FreeHovind - BIGDOG WINS!! RM Dating's a joke.

Home Petition Watch Download Info Action Forum

Home Content Submit

Home > Content > Creation and Evolution > Discussion: BIGDOG WINS!! RM Dating's a joke.

BIGDOG WINS!! RM Dating's a joke.

39 Comments - 1032 Views

physicist falls in his own trap.

Submitted By bigdog on 09/05/06

FreeHovind, bigdog, Creation and Evolution

Physicist claims: "It seems very possible that spontaneous disintegration of radioactive elements are related to the action of cosmic rays and the rate of disintegration varying from century to century according to the intensity of the rays."

So this is evidence that radio-metric dates are correct? This shows that, if it is true, which they claim it is only "possible," then it would DISCREDIT THE EXPERIMENT EVEN MORE. This would make it even more impossible to get correct dates. And we already know that they don't get correct dates already because it doesn't match up to dates of historical ages. Fifty and 200 year old volcano rocks dating from 250 thousand years old to 3.5 billion! Your beloved theory is falling apart.

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 39 Replies

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 8:54 GMT

"Physicist claims: "It seems very possible that spontaneous disintegration of radioactive elements are related to the action of cosmic rays and the rate of disintegration varying from century to century according to the intensity of the rays.""

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA OMG THE AUDACITY!!!

you actually qoutemined and misrepresented kevin FROM ONE POST AGO!!!???

HOW BLOODY STUPID DO THINK WE ARE!!!!!?

YOU, bigdog ARE A EPIC FAIL INDEED!

"Fifty and 200 year old volcano rocks dating from 250 thousand years old to 3.5 billion! Your beloved theory is falling apart."

i think bigdog's switch is stuck on repeat.

do we have to repeat the debunk?

Kevin Lyon (physicist)

1 day - 1,818v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 11:41 GMT

"do we have to repeat the debunk?"

No, we do not need to do anything...Jesus put Big here for our amusement alone. I don't think Big knows that this was from his article...I don't think he actually read this article. However the point still stands....he evidently does not understand the process of nuclear decay. This pretty much strips his "opinion" of any level of validity.

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 13:37 GMT

Bigdog

Question for you

if volcanic rocks were 50-200 years old

Don't you think we would have noticed volcanic rock forming

And don't you think it would be on the surface

and not buried in ground?

And how do you know they don't get correct dates?

you sir, are truly jaw dropping

I know i just sounded like an idiot, but those questions make sense to me

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 14:22 GMT

i'll answer them before bigdog can, he might get the wrong idea and think he "outsmarted them evolutionists".

if volcanic rocks were 50-200 years old

Don't you think we would have noticed volcanic rock forming

And don't you think it would be on the surface

and not buried in ground?"

actually that depends on the acticvity of the volcano, erosion and water levels. but srly the entire "200 year old volcanic rock disproves radiometric dating" is a claim that is so poorly sourced we'd probably wont be able to answer that question.

oh and we can see some volcanic rock formign, and from looking at the layers of newly formed volcanic rock we can determine fom which reuption our samples come, and we have records or the latest eruptions, so that's where you can get a "historical" age for the rocks from.

"And how do you know they don't get correct dates?"

the samples are very likely to be heat contaminated and if all there is no norm distribution you're probably not gonna get very far with labeling a accurate date on it.

at least that's all the info i could get out of the original claim. it's very poor on sampel data, and creationist seem unwillign to give us the actual paper the results where published in.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 15:13 GMT

"BIGDOG WINS!! RM Dating's a joke."

- this guy got some really bad selfesteem or something. I sense a deadly sin from a devoted christian... You guys know what it is? :P

PRIDE

bigdog

4 days - 5,601v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 17:15 GMT

Pride? I'm just having fun. If I had pride I would be offended every time you make fund of my LORD and Savior JESUS CHRIST. But he teaches to just let people make fun all they want. He is a patient GOD. Maybe you'll change one day and maybe you won't. I don't get offended anymore. In my mind I'm just feeling sorry for you because you'll have to answer for every word one day. And so will I. But I will be judged in a different place. That's not fear mongoring. I'm just speaking my mind. Just ignore it.

bigdog

4 days - 5,601v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 17:22 GMT

Back to radio-metric dating. The point is that the quote proves that it is really impossible to get a correct date from the rocks because of these cosmic rays. This was my point a long time ago about radio-metric dating. "Wheathering contamination" ruins the dates. Water ruins C-14 dates. That's why they don't use it for marine life, even though sometimes they do. Water and humidity contaminates the carbon. There are all kinds of problems. And we see this when we date fossils of known ages. So when they date a rock of an unknown age it becomes meaningless.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 17:38 GMT

"The point is that the quote proves that it is really impossible to get a correct date from the rocks because of these cosmic rays."

are you blind?

THAT QUOTE IS BS!

the cores aren't affected by cosmic rays!

GOD! listen to a scientist for once..

"Water ruins C-14 dates. That's why they don't use it for marine life, even though sometimes they do. Water and humidity contaminates the carbon."

AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....oh god...ur serious?

no water does not contaminate carbon, the marine carbon cycle is just different from that on dry land. why ? because it;'s one big soup of chemicals out there (carbonates for one), not just a mixture of gasses as the air is.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WATERMOLECULES AFFECTING C14 in other molecules!!!!!!

k this is a bit of an over simplification, but the point is that you've yet again, shown us your ignorance on the subject you're arguing....

"There are all kinds of problems"

most of which scientisr understand and are aware of, how ever they are things creationist just LOVE to omit...hovind's snails and reservoir effect any1?

"And we see this when we date fossils of known ages."

fossils of known ages.....the irony is delicious.

1 WHAT fossils of known ages are you referring to?

2 how did radiometric dating NOT contribute to the accuracy of those "known" dates.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,795v

Posted 2009/05/07 - 18:20 GMT

The point is that the quote proves that it is really impossible to get a correct date from the rocks because of these cosmic rays.

The only thing that you've proven is that you're dishonest enough to take a quote that Kevin posted and falsely attribute it to him.

Kevin Lyon (physicist)

1 day - 1,818v

Posted 2009/05/09 - 14:31 GMT

"The point is that the quote proves that it is really impossible to get a correct date from the rocks because of these cosmic rays."

Absolutely not. Most "cosmic rays" are way to low in energy to ever have any effect on nuclear decay. If this were not the case we would all be super uber dead. Oh I have no doubt that stimulated emission does occur all the time however this will be a very rare event. Radio nuclei decay when they tunnel through their potential barrier. Cosmic Rays do not play a substantial role in the process.

"Water and humidity contaminates the carbon"

Absolutely not. You must be carful when carbon dating anything that feeds on marine life. The marine cycle is somewhat removed from the atmospheric carbon cycle. Very often marine systems consist of "old carbon" which has a much lower carbon-14 ratio. There is a paper explaining this that Kent Hovind loves to point out as a flaw in the method though it is obvious he has never actually read it himself. He likes to blabber ignorantly about living snails dated to be thousands of years old. It is a very well understood phenomenon. Big...you really should listen to that advice...ask a scientist...we know things...not everything....but at least you won't come of so ridiculously ignorant.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 17:30 GMT

"Pride? I'm just having fun."

AAAH so THAT"S why you would do somehtign stupid as quotemine a quote from your own source and then claim kevin said it, and making a huge ass of yourself in the proces.

PS FREEDOM OF SPEECH! bitch

"In my mind I'm just feeling sorry for you because you'll have to answer for every word one day"

and in my mind that does not exist^^ gr8 when you're appeal is actually useless on atheists.

"Just ignore it."

wish i could.

which i could when i see johova's witnesses on my doorstep,

wich i could when i hear radical muslims spewing hate.

but you're all just so dam stupid i have to call you on your BS each and everytime, even if i educate one person, it makes it worth it.

the irony bieng that this is also the mentality that religious people have while converting.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,795v

Posted 2009/05/07 - 19:29 GMT

If I had pride I would be offended every time you make fund of my LORD and Savior JESUS CHRIST. But he teaches to just let people make fun all they want.

I think he'll forgive us. That's kind of in his job description, isn't it?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,795v

Posted 2009/05/07 - 14:56 GMT

On Usenet, we used to refer to that as an "I CRAIM VICTOLLY!" post.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 18:17 GMT

Pride is, depending upon context, either a high sense of the worth of one's self and one's own or a pleasure taken in the contemplation of these things. One definition of pride in the first sense comes from Augustine: "the love of one's own excellence." [1]

^ "Est autem superbia amor proprie excellentie, et fuit initium peccati superbia."[1]

That is exactly what you show. You can't accept that you're wrong in anything even if we slap a book with the right answers in your face.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 18:46 GMT

i found this on a forum:
"This is what leads me to believe that bigotry is based on pride. When I look back on how I used to be, I can see now that my pride outweighed my piety, I would lie to save face and win an argument, even in defense of my religion. Perhaps if bigoted views are held out of pride, they can be changed by making it impossible to be prideful through ridicule and dissmission. Maybe by taking fundie's views seriously and attacking them, we are only making them more prideful and bigoted."

Its a guy who use to go to bible school and church and then found a way out because he couldn't hold up the charade. He actually have the guts to admit he was wrong when he saw what was going on.

Hats of to this guy who i will not mention by name.

bigdog

4 days - 5,601v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 19:02 GMT

I know it's hard for you guys to accept that we don't come from monkeys, and that the world is not millions of years old. 365 is having a hard time with the Bible because of his homosexual tendancies. But he's the rudest gay person I ever talked to. Oh well. Jesus still loves him.

bigdog

4 days - 5,601v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 19:05 GMT

Here's some recent research by ICR. They have found that the most sophisticated dating methods give bad dates. Superior strata is actually being dated older than the lower strata. But here's what they are finding on lava flows.

Old "Ages" for Young Lava Flows

The observation that obviously recent lava flows from the north rim of Grand Canyon give ages even older than the deeply buried lava flows, challenges the basic assumptions upon which the isochron dating method is based. The discovery of an "old age" in an obviously "young" series of lava flows has encouraged further research at ICR. Has the Cardenas Basalt been successfully dated? An intense isotope, trace element, and rare earth element analysis is now underway at ICR. 7 Some extraordinary relationships are becoming apparent. These recent lava flows are being tested by the most sophisticated analytical techniques, to determine the best explanation for the excessively old "age." The same methods are also being applied to the deeply buried lava flows of Grand Canyon. We might ask, "Has anyone successfully dated a Grand Canyon rock?"

This research is being conducted by Dr. Steven A. Austin, at the Institute for Creation Research. A brochure describing the "Grand Canyon Dating Project" is available upon request. This ongoing research is being supported by donations from private individuals. These gifts are tax-deductible, and should be designated for the "Grand Canyon Dating Project." This project has been funded without grants from taxpayer-supported government agencies.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=353

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 19:33 GMT

You set them up and we knock them down.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icr-science.html

http://www.answersincreation.org/print/c6.pdf

One from us godless heathens and one from Christians that are not so stupid as to think the Earth is 6k years old.

Austin is a liar and a fool.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 19:43 GMT

The article never states how they got it or any calculations. They might aswell have made the numbers up and no one can peer-review it and se if they made the calculations right.

And then again the results they claimed to have got was minimum 1.2 million years old. I don't know about you, but that is not even close to 6K years...

bigdog you should really read those links...

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 20:15 GMT

"I know it's hard for you guys to accept that we don't come from monkeys, and that the world is not millions of years old. 365 is having a hard time with the Bible because of his homosexual tendancies. But he's the rudest gay person I ever talked to. Oh well. Jesus still loves him."

HAHAHAHAHA! , classic..

if you're not winning, just call your opponent gay.

GJ bigdog.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,795v

Posted 2009/05/07 - 18:21 GMT

I know it's hard for you guys to accept that we don't come from monkeys, and that the world is not millions of years old.

Well, yes - rationally-minded adults generally do have a hard time accepting claims that aren't supported by any evidence.

365 is having a hard time with the Bible because of his homosexual tendancies. But he's the rudest gay person I ever talked to. Oh well. Jesus still loves him.

Ya know, I do occasionally feel a little remorse for giving you such a hard time... but then you post crap like that.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 19:27 GMT

"I know it's hard for you guys to accept that we don't come from monkeys, and that the world is not millions of years old."
-For the 51:th time WE DO NOT COME FROM MONKEY, BUT WE HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR! Is that to hard for your brain to understand? Does it give you a headache?

"365 is having a hard time with the Bible because of his homosexual tendancies. But he's the rudest gay person I ever talked to. Oh well."
- It's 325 and he like the bible as a fairytale, like the odysseus or the gospel of the flying spaghettimonster.
And why do you have anything against homosexuals? It's a natural common thing. If god hated gays then why did he made so many animals and humans homosexual? It's even more natural than women standing by the stove.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 20:21 GMT

"-For the 51:th time WE DO NOT COME FROM MONKEY, BUT WE HAVE A COMMON ANCESTOR! Is that to hard for your brain to understand? Does it give you a headache?"

actually the irony is that it turns out the creationion strawman is half correct even there and so is even funnier.

you see, turns out we didnt just come from monkies WE ARE MONKEYS!

(phylogenetics)

but that doesn;t change the fact that we still share a commen ancestor with modern monkies and apes.

eventhough we are classifed as monkies ourselves(monkies quoloqiually referring to a taxanomic clade).

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 21:08 GMT

You mean this?

"The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."

sorry my bad! Still strawman tho.

bigdog

4 days - 5,601v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 21:18 GMT

You can call them hominids, australios or whatever but I call them monkey like creatures. You have got to be willingly ignorant, stupid or brainwashed to believe we came from some monkey like creature.

It is also widely known that strata RM dates are sometimes older on top than those below. This happens very freaquently. I know it's hard to accept. I can see you guys are in serious denial.

bigdog

4 days - 5,601v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 21:20 GMT

"SOMEWHAT LESS THAN HALF OF ALL (RM) DATES AGREE WITH 10% OF ACCEPTED VALUES FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE BIOSTRATIGAPHIC POSITIONS."

This is about a 95% innerrancy. And you still trust this radio-metric dating method?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,795v

Posted 2009/05/07 - 14:58 GMT

This is about a 95% innerrancy. And you still trust this radio-metric dating method?

"Inerrant" literally means "free from error." So "95% innerrancy [sic]" means the same thing as "95% accuracy."

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/07 - 16:02 GMT

""Inerrant" literally means "free from error." So "95% innerrancy [sic]" means the same thing as "95% accuracy.""

lulz....

lulz to you....i didn't evne notice that....shame on my english..

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 23:15 GMT

"You can call them hominids, australios or whatever but I call them monkey like creatures. You have got to be willingly ignorant, stupid or brainwashed to believe we came from some monkey like creature. "

*uch, WE ARE MONKEYLIKE CREATURES!

you cannot deny the clade from which we came.

"It is also widely known that strata RM dates are sometimes older on top than those below. This happens very freaquently. "

and your source being.....the same vague pro-creation article written by someone who think cosmic rays effect the dating isatopes in samples in a meaningfu lway....

no dice....

"I know it's hard to accept. I can see you guys are in serious denial."

irony being that your camp has a well documented history of denial.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/05/07 - 17:15 GMT

FIXED!!!!

"You can call them hominids, australios or whatever but I call them monkey like creatures. You have got to be willingly ignorant, stupid or brainwashed to NOT believe we came from some monkey like creature."

Seriously you believe we believe, but we know and you don't. I sure hope evolution will do something to your genes soon or humanity is fucked.
Idiocracy is a good movie tho.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/07 - 18:14 GMT

"Seriously you believe we believe, but we know and you don't. I sure hope evolution will do something to your genes soon or humanity is fucked.
Idiocracy is a good movie tho."

here's the scary shit...

there's a little creationsit in all of us. an he pops up when we're not exposed to logic and science and take the intelectual lazy way out by saying "GOOOOOD DIDIT!".

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/06 - 23:11 GMT

"You mean this?

"The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans."

sorry my bad! Still strawman tho."

actually better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz52ivJgVx8&feature=channel_page

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted 2009/05/08 - 14:11 GMT

Anybody else notice as soon as we pointed out the actual meaning of irrency, bigdog dissapeared?

now, why is that?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/08 - 14:14 GMT

Anybody else notice as soon as we pointed out the actual meaning of irrency, bigdog dissapeared?

now, why is that?

we should be seeing a new troll post from him any time now....

or at least a new thread.

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted 2009/05/08 - 14:16 GMT

Well, gotta give him this much

He's persistent lol

But then again, so is everybody else on this forum

The never ending battle

Can't wait to pick apart bigdogs next thread

It's kinda fun lol

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/08 - 14:19 GMT

have you seen 9tails' and kent's "looooong,deeply "intellectual" threads?

"logis" and "humanism vs providentialism"

Kevin Lyon (physicist)

1 day - 1,818v

Posted 2009/05/08 - 19:10 GMT

BIGDOG YOU LYING LITTLE ASSPELUNKER! I most certainly did NOT say this! This is utterly ridiculous however you KNOW I did not say this as it is a freakin' cut out of YOUR ARTICLE! Jesus son are you for real? Your moral character seems right on the level with that of Kent Hovind.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/05/08 - 19:39 GMT

"BIGDOG YOU LYING LITTLE ASSPELUNKER! I most certainly did NOT say this! This is utterly ridiculous however you KNOW I did not say this as it is a freakin' cut out of YOUR ARTICLE! Jesus son are you for real? Your moral character seems right on the level with that of Kent Hovind."

or VFX for that matter...i have the wierd feeling we might be seeing you in afraud case one day...:P

bornagainst777

7 hours - 367v

Posted 2009/05/09 - 23:28 GMT

... I'm pretty sure he's a troll. Or have I been away for too long to remember that this is actually what creationists are generally like?

» Reply to Discussion Threaded Hybrid Flat 39 Replies

PlexPedia - The unified online compendium of knowledge

- My Settings

This website is powered by Plexpedia
Usage of this site constitutes agreement to the » Legal Stuff