mine explicitly said. And which you're terrified of addressing.

I love it so! How do ya like them pomegranates, hum?

its quite obvious you are all still trying to find something coherent to answer with and stupid images and personal accusation of troll is all you got to distract from your ineptitude.

Well, since you refuse to address the points people have raised, what else do you suggest?

before you make my adult mind gag with your "duh cubed" pre puberty comments again i'll give you some more time - you (collectively i mean because you rarely come up with anything at all ) obviously need it.

[HMS_Beagle]

Which as usual has nothing to do with the science of dating corals by counting the accumulated layers, not extrapolating any growth rate.

Yippity-doo-dah,

Not only is he obvious he's a one trick pony and more cowardly than Jorge when it comes to running from the consilient data. Twin pollos from different coops.

[Mikeenders]

And post 348 has nothing to do with the fact that coral dating is performed by counting layers, not extrapolating any growth rate

that at least two of you are so childishly ignorant that you don't know the amount of bands in coral from growth in a year is whats known in Englsih as a rate has been answered many times.

To all you totally ignorant uneducated souls

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rate

: the number of times something happens or is done during a particular period of time

so if you count the number of bands in a "particular period of time" that IS a rate and the bands are a product of growth

wow what a bunch of illiterate people theologyweb has attracted in one place and they dare to say atheists are smart people.

[Roy]

Yeah, that was definitely worth waiting for!

I'll just highlight a few of the blunders, misconceptions and idiocies herein, since there are so so many (enough that to count one per day you'd probably need to be somewhere in the Silurian or it'd take more than a year).

Now lets deal with this foolish claim made by the young pup Beagle that his source proves theres a reliable Coral clock which therefore can date the age of the Earth independently.

The age of the Earth?

He cites this source and his compatroit Roy backs up this RANK foolishness with James

...or maybe Jon.

First off There IS NO INDEPENDENT DATING OF ANYTHING here. What there is an alleged correlation between the quantity of days observed/ with the theory that the rotation of the earth has slowed uniformly and the accepted time scale of the Devonian etc.

Both of which are unconnected with radiometric dating, thus making this an INDEPENDENT method.

A) the measurement base is extremely small meaning a small difference results in a HUGE difference in years as expressed here

No-one has claimed otherwise. In fact this is so obvious from the technique that most people grasp this point within a few seconds. It requires a genius like "chew toy" here to not notice for several days. Still, he got there in the end.

In order to illustrate this I would prefer to use a graph to help to easily show how important this is and how the young silly pups goofed in not considering that before claiming some great slam dunk. graphics might help them to assimiliate

The best I could immediately find...

Here "chew toy" implies that he isn't capable of generating his own graphs, but has to rely on other people to do it for him.

The best part of this whole farce comes next. "Chew toy"'s selected choice of graph comes from:

... was a NASA table for a public quiz.

That's right folks. "Chew toy"'s data doesn't come from a published paper, or a popular science magazine, or even a science textbook. It comes from a maths exercise intended for grades 6 to 8.

Anyone who looks at the chart will immediately see two huge issues.

In addition to the issue that it is an exercise for 13-year-olds?

First off using the calculations from other research the length of days and number days DO NOT MATCH with the young pups source.

Really? Let's see:

Their source for the Devonian - 21.8
Nasa - 21.4 - 22 ( a span of 30 million years depending on which Deovonian

Ok, so that matches, since 21.8 lies within the range 21.4 to 22.0. Also 400d/y lies within NASA's figures of 410 d/y to 399 d/y. No problem there.

Even worse and more problematic for the poor pups

Their source for Pennsylvania 22.4
Nasa - 22.9

Now ahem - The young pups will then come back and say its only off by a little...

This 'young pup' is going to come back by saying that
(i) the Pennsylvanian period lasted 25 million years, so can't be represented by a single number, only by a range - it's ridiculous to claim that one or other number is wrong unless both are compared to the maximum and minimum possible values, which "chew toy" has failed to do; and that
(ii) HMS_Beagle's source is calculating the number of days/year 280 million years ago while NASA is using 290 million years ago, so most people would expect the answer to be a few percent different and the fact that the results are a few percent different is exactly what is expected. That "chew toy" thinks otherwise is his problem, and no-one else's.
I'll add that the dates given for the Permian have changed as dating techniques have been improved in both accuracy and precision, and it's not an issue that both NASA's (NB: NASA, not "Nasa") and Phillips's dates for the Pennsylvanian are actually outside the current best estimates for the Pennsylvanian age range.

It is however hilarious that "chew toy"'s response to finding a 'discrepancy' is not to confirm that there is actually a discrepancy, or look for the cause of the discrepancy, or even to check the numbers against other sources, but to commit the fallacy of arguing from the authority of a grade-school quiz and trumpet 'you're wrong! yo'ure wroooong!'*

a difference of .6 days takes us from lower Devonian to Mississipian - 70 million year according to Nasa

Actually it's a difference of .6 hours/day, not .6 days.

a difference of .2 days takes us from the Triassic to the Cretaceous - 150 million years according to Nasa

At this point, most numerate people would notice that these two ratios don't match, and start wondering if the data in NASA's exercise were real, or simply invented/massaged for the maths exercise. In fact the cause is that the days per year values in NASA's data aren't based on extrapolating from the rotation rate, but on counting coral and seashell bands. They aren't "calculations" at all.

So what do we now know?

We know that "chew toy" thinks grade-school exercises are valid sources of scientific data.
We know that "chew toy" has little grasp of numerical relationships.
We know that "chew toy" either can't or won't produce his own graphs.
We know that "chew toy" gets easily muddled between "hours" and "days".
We know that "chew toy" treats geological periods as single dates and not date ranges.
In short, we know that "chew toy" is an incompetent buffoon.

what to the normal person would seems a small difference being off by a few hours

Not a few hours, but a few hours/day.

in fact the young pups have not even bothered to look to see that the research they cite has a margin of error (all such things do) which turn out to be in the said millions of years difference

"Chew toy" doesn't seem to realise that this isn't something we've only just found, and haven't looked at much yet, but something we've known about for many years and that we're well aware both of the precision involved and that it isn't relevant to any of the points previously made. Just because a measuring system is imprecise does not make it useless, and it certainly doesn't make it non-existent.

C) the young pups missed another vital point that there is considerable debate as to how uniform this slowing down of the rotation has been (for example earthquakes and times of great crust volatility affect rotation rates).

Nope, didn't miss that. It's stated as an assumption. "Chew toy" seems to think that something he's just noticed after two days would never have occurred to anyone else whose known about this for years.

if you are an intelligent person reading this you can see the issues don't go away

If you're an intelligent person reading this you're probably still bemused by "chew toy"'s attempt to use a grade-school maths exercise as scientific data. I know I am. This is better than JM's attempt to calculate the solar system barycentre without including the sun, and almost as good as the guy who thought horse legs evolved one leg at a time. I suspect using a grade-school maths exercise as a source of data is going to be infamous for a loooong time.

Roy

*Not typoes, merely an attempt to match "chew toy"'s inability to type.

[HMS_Beagle]

wow what a bunch of illiterate people theologyweb has attracted in one place and they dare to say atheists are smart people.

Meanwhile, back in the real world away from the coop:

I know shouldn't pick on the ignorant chew toy but here's even more ways that we independently verify radiometric dates.

1. Milankovitch cycles. These known cycles involving the planet's precession rate leave distinct geologic signatures every 26,000 years. These markers can be used to date events back over 20 million years that also closely match the radiometric dates.

Milankovitch cycles

2. Plate tectonics / continental drift. Using GPS we can measure plate drift rate very accurately. Extrapolating back in time gives us a date for the separation of the continents, say Africa and South America, which closely matches radiometric dates for the split approx. 140 MYA

Pangaea breakup

3. Age of the solar system: The sun's age can be estimated based on the modeling of helioseismic measurements - solar earth quakes. Extrapolating for measured results gives a solar age of approx 4.57 billion years which is in close agreement with the radiometric dating of the oldest meteorites.

The age of the Sun and the relativistic corrections in the EOS

There's no ignorance like Creationist willful ignorance.

[Roy]

Nope, didn't miss that. It's stated as an assumption. "Chew toy" seems to think that something he's just noticed after two days would never have occurred to anyone else whose known about this for years.

I should also say that the non-uniform slowing of the Earth's rotation also crops up in other areas of the creto-evo debate, including the moon recession rate calculations, so even people who haven't become aware of it through coral dating may know of it from elsewhere. "Chew toy" doesn't seem to appreciate this.

[Mikeenders]

(ii) HMS_Beagle's source is calculating the number of days/year 280 million years ago while NASA is calculating it for 290 million years ago, so most people would expect the answer to be a few percent different and the fact that the results are a few percent different is exactly what is expected.

Yawn....NO nitwit when you are off so called few percentage points you lose your begged for consilience. The ten million difference doesn't cover the discrepancy of .5. YOU FAILED BASIC MATHS. As has already stated and shown small difference make for HUGE millions and tens of millions of years difference. Your point on the table being devised for kids is of no issue whatsoever unless you are making the silly charge that because it is prepared for school Nasa is making the numbers up you still fallen down on your head young pup and obviously can't get up. You are just hand waving and trying desperately to skirt around the obvious facts. A source is not unreliable because of who it is prepared for but who the source is - what a nit!! Like I said I cohose it becuse I kow my audience is slow and dimwitted - needed a table or it would have gone right over your heads

the only thing your little nonsense correlates with is the length of day and number days in a year IF THE RATE IS CONSTANT only it doesn't not when it can be off by 30-100 million years old. there have been multiple measurements that show various ranges in the length of a day.... and drum roll!!! Claiming you can dispense with Point C that destroys the credibility of your stupid alleged reliable clock saying

Nope, didn't miss that. It's stated as an assumption. "Chew toy" seems to think that something he's just noticed after two days would never have occurred to anyone else whose known about this for years.

Is just your vast blithering ignorance ....ROFL. The fact that you now CLAIM to have thought of that makes the issue go away exactly how? and how does the assumption which is not verified make this an independent reliable clock like you claimed?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....talk about noobs. You are all are right where you claim the YECS are. SO silly you think begging on hands and knees that because you knew an issue that affects the reliability of your so called clock before makes the issue goes away - Simply because errr derr duh we knew that before ( but can't adequately address) and err deerr uhhh it s a assumption is an answer for its failure to meet the standards of being an independent clock?

Poor Young pups still hit in the head. try again. that was a flop. Go learn some basic maths and come back.

As kiddies like yourself say

Epic Fail!

[Jorge]

Long, long ago in a pre-crash thread far far away...
It was a period of civil discussion.
Various Natural Science denizens were talking about
education in the biological sciences, when some-one - I
can't remember who - posted a link to an on-line biology
high school exam from New Zealand. A few of us immediately
headed off to look.

The exam consisted of 20 questions, mostly of the multiple-choice
or fill-in-the-blank kind. Questions were picked randomly from a
much larger set. Nominal time for completing the test was half
an hour, but I doubt any of us took nearly that long; most of us
just flicked through it and posted our scores. I got 19/20 after
tripping over a question about an enzyme I'd never heard of, but
which was presumably covered by the school syllabus. I think
rogue got 20/20, but it may have been Sylas. HMS_Beagle did the
whole thing in about five minutes and got 17/20 or thereabouts.

Jorge posted he didn't have enough time to do the entire
test - he only had 10 minutes to spare - but he had tried
the first seven questions and got them all right. Jorge then
started mocking HMS_Beagle for only getting 85% on a high-school
biology test, until some-one - it may have been me - pointed
out that HMS_Beagle had achieved his 85% in less time than it had
taken Jorge to accumulate 35%. Jorge naturally claimed that
if he'd had time to answer all the question - which of course
he had - he would have got 100%. Several people suggested
that Jorge retake the test and post a screenshot of his final
score, but of course Jorge never did, repeatedly claiming a
lack of time. In fact he spent so much time making excuses
and continuing to mock HMS_Beagle that he could have done
the whole test several times over.

Since that day, Jorge has occasionally tried to tweak HMS_Beagle's tail
by mentioning that HMS_Beagle didn't get a perfect score on a high-school
test. Of course Jorge never mentions that he took twice as
long as HMS_Beagle to score half as much. Everyone else ignores him,
being fully aware that Jorge has less credibility than Muhammed
Saeed al-Sahaf.

Roy

Never let it be said that Materialistic Atheists don't
come to each others rescue at the first sign of distress.

Awww ... isn't that cute!

Hehe

Jorge