(June 7, 2025 at 10:09 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 7:26 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: In my life, I’ve know roughly a double dozen actual, working scientist, and not ONE of them was confused about radiometric dating.

Boru

the only radiometric dating I know how to do is carbon dating...

I don't understand how to do the other dating methods... do you???

Yes. I've obtained radiometric ages from rocks as old as 2.9 billion years old. I could easily get ages from older rocks but haven't worked with any yet.

The underlying principle is the same as for 14-C dating, you simply use a different radiometric system. No radiometric system can be used much beyond 10 half-lives of the radioactive isotope. There won't be enough of it left to date. Your rock keeps aging, but because there's no 14-C left, the clock stops "ticking". Instead, we use isotopes with much longer half-lives. 14-C has a half-life of just 5730 years, but 235-U has a half-life of 703.8 million years. 238-U, 40-K, and 87-Rb are even longer-lived.

The big difference is that living organisms don't typically contain any Uranium, and precious little potassium or rubidium. Occasionally, fossils are formed in ways that introduce U, K, or Rb, but that's rare and unreliable. Instead, we date volcanic rocks laid down in the same strata. By logical necessity, a rock can't be older than material that it includes and can't be younger than material that cuts it. So all you need to do is find some volcanic material immediately above and below your fossil that you can date. There you go, age bracketed to better than the error bars on the dating technique.

Zircon U-Pb ages are the gold standard because zircon is nigh on indestructible. When zircon forms, the chemistry that produces it excludes any "common lead"  that may be lurking but incorporates abundant uranium, so you don't typically need to correct for common lead. You also get two independent clocks ticking away: 235-U decaying to 207-Pb and 238-U decaying to 206-Pb. You also typically get 232-Th decaying to 208-Pb for independent verification. You can get ages from a single zircon crystal that's too small to be seen with the naked eye by a variety of techniques, including wet chemical techniques and TIMS, in situ laser techniques coupled to ICP-MS, or in situ secondary ion sputtering.

(June 7, 2025 at 9:54 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 5:43 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: The material isn't blood, it's some material that might be blood cells, depending on interpretation. You can't carbon date individual cells. Simply not enough material to lift a 14-C date off of. The scientists who maintain that the material has recently been contaminated (not blood cells but rather fungal cells) would love to do exactly that. Finding modern 14-C would demonstrate that the samples have been contaminated.

How do you contaminate the sample if its locked up in solid fossil?

What we should find if 'your' theory is correct, is that there would be zero carbon 14.

We should have the test done either way.

For at least the third time, there is no point looking for C-14 in samples that old for dating purposes.

Why would you call yourself a scientist?

Boru

(June 7, 2025 at 10:07 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 6:16 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Even God doesn’t love everyone - it says so in the Bible. If there are limits to God’s love, then ‘God is love’ is a nonsensical statement.

Boru

I like that argument.

but, in the bible, who does God not love?


"those loving violence, my soul certainly hates"

can you hate and love at the same time or hate and love the same person for different reasons such that there is still some love?

(Bold mine)

Esau.

If God has any hate at all, or even the capacity to feel hate, then - once more, with feeling - 'God is love' is rendered a nonsensical statement, like 'healthy botulism' or 'child-safe plutonium'.

Boru

(June 7, 2025 at 5:14 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 6, 2025 at 6:34 pm)Sheldon Wrote: just quote any "proof" you think you have?

You are allowed to quote the proofs, but I am not.

It's always hilarious when apologists claim they have a "proof" for a deity in an internet chat room, as if this has escaped the rest of the world, even millennia of religious apologetics, and they genuinely don't see how spectacularly stupid a claim that is. Teenage boys usually, the hubris is a dead giveaway.

(June 7, 2025 at 10:07 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 6:16 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Even God doesn’t love everyone - it says so in the Bible. If there are limits to God’s love, then ‘God is love’ is a nonsensical statement.

Boru

I like that argument.

but, in the bible, who does God not love?


"those loving violence, my soul certainly hates"

The bible depicts a deity that indulges in, and encourages in its pets, indiscriminate violence, and murder, endorses slavery, and commits global genocide, to name but a few, luckily there isn't a shred of objective evidence any deity exists or is even possible, but the one depicted in the bible is  amoral, barbarically sadistic, and indifferently cruel megalomaniac. 

You're selling a product you can't demonstrate exists or is possible, and that product is morally repugnant anyway.

(June 7, 2025 at 5:17 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 6, 2025 at 7:18 pm)Angrboda Wrote: @SubtleVirtue

If I may ask, which came first, your belief in a god, or your proofs of the existence of a god?

I spoke to God when I was one and a half years old. He told me not to kill my brother and to go and tell my mother.

No one else found this to be disturbing?

To me it is the "proofs" needed to know that the Subtle one is full of sh$t and not to be believed about anything.

(June 8, 2025 at 6:56 am)arewethereyet Wrote:

(June 7, 2025 at 5:17 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: I spoke to God when I was one and a half years old. He told me not to kill my brother and to go and tell my mother.

No one else found this to be disturbing?

To me it is the "proofs" needed to know that the Subtle one is full of sh$t and not to be believed about anything.

The claim he spoke to anything at 1.5 years old is disturbingly stupid, but yes the rest would be pretty disturbing, if it weren't demonstrably made up bs.