(June 14, 2012 at 5:16 pm)cato123 Wrote: You seem to ignore all of the other volcanoes where the K/Ar returned 'zero' year results consistent with expectations.

For every one of those, there is an alleged billion-year-old rock with outlying million or multi-billion dates.

Quote:Even if we allow for a very generous amount of pre-decay argon that we can estimate to be equivalent to 500,000 years, what does this really mean when we are measuring the age of rocks in billions of years? Do you realize how insignificant this error is?

Dating works with proportions, so the amount equivalent to 500,000 years is different for each rock. A very small amount can sway the results. And the older you are dating, the smaller the amounts become. A milligram might be worth a billion years. I contend that the amount of pre-decay argon could be that high--remember, there have been only a few four-billion-year rocks found, and they are in very specific locations. It's not unreasonable to claim a high number, because as D. Pitman said, "...all K-Ar and Ar-Ar dates of crustal rocks are questionable" because Ar leaks from lower-strata rocks. We can't say who's right until we get more sources. I don't pretend to be knowledgeable on this subject, which is why I read a lot. And scientific journals with actual facts are hard to find on the internet. Here's a slightly more professional take I discovered: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/datin...inaccurate
I invite you to give a source of your own. A complete list of dates retrieved from a set of rocks would be great, as I can't find a single one--they are all abridged, evolution sites and creation sites both.

To clarify, I am not arguing for strict 6,000 year-old rocks. When God created the earth, He created rocks with the appearance of age--He didn't create magma and wait for it to cool. I'm looking for a minor inaccuracy in surface rocks. Like the flat layers in the picture at the bottom of this page: http://www.noapologies.info/How-Do-You-Date-a-Rock-.php (I don't advocate anything else on the page.)

(June 14, 2012 at 8:25 pm)Undeceived Wrote: When God created the earth, He created rocks with the appearance of age--He didn't create magma and wait for it to cool. I'm looking for a minor inaccuracy in surface rocks. Like the flat layers in the picture at the bottom of this page: http://www.noapologies.info/How-Do-You-Date-a-Rock-.php (I don't advocate anything else on the page.)

Oh shut up you crazy bastard. Just shut up.

(June 14, 2012 at 8:40 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote:

(June 14, 2012 at 8:25 pm)Undeceived Wrote: When God created the earth, He created rocks with the appearance of age--He didn't create magma and wait for it to cool. I'm looking for a minor inaccuracy in surface rocks. Like the flat layers in the picture at the bottom of this page: http://www.noapologies.info/How-Do-You-Date-a-Rock-.php (I don't advocate anything else on the page.)

Oh shut up you crazy bastard. Just shut up.

I know, right!!

"When God created the earth, He created rocks with the appearance of age--He didn't create magma and wait for it to cool. I'm looking for a minor inaccuracy in surface rocks."

No, you're not. You're looking for cracks, by which I mean excuses. No matter how many times radiocarbon dating or evolution or any scientific process is explained to a creationist, the creationist will default to a heavy dose of goddiditism, and in so doing, somehow expect to be taken seriously.

(June 14, 2012 at 8:43 pm)Epimethean Wrote: No, you're not. You're looking for cracks, by which I mean excuses. No matter how many times radiocarbon dating or evolution or any scientific process is explained to a creationist, the creationist will default to a heavy dose of goddiditism, and in so doing, somehow expect to be taken seriously.

Explain to me why dinosaur fossils contain C-14, and then tell me who is making excuses.

(June 14, 2012 at 4:26 pm)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: From your third link:

" A strip of bedrock located in the eastern area of Canada’s Hudson Bay was discovered to have the oldest rocks on Earth, said scientists on Thursday. The rocks were formed about 4.28 billion years ago"


HERP A DERP DERP



PS: Your other two sources are YECCH-derp (read: "whacko") propaganda bullshit sites. Which means they are not sources at all.

BUMP




EVEN THE DODO CAN SEE IT'S STUPID.

One has to wonder how a world created 6000 years ago with the appearance of being 4.5 billion years old would appear differently from one naturally formed 4.5 billion years ago. Or created this morning, for that matter.

The answer of course is that it wouldn't - making goddidit a pretty fucking useless explanation.

(June 11, 2012 at 11:20 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: I humbly present the platypus. Natures weirdest Creature.

Platypus is not all that weird, having like all transition fossils traits normally considered characteristics of two relatively closely related evolutionary groups - true mammals, and its direct ancestors the mammal like reptiles.

Creationists are far more weird. They have traits characteristic of two groups so vastly different - the body and mouth of primates, and the brain of worms - it is scarcely credible that could survive their deformity.

Undeceived Wrote:When God created the earth, He created rocks with the appearance of age--He didn't create magma and wait for it to cool.

So when you call yourself 'undeceived' are you saying God hasn't deceived you yet? Even as a Christian I would have a hard time believing that God e.g. created the stars and light already on its way so that in 6 000 years it would reach us. That is deceitful...

(June 11, 2012 at 11:20 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: I humbly present the platypus. Natures weirdest Creature.

Oh, BTW, C14 is naturally present in trace amounts anything with nitrogen in its molecular structure that is buried in soil or rock containing trace amounts of uranium 238. That is to say virtually all soil or rocks on earth. Natural decay of Uranium supplies the neutron which which converts a nitrogen atom into a C14 atom.

The operative thing here is trace amounts, far too small to influence any C14 dating. If anything, the presence of additional C14 created by uranium decay makes the thing being dated look very slightly younger, not older. Even when there is too much C14 and the thing look younger than it actually is, it still look so old it makes the idiots who wrote the bible in the bronze age, much less the even dumber idiots who still believe the bible in the space age, stare.

So the totally deceived loud mouth with the brain of a worm that squawked above needn't get too excited about trace amounts of C14 in dinosaur bones.
But I trust he would nonetheless be unable to contain his idiot excitement and will be repeating the C14 thing with a moronically smug grin everywhere he goes anyway because:
1. He is stupid
2. and He is also dishonest enough to still be a christian.