There goes the god theory.

[Boris Norris]

Radioactive dating is not irrefutable and certain assumptions involved in the dating process are still assumptions, not proven facts.

Show the evidence where carbon dating is assumptions and instances, proven by science, to be unreliable.

Can you also show your evidence that God produced it all.

 

[mark francis]

Show the evidence where carbon dating is assumptions and instances, proven by science, to be unreliable.

Can you also show your evidence that God produced it all.

THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING - QCCSA.org

A Summary of the Million Dollar RATE Research Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) Introduction: Rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them. In fact, the very concept of strata representing long ages does not come from the rock strata themselves. That concept began with...

qccsa.org

Since the early 20th century, Radioisotope dating has been used to bolster the vast time spans ascribed to the geologic record. However, research by geologist John Woodmorappe (a pen name) revealed that the radiometric methods used today were actually hand-picked to coincide with the dates previously assumed for the geologic column diagrams. These dating methods rely on a series of assumptions about the amounts of the parent-daughter elements, and a constant rate of decay. Radioisotope dating, using the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the rock, was quickly accepted as proof the earth is millions and millions of years old. So what does radiometric dating really do? How does it work

 

[Tripoli]

Show the evidence where carbon dating is assumptions and instances, proven by science, to be unreliable.

Can you also show your evidence that God produced it all.

Hey retard, there is no way to carbon date a billion or more year old rock, so carbon dating such things is not unreliable its impossible

Try again little girl

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

"Discovery" is a rather broad term when applied to actual irrefutable "detection" of an invisible particle beset with problematic assessments.

What a completely meaningless and useless word salad. Just admit you don't know anything about any of this and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

True, the Sun can be and is younger than the stellar materials that formed it, and as for the Sun forming materials, it does not. But if you can get a good photo of the UFO's coming out of the Sun you can win a noel prize instead of being a failed shrinky with a fully wasted PhD

PS. The Sun is formed from materials that are 13/14 billion years old

Silly shrinky

Now break up into little groups and decide the best way to boost my confidence by humiliating yourself further

If you had just said you don't know anything about any of this, you post would have been the same, but shorter.

The sun formed from the same spinning ball of material that formed everything in the solar system.

And scientists have dated it all within a margin of error of 1%.

 

[Tripoli]

If you had just said you don't know anything about any of this, you post would have been the same, but shorter.

The sun formed from the same spinning ball of material that formed everything in the solar system.

And scientists have dated it all within a margin of error of 1%.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. The same scientist said that nothing escapes a black hole, then they said we fucked up as black holes evaporate via Hawking radiation. You just believe anything that Brian Cox the youtoob idiot says

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

The same scientist said that nothing escapes a black hole, then they said we fucked up as black holes evaporate via Hawking radiation.

Those things are both correct. "Things" don't escape black holes.

The information from a black hole can be constructed from Hawking radiation, the observable portion of which originates as particles just outside the event horizon.

When you don't understand something scientists say, your FIRST thought should be that you are ignorant and don't know what the hell you are talking about.

That's free advice you don't deserve.

 

[Boris Norris]

THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING - QCCSA.org

A Summary of the Million Dollar RATE Research Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) Introduction: Rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them. In fact, the very concept of strata representing long ages does not come from the rock strata themselves. That concept began with...

qccsa.org

Since the early 20th century, Radioisotope dating has been used to bolster the vast time spans ascribed to the geologic record. However, research by geologist John Woodmorappe (a pen name) revealed that the radiometric methods used today were actually hand-picked to coincide with the dates previously assumed for the geologic column diagrams. These dating methods rely on a series of assumptions about the amounts of the parent-daughter elements, and a constant rate of decay. Radioisotope dating, using the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the rock, was quickly accepted as proof the earth is millions and millions of years old. So what does radiometric dating really do? How does it work

Creation science?? A religion connected guide for godbotherers is refuting science?
That'll make headlines.

 

[Chauncey Gardner]

THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING - QCCSA.org

A Summary of the Million Dollar RATE Research Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) Introduction: Rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them. In fact, the very concept of strata representing long ages does not come from the rock strata themselves. That concept began with...

qccsa.org

Since the early 20th century, Radioisotope dating has been used to bolster the vast time spans ascribed to the geologic record. However, research by geologist John Woodmorappe (a pen name) revealed that the radiometric methods used today were actually hand-picked to coincide with the dates previously assumed for the geologic column diagrams. These dating methods rely on a series of assumptions about the amounts of the parent-daughter elements, and a constant rate of decay. Radioisotope dating, using the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the rock, was quickly accepted as proof the earth is millions and millions of years old. So what does radiometric dating really do? How does it work

There is no such thing as creation science.

Those paid liars don't actually do any scientific research.

They sit around and write articles meant to fool gullible and deluded people.

They know their audience.

 

[pjmret]

THE END of LONG AGE RADIOMETRIC DATING - QCCSA.org

A Summary of the Million Dollar RATE Research Project (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) Introduction: Rocks and fossils do not come with dates on them. In fact, the very concept of strata representing long ages does not come from the rock strata themselves. That concept began with...

qccsa.org

Since the early 20th century, Radioisotope dating has been used to bolster the vast time spans ascribed to the geologic record. However, research by geologist John Woodmorappe (a pen name) revealed that the radiometric methods used today were actually hand-picked to coincide with the dates previously assumed for the geologic column diagrams. These dating methods rely on a series of assumptions about the amounts of the parent-daughter elements, and a constant rate of decay. Radioisotope dating, using the trace amounts of radioactive elements within the rock, was quickly accepted as proof the earth is millions and millions of years old. So what does radiometric dating really do? How does it work

Creation science article? Lol
Not peer reviewed

 

[Tripoli]

Those things are both correct. "Things" don't escape black holes.

The information from a black hole can be constructed from Hawking radiation, the observable portion of which originates as particles just outside the event horizon.

When you don't understand something scientists say, your FIRST thought should be that you are ignorant and don't know what the hell you are talking about.

That's free advice you don't deserve.

If nothing can escape a black hole, that would include Hawking radiation, which is clearly something. So all of your youtoob heroes are retards

130 vs 85

 

[pjmret]

If nothing can escape a black hole, that would include Hawking radiation, which is clearly something. So all of your youtoob heroes are retards

130 vs 85

Hawkingb radiation escapes froma black hole?
Proof?

particles escape from just outside the event horizon, this means they don’t have to travel at the speed of light - just slightly slower. This creates a faint glow of particle

From just outside the event horizon

 

[Tripoli]

Hawkingb radiation escapes froma black hole?
Proof?

particles escape from just outside the event horizon, this means they don’t have to travel at the speed of light - just slightly slower. This creates a faint glow of particle

From just outside the event horizon

Due to Hawking radiation, black holes will eventually evaporate, but the event horizon is not as crucial as has been believed. Gravity and the curvature of spacetime cause this radiation too. This means that all large objects in the universe, like the remnants of stars, will eventually evaporate.

Using a clever combination of quantum physics and Einstein’s theory of gravity, Stephen Hawking argued that the spontaneous creation and annihilation of pairs of particles must occur near the event horizon (the point beyond which there is no escape from the gravitational force of a black hole). A particle and its anti-particle are created very briefly from the quantum field, after which they immediately annihilate. But sometimes a particle falls into the black hole, and then the other particle can escape: Hawking radiation. According to Hawking, this would eventually result in the evaporation of black holes.

Spiral​

In this new study the researchers at Radboud University revisited this process and investigated whether or not the presence of an event horizon is indeed crucial. They combined techniques from physics, astronomy and mathematics to examine what happens if such pairs of particles are created in the surroundings of black holes. The study showed that new particles can also be created far beyond this horizon. Michael Wondrak: ‘We demonstrate that, in addition to the well-known Hawking radiation, there is also a new form of radiation.’

Everything evaporates​

Van Suijlekom: ‘We show that far beyond a black hole the curvature of spacetime plays a big role in creating radiation. The particles are already separated there by the tidal forces of the gravitational field.’ Whereas it was previously thought that no radiation was possible without the event horizon, this study shows that this horizon is not necessary.
Falcke: ‘That means that objects without an event horizon, such as the remnants of dead stars and other large objects in the universe, also have this sort of radiation. And, after a very long period, that would lead to everything in the universe eventually evaporating, just like black holes. This changes not only our understanding of Hawking radiation but also our view of the universe and its future.

 

[mark francis]

Creation science?? A religion connected guide for godbotherers is refuting science?
That'll make headlines.

Your mockery of scientific reports by organizations you do not approve of would be more persuasive if you only could disprove what is reported.

 

[mark francis]

There is no such thing as creation science.

Those paid liars don't actually do any scientific research.

They sit around and write articles meant to fool gullible and deluded people.

They know their audience.

I will believe the scientific reports that make the most sense and seem the most irreprovable.