system, you reject as a lie, an error,
incompetence, etc. My friend, you are no better than Huzienga when it comes to
evaluating scientific evidence. Jojo
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM Subject: Re:
re you there?
>>>
>>> You see, the problem with you is you have preconveived notions for a
>>> belief system you hold dear. Anything that upsets that belief system, you
>>> reject as a lie, an error, incompetence, etc. My friend, you are no better
>>>
e preconveived notions for a
>> belief system you hold dear. Anything that upsets that belief system, you
>> reject as a lie, an error, incompetence, etc. My friend, you are no better
>> than Huzienga when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence.
>>
>>
>>
when it comes to evaluating scientific evidence.
Jojo
- Original Message -
*From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote
This is not OT since this is science.
A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for the
inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It took me some time
to find it but here are some:
1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141,
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
It took me some time to find it but here are some:
1. Living Mollusk Shells dated 2300 years old - Science vol 141, pp634-637
2. Freshly Killed Seal dated 1300 years old - Antarctic Journal vol 6,
Sept-Oct `971 p.211
3. Shells from Living
Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950
because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions.
The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals
together.
You don't take the age of non living things with carbon dating.
JoJo,
Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be
incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
It took me some time to find it but
, August 25, 2014 10:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo, my dear alien, you cannot do carbon dating of anything past ~1950
because there is a lot of contamination due C13 from nuclear explosions.
The mammoth ages seem OK, it is usual to find parts of different animals
: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
JoJo,
Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be
incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com
Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will
have an accident, shit happens for many thousands of years.
An object that you know is from after 1950 will give wrong results.
You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar
dates is specially
, 2014 10:19 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
JoJo,
Jed is correct, experimental data and the models based upon them can be
incorrect, just like weather and climate data and models.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml
Jed,
The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of wide
circulation. Do you think these are all errors? Don't you think they would
have checked for errors before publishing it? Your contention that these
measured dates are errors simply do not make sense.
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will have
an accident, shit happens for many thousands of years
','danieldi...@gmail.com');
*To:* John Milstone javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','vortex-l@eskimo.com');
*Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2014 11:02 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo, my dear multidimensional lizard, sometimes a careless mammoth will
have an accident, shit happens
Jojo, while you are at it, would you tell me what kind of mushroom are you
taking:
Except that we don't realize that these aliens are not extraterrestrial
BIOLOGICAL beings from another planet. These ALIENS are aliens to our
dimension. They are INTERDIMENSIONAL beings of spirits, fallen angels
: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
You want to talk about C dating, so you were dishonest. Bad Christian. K-Ar
dates is specially prone to errors. You have to be careful. So that measurement
just meant that the river is younger than 600.000 years. That's useful
information, depending on what
Where are the Aliens in the Bible, btw?
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
Genesis 6:1-5
It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing a
hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy
I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating
results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in
various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is
an extremely reliable phenomena taken as an aggregate.
I found it
And they are aliens because...?
2014-08-25 12:34 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com:
Genesis 6:1-5
It talks of fallen angels coming down to mate with female humans producing
a hybrid race of wicked Giants called Nephilims.
Jojo
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
: RE: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
I used to be a Creationist and point out obvious errors in Radio Dating
results. Eventually, I was forced to conclude that errors here or there in
various methods do not contradict the essential point that radioactive decay is
an extremely reliable
Just to add a side note: CO2 from fossil fuels is also effecting carbon
dating, as a lot of the C13 has already decayed in fossil fuels. In fact
that is one way we know that the CO2 causing global warming is from man
made sources.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Daniel Rocha
not
shapeshift. (Oh.. I forgot, yes they can according to Captain Piccard.)
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2014 11:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
And they are aliens because...?
2014-08-25
Thank you for your education. It's quite more reasonable to suppose that
the Nephilim are aliens than legends. After after all, random words in the
Bible are more trustful than science.
2014-08-25 13:00 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com:
But since you appear to be ignorant on this
Ihttp://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html
2014-08-25 12:49 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com:
For example, how can we assume that C-14 levels are the same today as they
were 5,000 years ago?
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
, can not be observed and measured. Yet, they are science. I am
assuming I do not need to elaborate about Charlie's theory.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that I question
your ability to make science.
2014-08-25 13:24 GMT-03:00 Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com:
Is it because it is repeatable?
--
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com
More assumptions to calibrate an assumption.
Whatever
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Ihttp://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html
Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of
wide circulation.
I doubt that, but for the sake of argument suppose it is true. Are you
saying these were mistakes? Or were they examples discovered by the
authors, and used
I wrote:
Do you think these are all errors?
I wouldn't know. I suspect these examples are either imaginary or fully
explicable, and they were gathered by someone who does not understand how
instruments work.
I say that because it seems extremely unlikely to me that experts have
spent
On 25/08/2014 8:33 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
...A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence
for the inaccuracy claims I made about radioneucleotide dating. It
took me some time to find it but here are some:
I didn't ask for just any old list of radiocarbon dating anomalies.
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
Cold Fusion then is not science since it is not repeatable.
Of course it is repeatable. It has been replicated thousands of times.
Please stop making ignorant assertions. Read the literature before
commenting.
- Jed
http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
There are plenty of correlations that have emerged in relation to C-14 dating,
tree rings, astronomical events, Egyptian history just to name a few. In
addition, the variations in C-14 formation have been fleshed out over
I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I
think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably
accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is
100M years old.
Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A
Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I
think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably
-
*From:* Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com
*To:* John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 12:34 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Pretty much. And I think you head is so deep in the sand, that I question
your ability to make science.
2014-08-25
There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So... your
point is? You have a problem with Einstein?
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:25 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Assuming the spaceship does not breakdown, missing all space debris
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:19
Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the missing
95% of the energy in the universe I have no problem with him. Smart guy.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
There are tons of assumptions in Einstein's thought experiment. So...
Although the haircut does help reinforce evolution theory
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/25/article-886-15ACADD205DC-783_634x622.jpg
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:36 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Other than the fact he needed a haircut and also could not find the
Einstein's Biggest Blunder? Dark Energy May Be Consistent With Cosmological
Constant
Date:
November 28, 2007
Source:
Texas AM University
Summary:
Einstein's self-proclaimed biggest blunder -- his postulation of a
cosmological constant (a force that opposes gravity and keeps the universe
from
That must be one smart monkey. Maybe he and the millions of others banging
on typewriters right now in another thought experiment will find the dark
energy that's missing.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:39 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Although the haircut does help reinforce
But is it constant across the universe? Where is it? What is it?
Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey?
Einstein was smart enough to give it a placeholder, I credit him that. 95%
leaves a lot left to figure out.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Kevin
Yes.
Please send my Nobel Prize by mail.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
But is it constant across the universe? Where is it? What is it?
Emergent? Coalescent? Decaying? Quantum? Stringy? Loopy? Roll of the Dicey?
Einstein was smart enough to
Email?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/ed/20131011153017!Nobel_Prize.png
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes.
Please send my Nobel Prize by mail.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:48 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com
wrote:
But
Good enough. Now if I could just get a few million others to accept that I
just won a Nobel Prize, life would be golden.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:52 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote:
Email?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/e/ed/20131011153017!Nobel_Prize.png
it is also unbelievable that educated people repeat the consesus fairy tale
against cold fusion, despite huge evidences agains, and no valid refutation
to support their cause...
anyway they did because they were the consenus, because opposing mean you
were the blacksheep of the lab, ...
note also
-
From: jwin...@cyllene.uwa.edu.au
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
On 25/08/2014 8:33 PM, Jojo Iznart wrote:
...A few threads ago, a fellow here challenged me to provide evidence for
the inaccuracy claims I
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
The examples I enumerated are samples that appear on a scientific paper of
wide
Jed,
If it is a repeatable as you would like to believe, we wouldn't have so much
problems convincing the rest of the world.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon
problems convincing the rest of the world.
Jojo
- Original Message -
*From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 2:45 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Accuracy of Carbon Dating
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote:
Cold Fusion
Opps I meant C14. Here is the processes;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM, CB Sites cbsit...@gmail.com wrote:
Just to add a side note: CO2 from fossil fuels is also effecting carbon
dating, as a lot of the C13 has already decayed in fossil
53 matches
Mail list logo
