Lenmcharristar 10,247 Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 1 hour ago, Pardus said: You have spelled Noah right, at least some of your post is accurate. Lol 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie, 2,759 Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 2 hours ago, Pardus said: Hahaha that old card,that's the card yous pull when you can't explain it away 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie, 2,759 Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 1 hour ago, Lenmcharristar said: Good fossil evidence for global flood,an did you notice 20,000 fossils an not one transitional lol I wonder why 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lenmcharristar 10,247 Posted June 14 Report Share Posted June 14 29 minutes ago, Francie, said: Good fossil evidence for global flood,an did you notice 20,000 fossils an not one transitional lol I wonder why The proof is in the permafrost too, total wipeout of mega fauna in europe, the north american and south american continents. A lot of russia and india and australia, the main places it missed was continental afirca mainly sub sahara, parts of the indian continent too. Hence why most cultures around the world speak of the great flood, younger dryas, it also happened in pulses and wiped out atlantis also 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mackem 29,522 Posted June 15 Report Share Posted June 15 This threads gone a bit......The devils always trying to break you with his lying........(worth a watch,lol). Marquice Brown (@a_voiceinthewilderness) • Instagram reel WWW.INSTAGRAM.COM 21K likes, 1,180 comments - a_voiceinthewilderness on May 13, 2025: "Why is John Gray mixing... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ditchman 3,252 Posted June 15 Report Share Posted June 15 He will have a heart attack if he's not careful Quote Link to post Share on other sites
TOMO 28,406 Posted June 15 Report Share Posted June 15 10 hours ago, Lenmcharristar said: The proof is in the permafrost too, total wipeout of mega fauna in europe, the north american and south american continents. A lot of russia and india and australia, the main places it missed was continental afirca mainly sub sahara, parts of the indian continent too. Hence why most cultures around the world speak of the great flood, younger dryas, it also happened in pulses and wiped out atlantis also Everything I've seen on this younger dryas points to it being 12.000 years ago... And don't you guys with faith believe the earth to be only 6000 years old ? I've said this before on similar threads about faith...I don't see why believing in God and science have to be separate... Let's say God did create the universe but it's far older than what the Bible tells us...after all the Bible is written by many different people over a millenia...and truth be told there's bound to be a few mistakes... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mackem 29,522 Posted June 15 Report Share Posted June 15 25 minutes ago, ditchman said: He will have a heart attack if he's not careful Fear not ditch,he is in good hands,the lord walks alongside him and guides the chap. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pardus 1,610 Posted June 15 Report Share Posted June 15 7 minutes ago, TOMO said: Everything I've seen on this younger dryas points to it being 12.000 years ago... And don't you guys with faith believe the earth to be only 6000 years old ? I've said this before on similar threads about faith...I don't see why believing in God and science have to be separate... Let's say God did create the universe but it's far older than what the Bible tells us...after all the Bible is written by many different people over a millenia...and truth be told there's bound to be a few mistakes... Just a few? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lenmcharristar 10,247 Posted June 15 Report Share Posted June 15 2 minutes ago, Pardus said: Just a few? The biggest on here was letting you in 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Pardus 1,610 Posted June 15 Report Share Posted June 15 2 minutes ago, Lenmcharristar said: The biggest on here was letting you in 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie, 2,759 Posted June 16 Report Share Posted June 16 @Pardus Uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating, while a powerful tool, faces several challenges. These include the presence of non-radiogenic ("common") lead, potential loss or gain of uranium and lead due to geological processes, and uncertainties in decay constants. Additionally, the method relies on several assumptions that can be difficult to verify, and different U-Pb dating methods can sometimes yield conflicting results. Here's a more detailed breakdown: 1. Common Lead: U-Pb dating relies on the decay of uranium isotopes into lead isotopes. However, some rocks naturally contain non-radiogenic lead, or "common lead," which can skew the age calculations. Distinguishing between radiogenic lead (formed from uranium decay) and common lead can be challenging, especially in older rocks. 2. Geological Processes: Weathering: Chemical weathering can cause the loss of uranium or lead from a rock, leading to inaccurate age estimations. Mobility: Uranium and lead can also move through rocks and minerals due to geological processes like metamorphism or hydrothermal activity, further complicating dating. 3. Assumptions and Uncertainties: Decay Constants: The accuracy of U-Pb dating depends on the precise knowledge of uranium decay rates. While these are well-established, some uncertainties remain. Initial Conditions: Dating methods rely on assumptions about the initial abundance of lead isotopes in the sample when it formed. If these initial conditions are unknown, it can lead to inaccurate age calculations. Closed System: U-Pb dating assumes that the rock has remained a closed system since its formation, meaning no uranium or lead has been added or removed. This assumption is not always valid in geological settings. Time-Invariant Decay Rates: The method assumes that the decay rates of uranium isotopes have remained constant throughout Earth's history. While this is generally accepted, some theories propose periods of accelerated decay. 4. Discrepancies Between Methods: Different U-Pb dating methods, or U-Pb dating compared to other radiometric dating methods, can sometimes yield different age estimates for the same sample. This can be due to the factors mentioned above (e.g., lead mobility, different closure temperatures for different minerals), or it could indicate problems with the underlying assumptions. 5. Other Issues: Zircon Zoning: Zircons, a common mineral used in U-Pb dating, can exhibit zoning, where different parts of the crystal formed at different times. This can lead to inaccurate age interpretations if not properly accounted for. Lead Nanospheres: The presence of metallic lead nanospheres within zircons can also affect isotopic measurements. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Francie, 2,759 Posted June 16 Report Share Posted June 16 That's the preferred radiometric dating they use these days to date rocks,look at the assumptions an flaws in it,so it's not accurate. Keep this in mind for my next post in the morning Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ditchman 3,252 Posted June 16 Report Share Posted June 16 5 hours ago, Francie, said: That's the preferred radiometric dating they use these days to date rocks,look at the assumptions an flaws in it,so it's not accurate. Keep this in mind for my next post in the morning the dating website i use is called Carbon Dating.... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Lenmcharristar 10,247 Posted June 16 Report Share Posted June 16 43 minutes ago, ditchman said: the dating website i use is called Carbon Dating.... Mine was surprise surprise, but had to switch when oul cliiareeha died 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.