The pseudos of science explained

[Job 33:6]

If you believe that radiocarbon dating can prove millions of years then please show the evidence of this from a QA/QC data report by an independent source.
Thank you and merry Christmas

Sure, I'll gather some papers for you and will return shortly. And I'll explain them to you as well.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Sure, I'll gather some papers for you and will return shortly. And I'll explain them to you as well.

I will be happy to deny them for you as well my friend, on the basis that a pseudo scientific secular industry cannot yield true results in favor of pure naturalism, because the origin of many things cannot be explained away by natural circumstances...Like the origin of instructions for example.
So I will take a look at your paper from the report you find, but...! You will first have to provide me with what I require, which is a simple demonstration of how instructions can form naturally.
And I do not care how many times you repeat yourself, it will prove nothing until the origin of instructions has been explained, otherwise, you cannot give an instruction to direct me to the cause of genetic instructions, whatsoever.

And I already understand the principles of the radio isotope dating methods and carbon dating methods...So no need to act like you're in possession of something I'm not aware of in terms of proof. Because, the half life of c14 is 5730 years, which means that there isn't a hope of fossils being dated as older than about 5500 years with carbon dating. So my challenge was actually a trick question...In case you didn't realize this.
And I already understand that you have a naturalistic interpretation of what radioisotopes are, but the problem is that radioisotopes such as Po-214 which does not last for more than 163.7 microseconds, (which is the half life of Po-214) cannot prove millions of years because polonium halos show the earliest rock layers did not form slowly but rapidly, which debunks the theory of radio isotope dating, as much of the isotope is lost in the process very rapidly, so what this means is that polonium halos prove that rock layers formed rapidly as well.
Merry Christmas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Creation science website
Furthermore, what does the existence of these polonium halos mean? Because polonium has such a fleeting existence, the polonium halos must have formed very rapidly, in only hours or days!
Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, Institute for Creation Research, California, and Creation Research Society, Missouri, pp. 101–207, 2005.">7 So there had to be a source of abundant polonium close by to create the radiocentres. Otherwise the polonium halos would not have formed.

If uranium decayed at such a super-fast rate, the other radioactive elements decayed much faster too. However, the radioactive methods used to ‘date’ rocks as billions of years old assume that radioactive decay rates have always been the same as what we measure today. Thus, the polonium halos are solid evidence that rocks ‘dated’ at billions of years old by the radioactive methods are in fact only a few thousand years old!

Radiohalos can only form after the granites hosting them have solidified and cooled.Geophysical Research Letters 8(5):501–504, 1981.">8 So the radioactive decay of uranium, which generated the polonium, had to commence as soon as the granites started to solidify, and continue until the polonium halos had formed. It is usually claimed that granites take millions of years to solidify and cool. However, if that were true, there would be no polonium halos in the granites today. In such a long time, all the uranium and polonium would have decayed away. Therefore, polonium halos mean that the granites solidified and cooled in just 6 to 10 days!

 

[Job 33:6]

Alright, so let's get down to it. You already yielded the microphone over to me after not being able to provide data, so I'll go ahead and take my turn now and will overlook your post which is absenct of QA/QC data.

I'll go through a series of papers but here is a good place to start.

Ar40/Ar39 Age Spectra and Total Fusion Ages of Tektites from Cretaceous Tertiary Boundary Sedimentary Rocks in the Beloc Formation, Haiti. It's published in the US Geological Survey Bulletin 2065 by G. Brent Dalrymple et al. 1993.

So, the article is available via open access. Anyone can just Google it and can bring it right up and can read along. So let's start with the abstract.

 

[Job 33:6]

So what do we see in the abstract? Up front we see it noted that 52 samples were analysed from Haiti, taken from the K-T boundary. And they yielded a mean age of 64.4 million years.

What's important here is that it wasn't just one or two samples. It wasn't just 1 bone, or 1 rock. It was 52 independent samples.

So this is called duplication and repeatability. It demonstrates that the tools of measurement are recording a result with consistency. Sample after sample after sample after sample after sample, ad infinitum.

The abstract further reads, "two age spectra obtained using a resistance furnace system on bulk samples of 50-70 of the tektites...have a mean age of 64.49 million years".

So what's important here is that, the author is describing a switch in analytical machinery. They've swapped from continuous laser system to resistance furnace system. And they've analysed bulk samples of some 50-70 tektites. Again, repeatability, sample duplication, only this time, they're running a completely different analytical tool just to make a point that it isn't the machine giving a false result but rather both machines are yielding results indicative of the nature of the sample itself.

And this basically serves as a means of corroboration. If you run hundreds of duplicated samples and you run them through different machines, and they kick out the same concentrations of isotopes over and over and over and over and over again, you've then demonstrated that the analysis is providing results that are representative of a sample and aren't false positives.

But there's more...

The abstract further reads:
Sanidine and two bentonites...in Montana....was also dated with the laser system and gives a weighted mean of 64.77 million years.

So basically, the team collected samples from a different country of the same layer, and ran those samples and the results came out practically the same.

Further demonstrating that the result is an accurate depiction of the quality of the rock and not any form of false positive result.

So that's just the abstract, the article further discussed that the various machines were actually ran by different teams of scientists in different laboratories, meaning that these laboratories further independently reached their result.

And this is just one article of thousands of teams that do this on a routine basis. People are running these analyses every day in the united states and the results are all the same.

When is the last time anyone has ever seen a young earth scientist run 100 samples through independent machinery on samples collected from multiple countries by different and independent teams of chemists, all yielding the same result?

I'll give you a hint. It's never happened. But for everyday scientists, its a daily routine and is actually boring to most of us.

But it doesn't stop here. I could very easily pull more papers that have more duplicated samples that demonstrate repeatability, that perform matrix spikes or otherwise spike their systems with known concentrations radioisotopes, run blank samples, run duplicates, run equipment blanks and on and on.

The results are what they are.

 

[Job 33:6]

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

 

[Job 33:6]

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

 

[Adrian Moir]

View attachment 309582

So what do we see in the abstract? Up front we see it noted that 52 samples were analysed from Haiti, taken from the K-T boundary. And they yielded a mean age of 64.4 million years.

What's important here is that it wasn't just one or two samples. It wasn't just 1 bone, or 1 rock. It was 52 independent samples.

So this is called duplication and repeatability. It demonstrates that the tools of measurement are recording a result with consistency. Sample after sample after sample after sample after sample, ad infinitum.

The abstract further reads, "two age spectra obtained using a resistance furnace system on bulk samples of 50-70 of the tektites...have a mean age of 64.49 million years".

So what's important here is that, the author is describing a switch in analytical machinery. They've swapped from continuous laser system to resistance furnace system. And they've analysed bulk samples of some 50-70 tektites. Again, repeatability, sample duplication, only this time, they're running a completely different analytical tool just to make a point that it isn't the machine giving a false result but rather both machines are yielding results indicative of the nature of the sample itself.

And this basically serves as a means of corroboration. If you run hundreds of duplicated samples and you run them through different machines, and they kick out the same concentrations of isotopes over and over and over and over and over again, you've then demonstrated that the analysis is providing results that are representative of a sample and aren't false positives.

But there's more...

The abstract further reads:
Sanidine and two bentonites...in Montana....was also dated with the laser system and gives a weighted mean of 64.77 million years.

So basically, the team collected samples from a different country of the same layer, and ran those samples and the results came out practically the same.

Further demonstrating that the result is an accurate depiction of the quality of the rock and not any form of false positive result.

So that's just the abstract, the article further discussed that the various machines were actually ran by different teams of scientists in different laboratories, meaning that these laboratories further independently reached their result.

And this is just one article of thousands of teams that do this on a routine basis. People are running these analyses every day in the united states and the results are all the same.

When is the last time anyone has ever seen a young earth scientist run 100 samples through independent machinery on samples collected from multiple countries by different and independent teams of chemists, all yielding the same result?

I'll give you a hint. It's never happened. But for everyday scientists, its a daily routine and is actually boring to most of us.

But it doesn't stop here. I could very easily pull more papers that have more duplicated samples that demonstrate repeatability, that perform matrix spikes or otherwise spike their systems with known concentrations radioisotopes, run blank samples, run duplicates, run equipment blanks and on and on.

The results are what they are.

I'm sure that you're happy with finding a peer reviewed article describing the process of carbon dating when there are also a number of peer reviewed articles that scrutinize other articles interpretations. And the interpretations which demand long ages have pushed the concept of dating from archeology beyond its practical application into a realm of metaphysical beliefs concerning the past, present and future.

Peer reveiwed artical by justor
Critical Assessment of Radiocarbon Dating H. Barker Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences Vol. 269, No. 1193, A Symposium on the Impact of the Natural Sciences on Archaeology (Dec. 17, 1970), pp. 37-45 (9 pages) Published By: Royal Society Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences https://www.jstor.org/stable/73919

 

[Adrian Moir]

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And before you go on about you non existent victory, how's about demonstrating how instructions come into existent, because you seem to have a selective memory. And good luck with that pseudoscience you tried to interpret as proof for millions of years, because there was absolutely nothing in your comment which could defend the idea.

 

[Adrian Moir]

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

This is a better article from justor concerning how carbon 14 dating works and how the method brings the age of archeological finds down in years since the concept of dating the rocks comes from the belief that the bottom rock layers are the oldest, when the fact is that all rock strata was laid down by hydro-logical sorting and there is no other explanation for global geological stratigraphy.

Carbon 14 Dating: Past, Present and Future A simplified explanation Jim Cherry Central States Archaeological Journal Vol. 56, No. 1 (January 2009), pp. 28-30 (3 pages) Published By: Central States Archaeological Societies, Inc. Central States Archaeological Journal Carbon 14 Dating: Past, Present and Future A simplified explanation on JSTOR

 

[Job 33:6]

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

 

[Job 33:6]

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

 

[Adrian Moir]

View attachment 309592

What you're doing is throwing the data up here as if the interpretations behind it are a fact, when the data itself is contrary to the interpretations, as I've already explained. Because the existence of c14 in cretaceous rock means there is a significant difference to the long age interpretations of the geological record and the samples obtained independently by Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University who found collagen fibers in the fossilized leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex, and it does matter how strong your denial is or how hard you try and change the subject, it will always remain a demonstrated fact from the scientific method of observation that the earliest rock layers are less that 5730 years old according to the half life of c14 from the cretaceous period. And I care not anymore what you believe beyond this point, because you have proven nothing to support your belief in long ages except to perpetuate the idea that c14 does not exist in the lower rock layers of the fossil record, when the evidence has already been published for a number of years now, so it is only the die hard Darwin fans that still except the long age interpretations.

 

[Job 33:6]

What you're doing is throwing the data up here as if the interpretations behind it are a fact, when the data itself is contrary to the interpretations, as I've already explained. Because the existence of c14 in cretaceous rock means there is a significant difference to the long age interpretations of the geological record and the samples obtained independently by Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University who found collagen fibers in the fossilized leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex, and it does matter how strong your denial is or how hard you try and change the subject, it will always remain a demonstrated fact from the scientific method of observation that the earliest rock layers are less that 5730 years old according to the half life of c14 from the cretaceous period. And I care not anymore what you believe beyond this point, because you have proven nothing to support your belief in long ages except to perpetuate the idea that c14 does not exist in the lower rock layers of the fossil record, when the evidence has already been published for a number of years now, so it is only the die hard Darwin fans that still except the long age interpretations.

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) While the other side (OEC) did offer these data. Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data say what they say.

 

[Adrian Moir]

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) While the other side did offer these data. Which is to say that one side offers authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data say what they say.

I do not not care what you believe in regards to the stringent testing procedures involved with chemical dating methods, because the data obtained, and published in peer reviewed articles, has disproven the interpretations of long ages by the presence of c14 in cretaceous rock layers.
So what this means is that all you have is a faith based conclusion which derived from your beliefs, and not from the evidence of fossils.

And I really could not care less anymore about you're personal denial in regard to the independent findings of red blood cells from the cretaceous period by the University of Carolina, as I've repeatedly informed you about already.
You cannot refute the presence of c14 in cretaceous rock layers by blatantly disregarding, and discounting the facts of the matter to adhere to a theory that has only disproven itself from the peer reviewed data obtained and published.

PS: Get over it.

 

[Job 33:6]

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

 

[Adrian Moir]

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Allow me to refer you back to the original post to remind you of what we are discussing:

What is the formal definition of pseudoscience?
Definition of pseudoscience
: a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.
- Merriam Webster's Dictionary

how come dinosaurs don't get carbon dated?
This is what archaeologists use to determine the age of human-made artifacts. But carbon-14 dating won't work on dinosaur bones.
The half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, so carbon-14 dating is
only effective on samples that are less than 50,000 years old.

BBC NEWS
Researchers have discovered what appear to be the remnants of red blood cells and connective tissue
in 75 million-year-old dinosaur fossils. The work could shine a light
on long-standing questions about dinosaur physiology, including whether
specific species were warm- or cold-blooded.

The theory of evolution has never been able to be congealed into a practice, because the entire process of evolution is theoretical and not practical whatsoever from start to finish.
Here are four main points I've listed which proves that the theory of evolution is not practical:

1. The big bang supposedly expanded rapidly across the universe when light cannot accelerate within a vacuum, so the big bang did not occur as the theory claims. Nor can gravity compress all matter into an infinitesimal region, because the amount of pressure exerting outward is thousands of times greater than the gravity pulling the material in, just as a glass of water cannot be compressed into a droplet.

2. Biogenesis cannot occur because life does not spontaneously arise from non living chemicals according to the principles of abiogenesis.
So to try and prescribe the term, abiogenesis, to the theory of evolution is an oxymoron, because, abiogenesis is based on the flask experiment by Nobel prize winner Louis Pasture who demonstrated that life must come from life.
And this means that life cannot spontaneously generate naturally, which is the opposite of what the theory of evolution claims.

3. Natural selection can only select from previous genetic instructions, which means that natural selection is not a mechanism that produces new biological features that were not already present within an organisms genetic coding.

4. Accumulative mutations result in the reduction of an organisms life span, and it never increases the over all survivability of the organism. And pedigree animals are a perfect example of how accumulative mutations reduce an organisms chances of survival, especially in the wild.
While natural selection can only produce short term benefits that are relative to the habitat that the organism is suited to, but the result of this process causes degeneration within the organism over time.
Because the effect of accumulative mutations causes previous biological features to become either recessive or lost.
And any limb reduced creature cannot regain its limbs once the genetic information for the limbs is lost, which is why natural selection cannot specify for new biological features over time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I will reply to you with my previous post, and that is all you will ever be getting until you can come to terms with reality:

Because I do not not care what you believe in regards to the stringent testing procedures involved with chemical dating methods, because the data obtained, and published in peer reviewed articles, has disproven the interpretations of long ages by the presence of c14 in cretaceous rock layers.
So what this means is that all you have is a faith based conclusion which derived from your beliefs, and not from the evidence of fossils.

And I really could not care less anymore about you're personal denial in regard to the independent findings of red blood cells from the cretaceous period by the University of Carolina, as I've repeatedly informed you about already.
You cannot refute the presence of c14 in cretaceous rock layers by blatantly disregarding, and discounting the facts of the matter to adhere to a theory that has only disproven itself from the peer reviewed data obtained and published.

PS: Get over it.

 

[Job 33:6]

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because the claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data.

 

[Adrian Moir]

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

And I will reply to you with my previous post, and that is all you will ever be getting until you can come to terms with reality:

Because I do not not care what you believe in regards to the stringent testing procedures involved with chemical dating methods, because the data obtained, and published in peer reviewed articles, has disproven the interpretations of long ages by the presence of c14 in cretaceous rock layers.
So what this means is that all you have is a faith based conclusion which derived from your beliefs, and not from the evidence of fossils.

And I really could not care less anymore about you're personal denial in regard to the independent findings of red blood cells from the cretaceous period by the University of Carolina, as I've repeatedly informed you about already.
You cannot refute the presence of c14 in cretaceous rock layers by blatantly disregarding, and discounting the facts of the matter to adhere to a theory that has only disproven itself from the peer reviewed data obtained and published.

PS: Get over it.

 

[Job 33:6]

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because the claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data.

 

[Adrian Moir]

And with the above said, the question becomes, based on post #24, why do the results of hundreds of samples, analysed using different machinery, by different independent labs, on samples collected from different countries, using different analytical methods, why do they all yield the exact same result?

And has anyone ever heard of a young earth creationist being able to provide anything of the like with their "young earth creation research"?

No...

And before you go on writing me a book in response, keep in mind, I will be looking for an explicit answer to my question (post #25). And if you don't have an answer, I'm simply going to copy and paste my question over and over again. So let's try to stick with the topic here.

And I'll additionally note, one side (the YEC side) made a claim and offered no QA/QC data (duplicates, replication, varying analytical methods, blanks, spikes, etc.) and therefore has not substantiated or demonstrated truth to their claim (without supporting data, anyone can make up any imaginary idea that they want). While the other side (OEC) did offer these data (see posts #25 and #31). Which is to say that one side argues from, and offers, authentic evidence and data for the old earth position, while the other side offers no explanation for why these data (data justifying OEC) say what they say and offers no data to substantiate their own position.

Arguing that radiometric dating doesn't work is meaningless if you don't have data to back up your argument. It's that simple. Geologists, such as myself, offer data to substantiate our claims. And YECs have no data and thus their claims are unsubstantiated.

You say that I cannot refute your claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock, but you have not provided any QA/QC data demonstrating that your claim is true. Therefore, you asking me to refute a claim about C-14 in cretaceous rock is as good as asking me to refute the claim that unicorns exist flying in outer space. There is nothing for me to refute because the claim itself is unsubstantiated and lacks any QA/QC data.

And I will reply to you with my previous post, and that is all you will ever be getting until you can come to terms with reality:

Because I do not not care what you believe in regards to the stringent testing procedures involved with chemical dating methods, because the data obtained, and published in peer reviewed articles, has disproven the interpretations of long ages by the presence of c14 in cretaceous rock layers.
So what this means is that all you have is a faith based conclusion which derived from your beliefs, and not from the evidence of fossils.

And I really could not care less anymore about you're personal denial in regard to the independent findings of red blood cells from the cretaceous period by the University of Carolina, as I've repeatedly informed you about already.
You cannot refute the presence of c14 in cretaceous rock layers by blatantly disregarding, and discounting the facts of the matter to adhere to a theory that has only disproven itself from the peer reviewed data obtained and published.

PS: Get over it.