Page 162 of 165 FirstFirst ... 62112152160161162163164 ... LastLast
Results 1,611 to 1,620 of 1649

Thread: Testing Creationism.

  1. #1611
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,961
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    Obviously, the light we are now seeing of a distant galaxy 14 billion light years away would be us seeing the galaxy as it was 14 billion years ago. Hang on . . . wait a minute, light coming from a 'mature' galaxy 14 billion light years away. I think you may have a bit of a time problem, time to allow a galaxy to form (according to BB cosmology). Unless you are considering that a 'mature galaxy' existed at the time of or formed immediately after the BB event. You may need to reconsider who the 'idiot' is.

    Have a good day!
    Still small
    Well, one way to spot an idiot is to see if they are making assertions of divers ignorant sorts without having made the least effort to consult reputable sources on the subject.

    And of course, it helps to see them being snarky as they display their silly assertions.

    Speaking of silly assertions-

    Are you ever going to get back to your assertion about how it is far more than 1% of a tree that is living tissue, and how C14 is only usable after the organism is dead?

    If it would kill you to admit you were wrong, then dont.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Taikoo For This Useful Post:

    Still small (05-16-2017)

  3. #1612
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    1,218
    Thanks
    303
    Thanked 209 Times in 169 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    Obviously, the light we are now seeing of a distant galaxy 14 billion light years away would be us seeing the galaxy as it was 14 billion years ago. Hang on . . . wait a minute, light coming from a 'mature' galaxy 14 billion light years away. I think you may have a bit of a time problem, time to allow a galaxy to form (according to BB cosmology). Unless you are considering that a 'mature galaxy' existed at the time of or formed immediately after the BB event. You may need to reconsider who the 'idiot' is.

    Have a good day!
    Still small
    Is it just an involuntary reflex that you respond with a dishonest post, or do you actually think about it before you post it? Who said anything about light from a distant galaxy 14 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AGO(not 14 billion light years away)? I'd strongly suggest that you re-read my post and learn the difference between, light(electromagnetic radiation), gravity, space, time, General Relativity, and the nature of matter. I am more than willing to answer any questions to improve your understanding of Cosmology or the BB. But in the future please don't add anything to anything I state, and then claim that I stated it. In case you don't understand why not, it would just be dishonest. Thank you. It is certainly possible that some might think me an idiot, but they would definitely be in the minority. I don't think that your implication has anything to do with my statement. Was this the only problem you had with my post? Don

  4. #1613
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,961
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    Is it just an involuntary reflex that you respond with a dishonest post, or do you actually think about it before you post it? Who said anything about light from a distant galaxy 14 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AGO(not 14 billion light years away)? I'd strongly suggest that you re-read my post and learn the difference between, light(electromagnetic radiation), gravity, space, time, General Relativity, and the nature of matter. I am more than willing to answer any questions to improve your understanding of Cosmology or the BB. But in the future please don't add anything to anything I state, and then claim that I stated it. In case you don't understand why not, it would just be dishonest. Thank you. It is certainly possible that some might think me an idiot, but they would definitely be in the minority. I don't think that your implication has anything to do with my statement. Was this the only problem you had with my post? Don
    A review of what goes into intellectual honesty (and investigative rigour, for that matter)
    would certainly be in order for SS. It is for all of us, for that matter.

  5. #1614
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    10,437
    Thanks
    467
    Thanked 1,148 Times in 976 Posts

    Default

    Taikoo;

    Is this correct?

    A core taken from a 10,000 year old tree would show different C14 dates in samples taken at different distances from the center. The living surface layer would reflect the C14 level of current air.

    Roger
    It is not God that kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.
    It's us. Only us. - Rorschach

  6. #1615
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,961
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogerh View Post
    Taikoo;

    Is this correct?

    A core taken from a 10,000 year old tree would show different C14 dates in samples taken at different distances from the center. The living surface layer would reflect the C14 level of current air.

    Roger

    That is the idea, yes.

    I am very open to being corrected, as I am just saying what I did
    based on what seems very obvious, and, that the people who dated the tree saw it the same way, and, when they tested, did not get today's date. And, presumably, they are serious minded people doing expensive testing, and did not overlook something so simple minded-easy as SS suggests.

    SS holds that no accurate date could be had unless the tree (itself)
    is dead.

    So lets take a look-

    http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...i021p03688/pdf


    We are engaged here in a "radiocarbon" test on the intellectual honesty of the person who
    said that one cannot C14 date a living tree.

    Stand by for results...
    Last edited by Taikoo; 05-16-2017 at 09:23 AM.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Taikoo For This Useful Post:

    Stephen T-B (05-16-2017)

  8. #1616
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    10,437
    Thanks
    467
    Thanked 1,148 Times in 976 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    We are engaged here in a "radiocarbon" test on the intellectual honesty of the person who said that one cannot C14 date a living tree.

    Stand by for results...
    I'd put good money on a failure.

    Roger
    It is not God that kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.
    It's us. Only us. - Rorschach

  9. #1617
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    20,961
    Thanks
    1,864
    Thanked 2,185 Times in 1,863 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rogerh View Post
    I'd put good money on a failure.

    Roger
    I think it is psychologically impossible for a true creo to ever admit to being wrong.


    Here is his prior statement..
    Quote Originally Posted by Still small View Post
    As the article makes reference to the fact that the carbon-14 testing was done on 'Old Tjikko's root system, what is done to a redwood's trunk is irrelevant. While any sample taken from the root system would quickly cease to live, it would be of little worth for typical carbon-14 dating. This is due to the fact that carbon-14 stops accumulating and begins the long radioactive decay process only once the organic matter is dead. The typical Carbon-14 dating method only tests dead organic matter. (link and Wiki). Such dating methods only determine the length of time since the plant or animal died. Even after twenty years, there would still be insufficient amounts of C14/C12 ratios to be detectable, even by the latest AMS system.

    Have a good day!
    Still small (Emphasis added by Taikoo)

  10. #1618
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Longmont, CO
    Posts
    10,437
    Thanks
    467
    Thanked 1,148 Times in 976 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    I think it is psychologically impossible for a true creo to ever admit to being wrong.
    I suspect the only way one would make such a confession is if someone came up with an explanation that better supported his position.

    Roger
    It is not God that kills the children, not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs.
    It's us. Only us. - Rorschach

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Rogerh For This Useful Post:

    Stephen T-B (05-16-2017)

  12. #1619
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    The Great South Land
    Posts
    1,909
    Thanks
    263
    Thanked 324 Times in 267 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Well, one way to spot an idiot is to see if they are making assertions of divers ignorant sorts without having made the least effort to consult reputable sources on the subject.

    And of course, it helps to see them being snarky as they display their silly assertions.

    Speaking of silly assertions-

    Are you ever going to get back to your assertion about how it is far more than 1% of a tree that is living tissue, and how C14 is only usable after the organism is dead?

    If it would kill you to admit you were wrong, then dont.
    Hang on, it was you that originally asserted the 1% without any supportive data. So "put up or . . . " Regarding the 14C and dead organisms, why didn't you read the number of links that I included at the time. If you didn't read them then, why should I go to all the trouble of reposting something you are again not likely to read.

    Have a good day!
    Still small

  13. #1620
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    The Great South Land
    Posts
    1,909
    Thanks
    263
    Thanked 324 Times in 267 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    Is it just an involuntary reflex that you respond with a dishonest post, or do you actually think about it before you post it? Who said anything about light from a distant galaxy 14 BILLION LIGHT YEARS AGO(not 14 billion light years away)?
    What make you think I was quoting you? Don't let your ego get in the way of reading what is there. I was referring to that which Nolidad stated (an approximation, anyway). By the way, a light year is a unit of measurement of distance, not time.

    I'd strongly suggest that you re-read my post and learn the difference between, light(electromagnetic radiation), gravity, space, time, General Relativity, and the nature of matter. I am more than willing to answer any questions to improve your understanding of Cosmology or the BB.
    If I thought I would get an unbiased, un-manipulated explanation, I would. Then again, I believe I have a sufficient grasp on the subject.

    But in the future please don't add anything to anything I state, and then claim that I stated it. In case you don't understand why not, it would just be dishonest. Thank you. It is certainly possible that some might think me an idiot, but they would definitely be in the minority. I don't think that your implication has anything to do with my statement. Was this the only problem you had with my post? Don (Emphasis added)
    In future, read what is written without assuming that one is '(mis)quoting'. you. That would be a sign of honesty on your part. But can you explain why we have light from what appears to be a 'mature' galaxy some 14 billion light years away? This would require the presence of a mature galaxy close to the time of the supposed BB event. That is a bit of a paradox, would you not agree?

    Have a good day!
    Still small

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •