The Definition of Real Science

[ChristB4us]

I did not find that verbiage at the site linked to. Can you correct either the verbiage or the link?

It was produced by the bing AI off to the side of the list of links. I do recall that it can produce error.

I tried to get the same search result but here is another one;

Look to the right for that Bing AI answer. < -----

"Radioactive decay is a first order reaction that does not depend on the concentration of the reactant. The rate of radioactive decay is not affected by factors that alter a typical chemical reaction, such as temperature, pressure, and other physical determinants. The only factor that affects the rate of radioactive decay is the half-life of the radioactive substance, which is a constant and cannot be changed1.

However, if a radioactive substance is contaminated with other substances, then the rate of decay can be affected indirectly. For example, if a radioactive substance is contaminated with lead or other heavy metals, then the decay rate can be affected because these metals can absorb some of the radiation produced by the decay process2.

I hope this helps! ~~~ end of quote.

Copying the quote has once again provided an automatic link for why I did not include the link to that search result but I did it this time.

However, what did you consider about that second link from that earlier post?

Getting back to the cause of the Biblical global flood; those asteroids hitting the moon & the earth would provide external radioactive contaminants.

Meteorites Reveal Radioactive Heating in Asteroids

"The authors identified three possible heat sources: solar radiation, impacts by other asteroids, and the decay of radioactive materials. Given the rapid formation of the calcite crystals, the authors concluded that radioactive decay is the most likely heat source for this asteroid; impact heating and solar heating occur intermittently or slowly over billions of years, while radioactive materials churn out heat for just a few million years." end of quote

Course, they are only speculating about how long the heat would churn out by this isolated find of a meteorite, but with the view of asteroids hitting the earth that would cause the fountains of the deep to rise up at the time of the Biblical global flood, those are your external contaminants that can affect determining that supposedly established rate of decay.

 

[Yttrium]

You know about the reservoir effect, right? Marine life absorbs carbon 14 at a less rate than living things on land.

You keep bringing this up, and it still has nothing to do with the half-lives of radioactive isotopes.

Now you throw in a catastrophic global flood that would create a variety of environment that effects the rate of decay, and so I ask you how reliable are those dating results now?

I'm not disputing that a catastrophic flood could affect carbon 14 measurements. Carbon dating is used on dead organisms, and it depends on the carbon cycle of the organism. This doesn't matter in other forms of radiometric dating. And a catastrophic flood is still not going to affect the half-lives of radioactive isotopes.

 

[ChristB4us]

You keep bringing this up, and it still has nothing to do with the half-lives of radioactive isotopes.

Yet they are doing the radiometric testing as if they are unaware of the reservoir effect.

I'm not disputing that a catastrophic flood could affect carbon 14 measurements. Carbon dating is used on dead organisms, and it depends on the carbon cycle of the organism. This doesn't matter in other forms of radiometric dating. And a catastrophic flood is still not going to affect the half-lives of radioactive isotopes.

By ignoring what have caused the global flood like asteroids... and radioactive contaminants from it can affect the assumed established rate of radioactive decay.

 

[Gus Bovona]

It was produced by the bing AI off to the side of the list of links. I do recall that it can produce error.

I tried to get the same search result but here is another one;

Look to the right for that Bing AI answer. < -----

"Radioactive decay is a first order reaction that does not depend on the concentration of the reactant. The rate of radioactive decay is not affected by factors that alter a typical chemical reaction, such as temperature, pressure, and other physical determinants. The only factor that affects the rate of radioactive decay is the half-life of the radioactive substance, which is a constant and cannot be changed1.

However, if a radioactive substance is contaminated with other substances, then the rate of decay can be affected indirectly. For example, if a radioactive substance is contaminated with lead or other heavy metals, then the decay rate can be affected because these metals can absorb some of the radiation produced by the decay process2.

I hope this helps! ~~~ end of quote.

Copying the quote has once again provided an automatic link for why I did not include the link to that search result but I did it this time.

I'm still not seeing what you're quoting, but I think it's OK to accept it even without the reference, as it does make a certain amount of sense. However, do you really imagine that scientists have not thought of that and have taken steps to control for it?

Precision is enhanced if measurements are taken on multiple samples from different locations of the rock body. Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron. This can reduce the problem of contamination. In uranium–lead dating, the concordia diagram is used which also decreases the problem of nuclide loss. Finally, correlation between different isotopic dating methods may be required to confirm the age of a sample. For example, the age of the Amitsoq gneisses from western Greenland was determined to be 3.60 ± 0.05 Ga (billion years ago) using uranium–lead dating and 3.56 ± 0.10 Ga (billion years ago) using lead–lead dating, results that are consistent with each other.

Source

 

[Gus Bovona]

Yet they are doing the radiometric testing as if they are unaware of the reservoir effect.

Can you show that scientists do radiometric testing in a way that doesn't recognize the reservoir effect?

 

[Sereni-tea]

Throw in the Biblical global flood, thus with contaminants from the upheaval & the deluge, then the constant rate of decay has been changed, yes? That is why you have conflicting dating results even with living marine life.

This is pure speculation on your part and doesn't match the scientific data.

 

[ChristB4us]

I'm still not seeing what you're quoting, but I think it's OK to accept it even without the reference, as it does make a certain amount of sense. However, do you really imagine that scientists have not thought of that and have taken steps to control for it?

Source

Can you cite those taken steps from that link at that source because I do not see how they can?

I mean once the crime scene is contaminated, good luck proving anything.

 

[ChristB4us]

Can you show that scientists do radiometric testing in a way that doesn't recognize the reservoir effect?

It would be better to try and find a report where they accounted for the reservoir effect and wonder why the other reports do not do the same when giving that report.

Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Effect

• Carbon 14 or radiocarbon is continually being formed in the atmosphere. Theoretically, the radiocarbon concentration in the atmosphere is the same in oceans and the biosphere through equilibrium.
• Due to marine reservoir effect, the radiocarbon content of terrestrial organisms is not the same as marine organisms.
• Marine reservoir effect correction factors for different oceans in the world have been established and recorded in a database.

Notice how the second comment opposes the first comment?

Anyway; an example of a newspaper article that does not explain how the land animal fossils found buried with marine fossils on the Andes mountaintops in that same sedimentary layer of that one smooth gradient. <--- To me; that is evidence of the Biblical global flood.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

They theorized that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea and they carried that line of bull to favor the evolution theory for other marine fossils found at other mountaintops at various places all over the world. It is this one that they never bothered to explain the land animal fossils as it demands that they acknowledge the reservoir effect to account for the different carbon dating between the two, especially being found buried together in a mass grave.

But like I say.. God has to show the truth to you of what the lying world does not want you to know. @Sereni-tea & @DialecticSkeptic

 

[Sereni-tea]

It would be better to try and find a report where they accounted for the reservoir effect and wonder why the other reports do not do the same when giving that report.

Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Effect


Notice how the second comment opposes the first comment?

Anyway; an example of a newspaper article that does not explain how the land animal fossils found buried with marine fossils on the Andes mountaintops in that same sedimentary layer of that one smooth gradient. <--- To me; that is evidence of the Biblical global flood.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

They theorized that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea and they carried that line of bull to favor the evolution theory for other marine fossils found at other mountaintops at various places all over the world. It is this one that they never bothered to explain the land animal fossils as it demands that they acknowledge the reservoir effect to account for the different carbon dating between the two, especially being found buried together in a mass grave.

But like I say.. God has to show the truth to you of what the lying world does not want you to know. @Sereni-tea & @DialecticSkeptic

It takes more than marine fossils on top of mountains to prove a worldwide flood.

 

[TB2]

Very true. And something that's also rarely pointed out is that denial of YEC flood geology is not a denial of the biblical Flood, but a denial of the YEC assumption that the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. Scripture doesn't actually teach that the fossil record is the result of Noah's Flood. That is an assumption. An assumption that is *not* supported by Scripture, in fact. See the thread "Why the Fossil Record Can't be Due to Noah's Flood"

 

[ChristB4us]

It takes more than marine fossils on top of mountains to prove a worldwide flood.

Buried TOGETHER with fossilized land animal bones in that same layer of sediment as they had described it as one smooth gradient?

That means that one smooth gradient that both fossils were found buried in by that same sedimentary layer is how they were both fossilized on that Andes mountaintops at that same time.

Luke 17:26-37 KJV Jesus validated the global flood & the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah to warn believers to be ready or else and so you either believe Him or you don't.

Thanks to him, I take His words over any lying two face man's word any day.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Can you cite those taken steps from that link at that source because I do not see how they can?

If I did, would you agree then?

I mean once the crime scene is contaminated, good luck proving anything.

Contaminated is not a black-and-white situation. If something falls into my cake batter that doesn't belong there, I don't have to throw out the batter each and every time, I can fish it out and keep on baking. If some foreign substance contaminates some material but the contaminant has no effect on radioactive decay, it doesn't matter. Your principle that "once the crime scene is contaminated, good luck proving anything," doesn't hold necessarily in every case.

 

[Gus Bovona]

It would be better to try and find a report where they accounted for the reservoir effect and wonder why the other reports do not do the same when giving that report.

Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Effect


Notice how the second comment opposes the first comment?

Anyway; an example of a newspaper article that does not explain how the land animal fossils found buried with marine fossils on the Andes mountaintops in that same sedimentary layer of that one smooth gradient. <--- To me; that is evidence of the Biblical global flood.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

They theorized that the mountains rose suddenly from the sea and they carried that line of bull to favor the evolution theory for other marine fossils found at other mountaintops at various places all over the world. It is this one that they never bothered to explain the land animal fossils as it demands that they acknowledge the reservoir effect to account for the different carbon dating between the two, especially being found buried together in a mass grave.

But like I say.. God has to show the truth to you of what the lying world does not want you to know. @Sereni-tea & @DialecticSkeptic

1. When you say "reservoir effect," do you mean this?

2. Does the reservoir effect apply to carbon dating, or radiometric dating, or both?

 

[TB2]

Buried TOGETHER with fossilized land animal bones in that same layer of sediment as they had described it as one smooth gradient?

That means that one smooth gradient that both fossils were found buried in by that same sedimentary layer is how they were both fossilized on that Andes mountaintops at that same time.

Luke 17:26-37 KJV Jesus validated the global flood & the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah to warn believers to be ready or else and so you either believe Him or you don't.

Thanks to him, I take His words over any lying two face man's word any day.

It's not the biblical Flood that's being questioned, but the assumption that the fossil record is the result of that Flood. Scripture doesn't actually say the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, nor does such a view fit with Scripture. See, "Why the Fossil Record Can't be Due to Noah's Flood"

 

[ChristB4us]

If I did, would you agree then?

Seeing how you confuse speculations, assumptions, and suppositions as facts, not really. I have to see how they presented it as relayed from you.

Contaminated is not a black-and-white situation. If something falls into my cake batter that doesn't belong there, I don't have to throw out the batter each and every time, I can fish it out and keep on baking. If some foreign substance contaminates some material but the contaminant has no effect on radioactive decay, it doesn't matter. Your principle that "once the crime scene is contaminated, good luck proving anything," doesn't hold necessarily in every case.

I had a little bit of mixed orange juice in a container left and did not have enough for breakfast and so added the new batch of condensed orange juice to it. Boy, it spoiled. Should have removed the little bit of juice, drank that, clean the container before mixing the new juice.

Since contaminants can be radioactive for how it can throw off radiometric dating, and science has been carbon dating living marine life with vast errant results as if they were dead; should prove enough to you that they can't do it with the fossils or any rock for that matter.

But if not, I am going to say that proves it enough for me.

 

[ChristB4us]

1. When you say "reservoir effect," do you mean this?

Here is a science site;

The freshwater reservoir effect in radiocarbon dating

"The marine reservoir effect is well-acknowledged among archaeologists, although the knee-jerk subtraction of 400 years from radiocarbon dates of marine samples might be too simplistic in some cases."

I would say whenever scientists are favoring the evolution theory and fitting their discovery to that time table, they will tend to be simplistic regardless.

2. Does the reservoir effect apply to carbon dating, or radiometric dating, or both?

I would see that as both. Don't you?

 

[TB2]

Seeing how you confuse speculations, assumptions, and suppositions as facts, not really. I have to see how they presented it as relayed from you.

I had a little bit of mixed orange juice in a container left and did not have enough for breakfast and so added the new batch of condensed orange juice to it. Boy, it spoiled. Should have removed the little bit of juice, drank that, clean the container before mixing the new juice.

Since contaminants can be radioactive for how it can throw off radiometric dating, and science has been carbon dating living marine life with vast errant results as if they were dead; should prove enough to you that they can't do it with the fossils or any rock for that matter.

But if not, I am going to say that proves it enough for me.

Seeing how you confuse speculations, assumptions, and suppositions as facts, not really. I have to see how they presented it as relayed from you.

I had a little bit of mixed orange juice in a container left and did not have enough for breakfast and so added the new batch of condensed orange juice to it. Boy, it spoiled. Should have removed the little bit of juice, drank that, clean the container before mixing the new juice.

Since contaminants can be radioactive for how it can throw off radiometric dating, and science has been carbon dating living marine life with vast errant results as if they were dead; should prove enough to you that they can't do it with the fossils or any rock for that matter.

But if not, I am going to say that proves it enough for me.

You keep focusing on radiocarbon dating, which is not used in paleontology, and geochronology, so all your criticisms of C-14 dating don't apply. Technology and radiometric dating methods today are highly refined, and sophisticated, and control for things like contamination. There are tests that can be done to determine whether or not a radioactive sample has been compromised by contamination. These common YEC criticisms are the same ones that have been circulating now for over 50 years. They are no longer valid criticisms. See, Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective

 

[ChristB4us]

It's not the biblical Flood that's being questioned, but the assumption that the fossil record is the result of that Flood. Scripture doesn't actually say the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, nor does such a view fit with Scripture. See, "Why the Fossil Record Can't be Due to Noah's Flood"

To address here also:

WHY THE FOSSIL RECORD CAN'T BE DUE TO NOAH'S FLOOD

• This is not an argument against the biblical Flood.

• This is an argument against the common assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood.

1. The Bible doesn't actually say that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. That is an assumption.

2. There are biblical reasons to question this assumption.

3. There are scientific reasons to question this assumption.

‐-----‐‐----------------------------------------------‐------------
*Here is a biblical reason to question the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah Flood:

1. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as two of the four rivers associated with the Garden of Eden before the Flood.

2. The Bible identifies the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers as still existing after the Flood.

3. But if the fossil record was the result of Noah's Flood, then the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers should no longer exist today, but should be buried underneath >5 miles of fossil record sediment.

View attachment 316

*Counterargument: The usual reply to this is that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers in Genesis 2 (Pre-Flood) are not the same rivers as the (Post-Flood) Tigris and Euphrates Rivers referenced later in Genesis.

Problems with this Counterargument: (1) There is nothing in Genesis to suggest that two entirely different rivers (with the same names) are being referred to. (2) Genesis 2 identifies the (Pre-Flood) Tigris River with reference to (Post-Flood) Asshur (ancient capital of Assyria). (3) It is a completely ad hoc counterargument only proposed in order to try to save the assumption that the fossil record is due to Noah's Flood. (4) The straightforward, literal understanding of Scripture that the Tigris & Euphrates Rivers are referring to the same rivers throughout Scripture (and not different rivers by the same name) was never questioned until recently in modern times, when oil drilling in the Middle East revealed that the Tigris & Euphrates are underlain by >5 miles of fossil record.

Problem here is that you have not addressed why the fossils are not due to the Biblical global flood but just sowing doubts to the global flood due to the continuing existence of the Tigris & Euphrates river.

If I say the Marianna trench was where all the water went to and closed off forever to never flood the earth again; and science has discovered an ocean near the core that is more like sediments as if that excess water carried off the debris and what not with it, and the direction of the carving of the Grand canyon by that excess water running off is clue also as heading towards the direction of the Marianna Trench; then who is to say that the global flood took all that would bury the Tigris & the Euphrates river away from there from burying it and other sites too?

Let's say there was a local but huge flood in that area today. Once the waters receded, would not the environment and the returning normal weather re-establish and continue those two rivers? So why not the same for a Biblical global flood that covered the mountains?

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA

Now address the fossils on that same mountaintop.

How can marine fossils and land animal fossils be buried together in that same sedimentary layer in that one smooth gradient by how they were both fossilized by, can exist unless they were runoffs from the receding waters from that global Biblical flood that covered the mountains?

 

[ChristB4us]

You keep focusing on radiocarbon dating, which is not used in paleontology, and geochronology, so all your criticisms of C-14 dating don't apply. Technology and radiometric dating methods today are highly refined, and sophisticated, and control for things like contamination. There are tests that can be done to determine whether or not a radioactive sample has been compromised by contamination. These common YEC criticisms are the same ones that have been circulating now for over 50 years. They are no longer valid criticisms. See, Radiometric Dating a Christian Perspective

Was there a rupture in the space time continuum? You quoted me twice the same quote!!! ah.. yes.. human error. I do get carried away with science fiction when I want to be funny.

Are you sure about "radiocarbon dating, which is not used in paleontology, and geochronology"?
radiocarbon dating used in paleontology, and geochronology

Below is the result from that Bing AI as presented to the right of that list of links from that search result. There is a disclaimer from this use as there may be errors.

"Radiocarbon dating is a technique used in paleontology and geochronology to estimate the age of organic materials. It is based on the fact that carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of carbon, decays over time at a known rate. By measuring the amount of carbon-14 remaining in a sample and comparing it to the initial amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, scientists can determine how long ago the sample was last alive1.

Geochronology is the science of determining the age of rocks, fossils, and sediments using signatures inherent in the rocks themselves. Radiocarbon dating is one of the methods used in geochronology2. " end of quote

I copied and pasted the comments and those links appeared after each of those two comments when I pasted it.

 

[TB2]

Was there a rupture in the space time continuum? You quoted me twice the same quote!!! ah.. yes.. human error. I do get carried away with science fiction when I want to be funny.

Are you sure about "radiocarbon dating, which is not used in paleontology, and geochronology"?
radiocarbon dating used in paleontology, and geochronology

Below is the result from that Bing AI as presented to the right of that list of links from that search result. There is a disclaimer from this use as there may be errors.

"Radiocarbon dating is a technique used in paleontology and geochronology to estimate the age of organic materials. It is based on the fact that carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of carbon, decays over time at a known rate. By measuring the amount of carbon-14 remaining in a sample and comparing it to the initial amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere, scientists can determine how long ago the sample was last alive1.

Geochronology is the science of determining the age of rocks, fossils, and sediments using signatures inherent in the rocks themselves. Radiocarbon dating is one of the methods used in geochronology2. " end of quote

I copied and pasted the comments and those links appeared after each of those two comments when I pasted it.

What I said is correct. Radiocarbon dating is *not* used in paleontology. I should know. I'm a paleontologist. The nat geo article you quoted/linked to is about archaeology. Archaeology and paleontology are not the same thing (unfortunately, because then I could don a fedora and bullwhip, lol). The half life of C-14 in 5,700 years. C-14 dating can only be used on organic material up to 50,000 years old.