[_ Old Earth _] Atheist or Evolutionist?

[BobRyan]

By the way, still looking for those links and references for your original quote on carbon-14 plus the origin of the data you mentioned on the SPR/SDR of carbon-14, Bob. I presume you do have references for this material?

Is this because your own research has failed you on this point or is this because have tired of pretending that this post below was never posted?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33224&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60#p398408

Or are you arguing that you agree completely with the points made at that post and still you don't see the problem for Darwinism?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Infact the decrease in the magnetic field has been estimated at about 10% over the past 100 years or so. This would cause an increased in the n-0 interaction with N14 which would increase production of C14... thus changing the "ratio" of C14 to C12. However the Carbon inserted into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution tended to lower that ratio somewhat.

It was shown to change the ratio by no more than 10-15%, which is accounted for in radiometric dating and then calibrated through non-isotopic dating methods.

In any case -- the problem for evols is that C14 backlog continues to build -- we do not have a state of equilibrium.

So? That isn't a problem if you're aware of it and can account for it in your dating methods through corroborative evidence.

I am raising one problem -- you are trying to solve another one.

Works better if we both discuss the same problem.

In the case above - equilibrium for C14-N14 in our atmopshere SPR vs the beta decay based SDR for C14 to N14 should be reached well within 30,000 years but the problem is that C14 is still building.

So -- a solution is needed for those who suppose our atmosphere is older than 30,000 years.

p-c

[quote:moi3qfx6]Bob
This causes two problems but the one I am interested in is that estimate for C14 influx SPR reaching equilibrium with the Beta decay to N14 -- having not yet been reached - indicating that we are something less than 30,0000 years old with this atmosphere.

Except that you're assuming that this has been constant, which it isn't.[/quote:moi3qfx6]

If you can show a time when we reached that equilibrium after which the rate started to change again - then show it. Otherwise you have the problem of having to imagine it.

While the magnetic field decay rate is increasing the SPR over time -- the increased volume of C14 backlog also increases the SDR.

The industrial age dumped tons of C12 into the atmosphere thus artificially increasing atmospheric Carbon content and thus lowering the ratio -- but still in spite of that it has not reached SPR/SDR equilibrium!.

Huge problem for those wanting to argue for an atmosphere older than 30,000 years.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

By the way, still looking for those links and references for your original quote on carbon-14 plus the origin of the data you mentioned on the SPR/SDR of carbon-14, Bob. I presume you do have references for this material?

Is this because your own research has failed you on this point or is this because have tired of pretending that this post below was never posted?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33224&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60#p398408

Or are you arguing that you agree completely with the points made at that post and still you don't see the problem for Darwinism?

Bob, you posted a specific quote and a specific claim with specific data. The decencies of civilized debate are such that, if you are asked to provide references and/or links to support your quotes, claims and data, then you do so. Are you ignorant of this civility? You may have noticed that this is common practice and, where such references and/or links have not been previously provided, they will be so provided on request, or the quotes, claims and data will be withdrawn and admitted to be in error. I can see no reason why you would be reluctant to provide such references and/or links, unless you just made up the quotes and data wholesale. I may differ with you seriously about many things, but I do not believe you would do this deliberately; however, if you fail to respond to such reasonable requests, you must realize that the taint of suspicion will hang in the air. The link you provide does not relate to the original post that I am seeking clarification of. The state of my own research on the subject and my readiness or otherwise to respond to your post containing the quote for which you did give a reference and link bears no relation to the requirement for you to provide appropriate citations for your other quotes and data, your snide insinuations notwithstanding.

ETA: By the way, do you have anything to add to your bizarre assertions about 300-year old interbreeding Neanderthals? I am still presuming they were some sort of joke.

 

[BobRyan]

Follow the points instead of obfuscating.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

1. Your own admitted atheist darwinist sources admit that the Neanderthals in this case were found to be anywhere from 300 years old to 3000 years old when test with C14 -- instead of 26,000 years old as claimed.

That means that the claim is now "adjusted" with that new data so that these Neanderthal remains are "MODERN" not "pre-history" -- which presents you with a NEW problem that you simply try to obfuscate and misdirect away from INSTEAD of answering the point.

Are you seriously proposing that because Protsch cobbled together 'Neanderthal' remains based on fraudulent material and claims, that those remains really were Neanderthals? Are you addled?

Recall that it is YOUR leadership arguing that YOU are sipping at the cup of "anti-knowledge" not mine.

details... details.

Now if you are still inclined to focus for a few minutes -- objective critical thinking will be needed for this next exercise.

In Protsch's work ONLY the dates were challenged, verified and then revised.

the bones -- "stayed the same".

Imagining that the bones changed is good story telling for darwinist mythologist -- but makes for sorry fact.

Surely you can grasp this and then respond to the point insightfully - yes?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

L.K

[quote:wwpviowx]Bob

2. You have 2008 claims from your own atheist darwinist sources STILL arguing that Neanderthals do not breed with humans -- AND YET we now have known examples that we all agree are only 300 years old in some cases!!

What 2008 claims are these, Bob? Please provide links and references.
[/quote:wwpviowx]

Tell me where you are confused and I will once again try to help you out of it.

Are you stumbling on the 2008 claims that "Neanderthals did not breed with humans" is this the part you need help with?

L.K
Where is your evidence of 'known examples' of 300-year old Neanderthals breeding with humans? I still think you are trying to make a joke here.

We JUST HAD the Prtosch discussion -- did you forget so soon?!!

All this pretending not to follow the point is not serving your argument as well as you seem to imagine.

What FACT did they discover to be in error in Protsch's work? Remember? Starts with a C --

ETA: By the way, I am still interested in any response you may have to these questions:

On what grounds have you determined that Protsch is an 'atheist darwinist'?

With that strong a preference for fraud and teaching at that 99.99% atheist institution what was his "other" choice??

And is Protsch suddenly several persons in that he becomes not only 'atheist' but 'darwinists' in the plural?

As we saw with the illustrious group of darwinism's fraudulent hoax-masters - the atheist darwinist appears to be the darwinist of choice.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

By the way, still looking for those links and references for your original quote on carbon-14 plus the origin of the data you mentioned on the SPR/SDR of carbon-14, Bob. I presume you do have references for this material?

Is this because your own research has failed you on this point or is this because have tired of pretending that this post below was never posted?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33224&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=60#p398408

Or are you arguing that you agree completely with the points made at that post and still you don't see the problem for Darwinism?

Bob, you posted a specific quote and a specific claim with specific data. The decencies of civilized debate are such that, if you are asked to provide references and/or links to support your quotes, claims and data, then you do so. Are you ignorant of this civility? You may have noticed that this is common practice and, where such references and/or links have not been previously provided,

So is this the part where you simply admit you did not click on the link above and then follow the source links provided there speaking to the SPR rate?

they will be so provided on request, or the quotes, claims and data will be withdrawn and admitted to be in error. I can see no reason why you would be reluctant to provide such references and/or links, unless you just made up the quotes

Hint: Click the link.

and data wholesale. I may differ with you seriously about many things, but I do not believe you would do this deliberately; however, if you fail to respond to such reasonable requests, you must realize that the taint of suspicion will hang in the air. The link you provide does not relate to the original post that I am seeking clarification of.

If not that link -- if not that post -- then try actually quoting the post you have interest in.

Maybe this one - that the SPR rate is at 18.8 atoms per gram per minute and the SDR rate is 16.1 atoms per gram per minute. Is that where you wanted to go instead?

Or did you need to look at Libby's research where he found the SPR rate to be higher as well?

ETA: By the way, do you have anything to add to your bizarre assertions about 300-year old interbreeding Neanderthals? I am still presuming they were some sort of joke.

One word - Protsch.

Four words - 30 years of fraud.

Four more words - Everybody SAW the bones

Three words - Bones not hidden!.


This is the part where you need to start engaging in critical objective thinking instead of continually circling back to the darwinist foxhole.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, you seem to have passed beyond the civilities of reasoned discussion and logic. Your link bears no relation to the quote I have been asking you for citations for, namely this one:

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).
[quote:35vjk6cq]If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new
radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3

[/quote:35vjk6cq]
I find your comments on Protsch garbled and illogical to the point that I no longer understand them