Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by IceAgeCivilizations, Dec 18, 2006.
Not at all.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Go to the website, just ad dot com.
Why are you so adamantly opposed to using reason in your arguments? What are you trying to accomplish here? You have an agenda. Were you tasked with this by your cult leaders? I'm serious. How else can you explain what is a blatant disregard for reasoned argument?
There's intrinsic C14 in organic material from supposedly millions of years ago, which proves that it's actually only thousands of years old, so let's see a "reasoned argument" against that, or will you treat it with "blatant disregard?"
Ok. First thing. We posted links that explain the presence of C14 in these materials. Why do you not accept these explanations?
No way to move on without sorting this out.
I've referred to studies where the C14 is admitted to be intrinsic.
And Skinwalker explained how the paper you cited was nothing of the sort.
I encourage all students to ask for C14 tests on organic deposits which are advertised to be millions of years old.
Plenty of C14 in coal, oil, diamonds, shells, everything organic, which indicates they were deposited only thousands of years ago, wow, what will they say down at Burger King, nex?
You apparently have an agenda (book sales) that requires you to accept only "results" that support your position. Makes perfect sense. But do you really believe you are making an honest effort to find the truth of the matter as best you can?
You can't even come up with your own insults. That's just sad.
By the way, I wonder if a Whopper with Cheese has ever been carbon dated?
And, by the way, nothing to say about Skinwalker's statement about the irrelevancy of your citation?
It's completely pointless to even talk to you. It's like you're not even there.
Why do mainstream scientists throw out date results which don't comport with the chronology of their model?
No. The C14 is not "intrinsic". As in "not incorporated at its time of formation". Read the papers. Why don't you address and refute the C14 formation mechanism of surrounding radioactives?
How was that?
Intrinsic is the word used in the report.
How was what.
Can you quote a part of any of the links we posted (parts that you disagree with) and refute it with logic and reason and counter evifdence?
Didn't even read them, did you?
Separate names with a comma.