Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Alawadhi

Who can close a #3 Ronnie Coleman style?

Recommended Posts

Mike Rinderle
5 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

Rindo, you are the best, man!

It's about time somone realized it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chez

I can’t believe this thread is still going 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Rinderle
12 minutes ago, Chez said:

I can’t believe this thread is still going 

It evolved and overcame.  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
16 minutes ago, Chez said:

I can’t believe this thread is still going 

I’m having a lot of fun with this one, Chez!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David_wigren
8 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

Oh yea? 4.5 billion years ago? They know this how? They weren’t there! Please don’t say carbon dating!!!  That is NOT ACCURATE!!  They have found things that carbon on one part of the fossil says it’s this amount of years and another part says something totally different and not for even close to the other !!!   They have NO WAY of truly knowing that!!! This is fun to watch people try and explain the unexplainable... with all their fancy book learnings and technology! 🤡🤡🤡

I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t use carbon dating on meteors. Carbon dating works better on organic material here on earth because the C12 to C14 ratio in the atmosphere is constant due to the sun rays interaction with nitrogen which forms C14 at a constant rate. Plants will absorb carbon and get the same C12-C14 ratio. This is then transferred over to animals that eat the plants, and animals that eat other animals etc. When they die, they will stop accumulating carbon from the air and C14 will decay to form C12. So this lets you date something by seeing how much C14 is left, since it always decays at the same rate.This is relatively reliable up untill a few million years, then it starts to be a bit shaky. It’s also a little controversial since there are three different types of plants - C3, C4 and CAM plants. And the problem comes from the fact that these plants absorb the C12 and C14 a little differently, so they’ll actually get different ratios. So depending on whether the animal had a diet of primarily C3 or C4 plants, their carbon ratios will be a little different. This however does not dispute the whole carbon dating thing completely. It just means that that if you can’t be certain of the diet of the animal, your prediction could be slightly off. Like, is the animal 100 thousands years old or 110 thousand years old? The prediction is still going to be pretty good. 

However after a few million years, there is not going to be much C14 left, no matter how much it started with. Luckily, carbon is just one of many different elements you can use. My guess is that they’re probably using some other element to date the meteors, like uranium or something. Maybe they even use several different elements just to be more certain? If you check like 5-10 different elements, and they all say 4.5 billion years. Then I’d assume it to be pretty accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Rinderle
5 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t use carbon dating on meteors. Carbon dating works better on organic material here on earth because the C12 to C14 ratio in the atmosphere is constant due to the sun rays interaction with nitrogen which forms C14 at a constant rate. Plants will absorb carbon and get the same C12-C14 ratio. This is then transferred over to animals that eat the plants, and animals that eat other animals etc. When they die, they will stop accumulating carbon from the air and C14 will decay to form C12. So this lets you date something by seeing how much C14 is left, since it always decays at the same rate.This is relatively reliable up untill a few million years, then it starts to be a bit shaky. It’s also a little controversial since there are three different types of plants - C3, C4 and CAM plants. And the problem comes from the fact that these plants absorb the C12 and C14 a little differently, so they’ll actually get different ratios. So depending on whether the animal had a diet of primarily C3 or C4 plants, their carbon ratios will be a little different. This however does not dispute the whole carbon dating thing completely. It just means that that if you can’t be certain of the diet of the animal, your prediction could be slightly off. Like, is the animal 100 thousands years old or 110 thousand years old? The prediction is still going to be pretty good. 

However after a few million years, there is not going to be much C14 left, no matter how much it started with. Luckily, carbon is just one of many different elements you can use. My guess is that they’re probably using some other element to date the meteors, like uranium or something. Maybe they even use several different elements just to be more certain? If you check like 5-10 different elements, and they all say 4.5 billion years. Then I’d assume it to be pretty accurate.

What if your diet consists of beer, baked beans, nachos, and double meat pizza?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David_wigren
10 minutes ago, Mike Rinderle said:

What if your diet consists of beer, baked beans, nachos, and double meat pizza?

Throw some corn in there and you’ll confuse the hell out of future scientists since wheat is a C3 plant and corn is a C4 plant (or the other way around, I can’t remember and I don’t care enough to google 😂)

Edited by David_wigren

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Rinderle
7 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t use carbon dating on meteors. Carbon dating works better on organic material here on earth because the C12 to C14 ratio in the atmosphere is constant due to the sun rays interaction with nitrogen which forms C14 at a constant rate. Plants will absorb carbon and get the same C12-C14 ratio. This is then transferred over to animals that eat the plants, and animals that eat other animals etc. When they die, they will stop accumulating carbon from the air and C14 will decay to form C12. So this lets you date something by seeing how much C14 is left, since it always decays at the same rate.This is relatively reliable up untill a few million years, then it starts to be a bit shaky. It’s also a little controversial since there are three different types of plants - C3, C4 and CAM plants. And the problem comes from the fact that these plants absorb the C12 and C14 a little differently, so they’ll actually get different ratios. So depending on whether the animal had a diet of primarily C3 or C4 plants, their carbon ratios will be a little different. This however does not dispute the whole carbon dating thing completely. It just means that that if you can’t be certain of the diet of the animal, your prediction could be slightly off. Like, is the animal 100 thousands years old or 110 thousand years old? The prediction is still going to be pretty good. 

However after a few million years, there is not going to be much C14 left, no matter how much it started with. Luckily, carbon is just one of many different elements you can use. My guess is that they’re probably using some other element to date the meteors, like uranium or something. Maybe they even use several different elements just to be more certain? If you check like 5-10 different elements, and they all say 4.5 billion years. Then I’d assume it to be pretty accurate.

Yea, RC Dating is fairly reliable out to a few million years if you make sure you account for any variables.  There are some conditions that can throw the results off, like was it ever in or near a fire, has it been handled a lot in non-sterile conditions, above ground nuclear testing added a large amount of C14 into the atmosphere making items seem artificially young, and burning fossil fuels depletes C14 from the atmosphere making things seem artificially older.

But, like David said, there are other elemental tests that can be run to sanity check the C14 data and give you a reasonable confidence in a loose date range.  That uncertainty range grows the older something is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
climber511

I have no way of proving that any of you actually exist - anyone could be on a keyboard somewhere - therefore  all of you are just a theory.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David_wigren
14 hours ago, Climber028 said:

He's right. Virtual particles are always popping into existence and vanishing, even around you right now. The net energy of a matter and anti matter particle is zero, so you go from zero to zero and back to zero again when they disappear. This is how we discovered black holes aren't eternal, this happens at the event horizon and we get hawking radiation. I'm not a scientist, but it's not a protected title in America so actually I am a scientist. 

This stuff is real fascinating. Of course, matter and antimatter of quarks and leptons are in fact poping in and out of existence all the time, everywhere. Even at the edge of the event horizon at black holes, like you mentioned. This isn’t going to impress someone like Joe S. Joe needs to see dirt magically appear in a video. But it would be interesting to know if it is actually something that can be controlled. Because then you should actually be able to produce dirt from nothing. Dirt is obviously just made up of different molecules, which are made from atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, which in turn are made of quarks and leptons. I wonder if it’s even possible for anything bigger than that to pop into existence. This is just pure speculation. I hardly know anything about this stuff. But since it’s all randomly driven. What if, at a random point and time, if you wait long enough, there is a threshold that gets reached, at which it cascades out of control and just violently vomit out an incredible amounts of particulate matter and antimatter, enough to feed a whole new universe. Maybe this is what happened during the big bang? Maybe it has happened an infinite number of times, and will happen an infinite numbef of times again. I mean, if it can happen on a small scale, why couldn’t it happen on a large scale? Unless of course there is some type of natural barrier to it. Who knows, this is just pure speculative guess work for the fun of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Rinderle
9 minutes ago, climber511 said:

I have no way of proving that any of you actually exist - anyone could be on a keyboard somewhere - therefore  all of you are just a theory.  :)

Some more than others.  😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David_wigren
10 minutes ago, climber511 said:

I have no way of proving that any of you actually exist - anyone could be on a keyboard somewhere - therefore  all of you are just a theory.  :)

I keyboard warrior - therefore I exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
climber511
4 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

I keyboard warrior - therefore I exist.

But are you David?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
5 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t use carbon dating on meteors. Carbon dating works better on organic material here on earth because the C12 to C14 ratio in the atmosphere is constant due to the sun rays interaction with nitrogen which forms C14 at a constant rate. Plants will absorb carbon and get the same C12-C14 ratio. This is then transferred over to animals that eat the plants, and animals that eat other animals etc. When they die, they will stop accumulating carbon from the air and C14 will decay to form C12. So this lets you date something by seeing how much C14 is left, since it always decays at the same rate.This is relatively reliable up untill a few million years, then it starts to be a bit shaky. It’s also a little controversial since there are three different types of plants - C3, C4 and CAM plants. And the problem comes from the fact that these plants absorb the C12 and C14 a little differently, so they’ll actually get different ratios. So depending on whether the animal had a diet of primarily C3 or C4 plants, their carbon ratios will be a little different. This however does not dispute the whole carbon dating thing completely. It just means that that if you can’t be certain of the diet of the animal, your prediction could be slightly off. Like, is the animal 100 thousands years old or 110 thousand years old? The prediction is still going to be pretty good. 

However after a few million years, there is not going to be much C14 left, no matter how much it started with. Luckily, carbon is just one of many different elements you can use. My guess is that they’re probably using some other element to date the meteors, like uranium or something. Maybe they even use several different elements just to be more certain? If you check like 5-10 different elements, and they all say 4.5 billion years. Then I’d assume it to be pretty accurate.

Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years, meaning that no C 14 should be detected in any sample that is believed to be about 100,000 years old. In fact, if a lump of c14 were as  massive as the earth, all of it would have decayed in LESS than 1,000,000 years. C14 is a huge problem for evolutionists. On C14 in coal, found in 2003 by the US Dept of energy and carefully stored in its coal bank samples, they were tested and going to be less than 1, 000,000 years old. This is HIGHLY problematic for evolutionists that want to teach that the earth is billions of years old or that they can ever even come to that conclusion at all. In an attempt to defend the paradigm of billions of years, some propose that the coal samples could have been contaminated by in Situ of migration of carbon 14 from the atmosphere to the coal seam, double capture of thermal neutrons provided by fission of uranium in the surrounding rock, or with contamination of modern carbon during the testing process. But, the only evidence they provide for such contamination is by appealing to how this data does not fit their paradigm of billions of years! And if the method is this prone to contamination, then it is hardly trustworthy to state how old the earth or other things truly are. The same rate project also found  radio carbon measurements in not just coal, but diamonds. Diamonds being primarily carbon and with atoms in  tightly packed crystal lattice, are quite impervious to contamination!!  Yet when these diamonds were tested, we once again find that carbon 14 was highly problematic for the evolutionis- since uniformitarian geology places the age of diamonds between 1-3 BILLION YEARS OLD....some evolutionists, knowing they can’t resort to the contamination in Situ card with diamonds, attempt to dismiss this major problem by appealing to  contamination by modern carbon during the testing process. But, once again, where is the evidence of such contamination?? It appears, yet again a convenient attempt to ignore the evidence provided because it does not fit their world view of a billions years old earth when the carbon tested on the diamonds was no more than 1,000,000 years old ( diamonds are said  to be 1-3 billion years old) huge discrepancy here!! Maybe Joe Kinney know why? The charge of contamination by modern carbon is even LESS likely when we take into consideration that modern laboratories are equipped with the latest technologies to PREVENT this from happening! The diamonds tested were 6 different diamonds from Namibia, South Africa, West Africa as well as 4 diamonds from 2 different mines in Botswana. Therefore is is NOT POSSIBLE to attribute the c14 in diamonds as a one time experiments error!! Neither can the findings be attributed to contamination by modern carbon since Dr. Baumgardner also accounted for the amount of modern carbon in all tested samples!! Radiocarbon is an evolutionists Achilles heal, so it appears!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Climber028
5 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

This stuff is real fascinating. Of course, matter and antimatter of quarks and leptons are in fact poping in and out of existence all the time, everywhere. Even at the edge of the event horizon at black holes, like you mentioned. This isn’t going to impress someone like Joe S. Joe needs to see dirt magically appear in a video. But it would be interesting to know if it is actually something that can be controlled. Because then you should actually be able to produce dirt from nothing. Dirt is obviously just made up of different molecules, which are made from atoms, which are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, which in turn are made of quarks and leptons. I wonder if it’s even possible for anything bigger than that to pop into existence. This is just pure speculation. I hardly know anything about this stuff. But since it’s all randomly driven. What if, at a random point and time, if you wait long enough, there is a threshold that gets reached, at which it cascades out of control and just violently vomit out an incredible amounts of particulate matter and antimatter, enough to feed a whole new universe. Maybe this is what happened during the big bang? Maybe it has happened an infinite number of times, and will happen an infinite numbef of times again. I mean, if it can happen on a small scale, why couldn’t it happen on a large scale? Unless of course there is some type of natural barrier to it. Who knows, this is just pure speculative guess work for the fun of it.

That's exactly how it works, anything is possible and you can calculate the probability which is dependent on the amount of energy contained in the virtual particles. Anything on the macro level likely has such a low probability that the lifetime of the universe isn't long enough for it to happen. Similar probabilities to something like grinding the handles on a #4 in a dark room

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikael Siversson
1 hour ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

Oh yea? 4.5 billion years ago? They know this how? They weren’t there! Please don’t say carbon dating!!!  That is NOT ACCURATE!!  They have found things that carbon on one part of the fossil says it’s this amount of years and another part says something totally different and not for even close to the other !!!   They have NO WAY of truly knowing that!!! This is fun to watch people try and explain the unexplainable... with all their fancy book learnings and technology! 🤡🤡🤡

Ehh no they would use a long lived parent isotope, like Potassium 40 or Uranium 238. Carbon dating is only good up to 50,000 years or thereabouts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Just now, Mikael Siversson said:

Ehh no they would use a long lived parent isotope, like Potassium 40 or Uranium 238. Carbon dating is only good up to 50,000 years or thereabouts. 

YESSSSSSSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It’s been fun, y’all! I’m taking a break from all this fun! Enjoy the awesome weather! 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike Rinderle
10 minutes ago, Climber028 said:

That's exactly how it works, anything is possible and you can calculate the probability which is dependent on the amount of energy contained in the virtual particles. Anything on the macro level likely has such a low probability that the lifetime of the universe isn't long enough for it to happen. Similar probabilities to something like grinding the handles on a #4 in a dark room

Top post of the thread.  I have no likes to give or that would have gotten 10.

Edited by Mike Rinderle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
climber511

I kind of remember some movie (Men in Black maybe) where it showed us (earth) as this little marble being played with by bigger aliens in an ever increasing sized universe - kind of reminds me of this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shoggoth

First thing I thought of this morning along with TLDR

 

 

1F07B8D6-8688-405E-8077-15F898C7F3E6.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David_wigren
39 minutes ago, Joseph Sullivan said:

Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years, meaning that no C 14 should be detected in any sample that is believed to be about 100,000 years old. In fact, if a lump of c14 were as  massive as the earth, all of it would have decayed in LESS than 1,000,000 years. C14 is a huge problem for evolutionists. On C14 in coal, found in 2003 by the US Dept of energy and carefully stored in its coal bank samples, they were tested and going to be less than 1, 000,000 years old. This is HIGHLY problematic for evolutionists that want to teach that the earth is billions of years old or that they can ever even come to that conclusion at all. In an attempt to defend the paradigm of billions of years, some propose that the coal samples could have been contaminated by in Situ of migration of carbon 14 from the atmosphere to the coal seam, double capture of thermal neutrons provided by fission of uranium in the surrounding rock, or with contamination of modern carbon during the testing process. But, the only evidence they provide for such contamination is by appealing to how this data does not fit their paradigm of billions of years! And if the method is this prone to contamination, then it is hardly trustworthy to state how old the earth or other things truly are. The same rate project also found  radio carbon measurements in not just coal, but diamonds. Diamonds being primarily carbon and with atoms in  tightly packed crystal lattice, are quite impervious to contamination!!  Yet when these diamonds were tested, we once again find that carbon 14 was highly problematic for the evolutionis- since uniformitarian geology places the age of diamonds between 1-3 BILLION YEARS OLD....some evolutionists, knowing they can’t resort to the contamination in Situ card with diamonds, attempt to dismiss this major problem by appealing to  contamination by modern carbon during the testing process. But, once again, where is the evidence of such contamination?? It appears, yet again a convenient attempt to ignore the evidence provided because it does not fit their world view of a billions years old earth when the carbon tested on the diamonds was no more than 1,000,000 years old ( diamonds are said  to be 1-3 billion years old) huge discrepancy here!! Maybe Joe Kinney know why? The charge of contamination by modern carbon is even LESS likely when we take into consideration that modern laboratories are equipped with the latest technologies to PREVENT this from happening! The diamonds tested were 6 different diamonds from Namibia, South Africa, West Africa as well as 4 diamonds from 2 different mines in Botswana. Therefore is is NOT POSSIBLE to attribute the c14 in diamonds as a one time experiments error!! Neither can the findings be attributed to contamination by modern carbon since Dr. Baumgardner also accounted for the amount of modern carbon in all tested samples!! Radiocarbon is an evolutionists Achilles heal, so it appears!

What does “evolutionist” mean? Are you saying that you don’t believe in evolution? I have seen evolution with my own eyes. In fact it’s a problem I had to deal with in an earlier project I was involved in. Although I’m sure you’d call it micro evolution. Even though there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There is just evolution over different periods of time.

I’ve also created water from “not water” many times. I deal with it on a weekly basis since it interrupts my work during sample extraction. Or maybe it wasn’t water. Maybe it was some new impossible molecule that just happens to have the exact same molecular weight and chemical properties as water. 

I don’t understand why some religious types in the US are denying such overwhelming evidence just to protect their own religious beliefs. There really is no conflict between science and religion. I know at least one of my coworkers who are extremely religious. Has mother mary on the background on his laptop. Plays piano for the church. But he still knows evolution to be true.

BTW I am hella jealous of your sledge levers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
25 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

What does “evolutionist” mean? Are you saying that you don’t believe in evolution? I have seen evolution with my own eyes. In fact it’s a problem I had to deal with in an earlier project I was involved in. Although I’m sure you’d call it micro evolution. Even though there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There is just evolution over different periods of time.

I’ve also created water from “not water” many times. I deal with it on a weekly basis since it interrupts my work during sample extraction. Or maybe it wasn’t water. Maybe it was some new impossible molecule that just happens to have the exact same molecular weight and chemical properties as water. 

I don’t understand why some religious types in the US are denying such overwhelming evidence just to protect their own religious beliefs. There really is no conflict between science and religion. I know at least one of my coworkers who are extremely religious. Has mother mary on the background on his laptop. Plays piano for the church. But he still knows evolution to be true.

BTW I am hella jealous of your sledge levers!

There are many different kinds of evolution, and no, I do not believe in Macro evolution at all.... and “religious types”?? Your beliefs are just as much a religion as believing in God. You believe you came from nothing that miraculously exploded into something that was a rock that was rained on for millions of years, that miraculously became some cells, that miraculously became a fish, then an amphibious creature, then a monkey and now you? Takes more faith to believe that fairy tale if you ask me. So, macro evolution? Not a chance!!! Micro evolution? Or adaptive changes? Absolutely believe that. No dispute there at all!!

 There is zero proof of one animal transitioning into another (macro) Nothing! A cat is still a cat. A dog is still a dog, and a man is and always has been a man. Monkeys are still here. Who forgot to tell them to evolve or be extinct?? And please don’t call the DNA shot or say common ancestry , we have just as much in common with mold and a sun flower as we do with a monkey as far as DNA is concerned !!! Were you once a flower or mold? Nope! This, just shows a common design and pattern. DNA alone proves an intelligent creator, with the information that is in one cell being greater than the information in all of your smart phone. Information from a mindless process? Information placed there by  a random mindless process? Like a computer building itself with no programmer? If someone told you your computer and it’s information contained therein came from a mindless without a designer process, you would call for that person to be put in a straight jacket!!! But your body? The most perfect machine in existence came from nothing without a designer?? And that all other creatures as well came by chance? AND a female and male was also randomly formed to procreate more of the same creature? And they both happened to come across each other in this mindless evolutionary process??? On an earth that’s 24,000 miles around??! Sounds pretty fantastic??? So, how about the intricate Systems of the body? Take the circulatory System for example, the heart and the lungs and the vessels, which came first? Each needs the other to operate, and all of them could not have developed at the same time and operated correctly! One couldn’t have been without the other just like your computer cannot run without all of its parts together! Come on man... your belief in this is just as much a religion as believing a creator of all things did it. You just have a hard time admitting that this is faith and not fact! Believe what you like... has no affect on me... but for anyone to claim that it is fact and not faith is lying to themselves. I believe God did it and you believe nothing did it.... God speed, David!!

By the way, believing God did it and is the creator is not being “religious”. Man has poisoned the truth of God with religion by adding to His word . Your friend having Mary on a computer screen does not mean a thing. Mary is not God.... and not to be worshipped. Only the creator is. You can worship science and I will worship my creator. It’s a choice. But to say you know for certain what you or they say is true is to say that you know all and are God. Only God knows all, Dave! 😉

I could care less if I get ridiculed or looked down on by any of you. I would rather be in   Gods favor than fallen mans favor. I’m actually surprised this thread has not been deleted yet. I Stand for God, David. Macro Evolution and God are not compatible. You have your religion and I have mine. 😉

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
47 minutes ago, David_wigren said:

What does “evolutionist” mean? Are you saying that you don’t believe in evolution? I have seen evolution with my own eyes. In fact it’s a problem I had to deal with in an earlier project I was involved in. Although I’m sure you’d call it micro evolution. Even though there is no such thing as micro or macro evolution. There is just evolution over different periods of time.

I’ve also created water from “not water” many times. I deal with it on a weekly basis since it interrupts my work during sample extraction. Or maybe it wasn’t water. Maybe it was some new impossible molecule that just happens to have the exact same molecular weight and chemical properties as water. 

I don’t understand why some religious types in the US are denying such overwhelming evidence just to protect their own religious beliefs. There really is no conflict between science and religion. I know at least one of my coworkers who are extremely religious. Has mother mary on the background on his laptop. Plays piano for the church. But he still knows evolution to be true.

BTW I am hella jealous of your sledge levers!

And you created nothing without existing materials, David! You did not create anything without having the building blocks for that material. The materials are here and cannot be “made” by man. Only copied!!! The question of the day, that you cannot answer, is, where these original created materials came from! 😉..... I’m done now. Believe what you like, just admit you don’t really know! Know one does! 

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Viceversus
2 hours ago, Mike Rinderle said:

It evolved and overcame.  

Rib-tickling, 5 stars, '' A hoot''

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy policies.