|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 07/23/2004 : 12:16:28 [Permalink]
|
| [Cut-and-paste from the Talk.Origins Archive (without further comment) deleted due to copyright concerns - Dave W.] |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 16:00:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
quote:
Since 1945 however, the natural occurance of Carbon isotopes is somewhat disorganized. Remember Hiroshima? And all nuclear tests afterward did their bit of shuffling as well.
All radiocarbon dating on organic material that has lived beyond the year 1950 is therefore useless.
Maybe its just the skeptic in me, but I don't think that a few localized blast from nukes could disrupt carbond isotopes all over the world. Just doesn't sound right. Then again I'm no expert on carbon.
We're not talking about a few bombs here. We're talking about tests of a considerable amount of atom bombs since the 1940's by America, Russia and France (and probably some more countries). Next to this, carbon emissions also seem to have their effect since the industrial revolution (known as the suess-effect), although their effects seem to be swamped out by the effects of the atom bomb testing. See here and here for some bite-sized information. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 16:21:17 [Permalink]
|
| For some additional information. According to this site, the US alone is responsible for some 1030 nuclear weapons tests alone. Haven't found anything about the scale of these tests, but I think it is safe to assume that quite a number of them probably were pretty impressive. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 19:47:35 [Permalink]
|
| I think the large majority of the US tests were conducted underground. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 07/23/2004 : 22:49:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I think the large majority of the US tests were conducted underground.
But even then I'd figure they needed some kind of outlet. Don't know enough about it though. They did do some pretty large tests on different atols, as did France. Russia I don't know anything about, but considering their track record on other things environmental/health related issues, I'd say they won't be winning an award for carefull testing. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2004 : 19:48:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Even still, what the claim is saying that all organic material globally has had their carbon isotopes screwed up because of these bombs. That just doesn't sound right. Right?
It took me a while to find a source which adequately explains it, but this one might give a good answer.
First, C14 is formed in an explosion by reactions of a neutron with nitrogen by:
N-14 + neutron -> C-14 + proton.
The last post of the article gives an estimate of the amount of C14 released:
quote:
Carbon-14 is also a weak beta emitter (156 KeV, no gamma), with a half-life of 5730 years (4.46 Ci/g). Atmospheric testing during the fifties and early sixties produced about 3.4 g of C-14 per kiloton (15.2 curies) for a total release of 1.75 tonnes (7.75x10^6 curies). For comparison, only about 1.2 tonnes of C-14 naturally exists, divided between the atmosphere (1 tonne) and living matter (0.2 tonne). Another 50-80 tonnes is dissolved in the oceans. Due to carbon exchange between the atmosphere and oceans, the half-life of C-14 residing in the atmosphere is only about 6 years. By now the atmospheric concentration has returned to within 1% or so of normal. High levels of C-14 remain in organic material formed during the sixties (in wood, say, or DNA).
So, during the 50's and 60's atmospheric testing produced an amount of C14 larger then the amount estimated in the atmosphere. Since this C14 has since then decayed or has been captured in organic material, nowadays, the amount of C14 is again around it's normal values.
edited to fix quotes |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 07/24/2004 19:49:17 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2004 : 21:10:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
High levels of C-14 remain in organic material formed during the sixties (in wood, say, or DNA).
Cool, so I should have higher levels of C-14 than somebody born in the 80's? hehe |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Antie
Skeptic Friend
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2004 : 05:46:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Do you also doubt the Theory of Gravity?
Unfortunately, a common creationist response to this is "Gravity is a LAW, but evolution is a THEORY!" 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
2. Who says we can't? There are several dozen examples of speciation occuring in the last 100 years or so.
If you tell a creationist that, he or she is likely to shift the goal posts. "Show this is true." You bring in evidence. "Okay... but show this other thing is true." You bring in more evidence. "Well, okay... but show this other thing is true. You bring in more evidence... and so on. |
Antie. DIES GAUDII.
Facies Fabulosarum Feminarum
If you can name all six of the females in the picture above without looking up their names, and you can read the Latin phrase, pat yourself on the back. You're smart. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 15:17:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by gezzam
quote:
Yeah women these days wanted independence from taking care of a family, making a man happy, and keeping a home tidy and clean for the welfare of her home!!!
Now days a woman wants to pay 15% of the bills, and have the husband do 60% of the house work, work twice as hard at a career, and pay 85% of the bills....
You know Verlch, my wife is pregnant at the moment and I do 90 percent of the housework, as well as go to work, walk the dog and all the other things required.....and boy is her libido up at the moment... 
Anyway, this is what I do because whilst you might want to keep your wife barefoot and pregnant in front of the stove, I want to make sure my baby has the best start in life and a stressed out mum isn't going to help. I love my wife and my future child......if that means working hard to provide for her and make her life easy, then so be it.
No wonder in previous posts you said you have been divorced and 85 percent on the way to another, I'd bitchslap you outta my house as well.
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 15:21:24 [Permalink]
|
| Can we call you a metrosexual there pal!!!! Prepare to change the diapers...have the baby handed to you in front of your friends will you get a snotty, 'it's your turn'!!! Enjoy and then roll the dice and 50% of women will own your house and you'll be paying them money in the end!!!! You must have a pencil pushing job no???? |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2004 : 15:24:45 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by PolarBear
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why does this thread exist? It seems to me that Verlch's assertions have been throughly examined and debunked...
How so??? You still can't prove evolution!!! You can't watch evolution happen in the last 500 million years because fossilzed animals have never changed!!!
|
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
