(June 9, 2025 at 5:54 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 8, 2025 at 10:22 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 1) Who is this "we"?

2) How will you include probabilistic but unpredictable results in your "causal chain"?


Clearly you didn't. Fossils 65 million years old aren't susceptible to radiometric dating that is limited at 50,000 years max. However, "carbon-dating" is a popular phrase implying one has knowledge above one's pay-grade.

You're not fooling anyone, kid. Your ignorance is on parade.

can you prove quantum indeterminacy?

It's already been shown. Of course, Wile E. Coyote, Supragenius™, would already know that.

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

(June 9, 2025 at 12:23 am)Ravenshire Wrote:

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

Could you give a layman's description of what radio carbon dating is, what specific material is used as the dating medium, and how the dating is accomplished?

/Crickets...

Yeah, about what I thought.

(June 9, 2025 at 10:18 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 9, 2025 at 6:56 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: The radiometric "clocks" in a mineral don't start "ticking" until the mineral forms. And they don't actually start "ticking" until they cool below something called the "closure temperature", which can be a problem if the rock gets heated up again and ceases being "closed". Put simply, we're measuring two important quantities when we date any mineral: abundance of parent isotope and abundance of the daughter isotope. So how much 235-U and how much 207-Pb? Above the closure temperature the system behaves as if it were "open" and the daughter product diffuses out of the mineral, resetting the age to zero. So yes, the primordial isotopes do decay before the mineral ever forms, but until the mineral starts accumulating the daughter product the radiometric clock doesn't start ticking.

OK, that isn't quite true, you can use the decay of radiometric systems in an open system along with some interesting assumptions to produce something called a "model age", but that's a whole other can of worms. No point in going down the rabbit hole of Sm-Nd systematics and TDM just yet.

These minerals form from the cooling of magma?!

Are you claiming that heated atoms don't radioactively decay?

Can you prove that?

Yes, the minerals form from the cooling of lava. That's what lava is, liquid mineral.

No, atoms don't stop decaying just because you heat them. The minerals stop recording the decay product above a certain temperature. So the decay product still happens but all trace of it is lost. Above the closure temperature all record of the decay is erased.

(June 9, 2025 at 10:21 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 9, 2025 at 6:57 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Not to the naked eye. 100 nanograms is roughly the mass of a red blood cell.

How many nanograms was the connective tissue?

No idea, but it doesn't look like much.

(June 9, 2025 at 10:23 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 9, 2025 at 7:00 pm)Paleophyte Wrote: Space and time contract as you approach the speed of light.

Bosonic matter moves at the speed of light, and at that speed space and time are contracted to nothing. To a photon, the universe doesn't exist. Its source and destination are the same point and it takes no time to get from one to the other. Entirely counterintuitive to our understanding of the universe, but that's how photons do.

longitudinal electromagnetic waves move faster and slower than light

Those aren't light.

(June 9, 2025 at 10:23 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: longitudinal electromagnetic waves move faster and slower than light

Let's see your work on faster-than-light stuff.

(June 9, 2025 at 10:25 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

(June 9, 2025 at 7:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Yes. Scaling up from the amount of c14 in human body, a T. Rex would have about 100 micrograms of that isotope. Since the half life is 5700 years, a T. Rex corpse could theoretically contain no more about 8 nanograms of c14, far too small for a test.

Boru

So, if you measured more than that, your theory would be falsified!

It's not a theory, it's a description of facts based on the known decay rate of carbon14 and the known age of T. rex fossils.

 I continue to be underwhelmed by the breadth and depth of your scientific knowledge.

Boru

(June 10, 2025 at 4:17 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(June 9, 2025 at 10:25 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: So, if you measured more than that, your theory would be falsified!

It's not a theory, it's a description of facts based on the known decay rate of carbon14 and the known age of T. rex fossils.

 I continue to be underwhelmed by the breadth and depth of your scientific knowledge.

Boru

It's a limitation of the analytical method. With less than 100 micrograms of organic material there's no way to find enough 14-C atoms to measure in any meaningful way. Your subject could still be alive and uptaking 14-C actively, but if you have less than that amount of mass you simply won't have enough to detect it.

I was guilty of this when I was a theist, and I consider it one of theists' most basic failings: They arrive at the conclusion they want, then try to arrange their reasoning and evidence to support it. They are not fairly addressing the question of whether God exists or not, because they do not give all facts and reasoning equal weight in approaching the question. It's "verdict first, trial second" because they have already identified as believers.

It wasn't until all of my arguments finally fell apart when I was fifty that I gave atheistic perspectives a fair assessment. Then I was convinced by them very quickly since, by that time, I was well-aware of the problems with the arguments supporting the God-concept.

This is yet another reason to think SubtleVirtue is still very young and has a lot to learn.

(June 9, 2025 at 5:42 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: Matter is defined as any substance that has mass and takes up space. It constitutes the observable universe and is composed of elementary particles such as quarks and leptons. In simpler terms, anything you can touch, taste, or smell is considered matter, while phenomena like light and sound are not classified as matter.

britanica
--.
.

Bolding mine. And now compare this to your original claim:

(June 6, 2025 at 4:29 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: (11) F; "every experiment ever constructed shows that everything is made of energy"

(June 9, 2025 at 5:42 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: matter is 'made of' light because it is a Kerr-induced self-focusing refraction curvature
in other words light is flowing into matter and resonating and sustaining the shape

Id like to have fries with the word salad.
Besides, this is from YOUR link:

(June 9, 2025 at 5:42 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: phenomena like light and sound are not classified as matter.

(June 9, 2025 at 5:42 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote:

Quote:"list Langans credential"

highest recorded IQ in the world and several inspire papers... feel free to read his work

IQ is not a credential, particularly not when you have cheated on the IQ test.
Question: If i present someone with a high IQ who does disagre with Langan, would you concede that Langan is wrong? No? Yeah, exactly what i thought.

(June 9, 2025 at 5:42 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: 'energy doesn't exist'

why do you believe that?

I never said that. Stop lying about me.