Debunked: "Heston83" the Creationist "geologist"

A "geologist" who cannot even spell "intelligent" correctly?!

This is my reply to the video "Video Response to Richard Dawkins on Intellegent (sic) Design"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPboD1BSl5I

The Isochronology FAQ that rtefutes this Creationist fuctard's bullshit:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

http://www.usd.edu/esci/age/content/current_scientific_clocks/isochron_dating...

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• creationism
• bullshit
• debunk
• Richard
• Dawkins
• dinosaur
• dinosaurs
• science
• evolution
• geology
• Heston83
• radiometric
• dating
• absolute
• relative
• fossils
• paleontology
• isotope

[wwickeddogg]

So you agree that there are a lot of reasons why improper results were obtained and that clearly Carbon 14 dating does not work on diamonds.

Like I said, pregnancy tests don't work on trees.

[TruthNotReligion]

I think the Confederate flag behind that clown tells us all we need to know.

[Mithcoriel]

Repeating the same claims over and over won't change anything. They already said these facts you mentioned don't matter.

[mejc2]

The tests were performed by independant university labs, to eliminate bias.

The diamond samples were from different locations, to eliminate contamination.

They contained c-14 inside which can supposedly only last thousands of years.

Either the diamonds were not old or our assumptions about c-14 are wrong.

[wwickeddogg]

Tests that don't work on diamonds:

Blood test

Pregnancy test

Ph test

IQ test

The point is that the results of the test do not prove anything. Even if the diamond gets a 180 on the IQ test, it still is not a genius. Even if the diamond has AB type blood, it still is not a person.

[Desertphile]

"If they are that old how does c-14 still exist inside?"

No.

[Desertphile]

"Who performed the test...."

...if it happened at all...

"... and where the specimens were from do not matter...."

That is 100% true. Can you imagine a lab receiving industrial grade diamonds and being asked to date them?! The lab techs would have busted up with laughter, or they were filled with pity for the stupid shit that sent the samples to be tested.

Diamonds are not dated using any radiochronology techniques: the gangue diamonds are found in are.

[wwickeddogg]

The methods that are used to perform Carbon 14 dating in biological material do not work on non-biological materials and materials over 60,000 years old.

Who performed the test and where the specimens were from do not matter, because there is no way to eliminate the sources of error. The erroneous test results have nothing to do with the specific items tested.

If you get a positive test result on a pregnancy test from a tree, I guarantee that tree will still not have a baby.

[mejc2]

If they are that old how does c-14 still exist inside?

See DP no one is trying to date the diamonds here.

Either the diamonds are not old OR your assumptions about c-14 are incorrect.

you are kind of like the androids that followed Harry Mudd around, Unable to handle anything that contradicts your programming.

[mejc2]

So you don't understand the testing methods. that's OK I'll say it again slowly.

The diamonds were from all around the world which eliminates your contamination theory. they were tested by independent Universities which eliminates testing bias. The diamonds contained c-14 inside, which is impossible if they are millions of years old.

So either the diamonds are not old OR your assumptions about c-14 are incorrect.

See logic, it's easy give it a try.

[Andrewkinghorn15]

6.28 your wrong Richard Dawkins is not a geologist he is a biologist.

[Desertphile]

Only retards who do not understand physics try to get absolute dates of diamonds. That is, only Creationists retards try that: physicists do not date diamonds--- they date the gangue. Rb-Sr in garnet; Sm-Nd in garnet and pyroxene; Re-Os and U-Th-Pb in sulfide; K-Ar in pyroxene; and U-Pb in zircon. They date the inclusions, not the diamond. Archean diamonds are from 2.8 to 3.2 billion years old; Proterozoic diamonds are from 1 to 2 billion years old.

[mejc2]

1. specimens were from different parts of the planet.

2. The tests were performed by independent University laboratories.

3. See 1.

4. See 1.

5. Then the diamonds aren't old that is a possibility.

[mejc2]

it doesn't last as long as the supposed age of the diamonds and there is no way for it to enter the diamonds once they are formed. It has been found in diamonds from different locations around the world. Therefore ........

[Desertphile]

Every element in the universe that contains carbon will contain 14c, no matter how old. That applies to diamonds on Earth that are hundreds of millions of years old. Diamonds decay into graphite: place a diamond in the atmosphere (i.e., dig it up) and it will accumulate 14c on its surface, and 14c will also embed in inclusions.

[Desertphile]

"there should be no c-14 in diamonds if they are old. "

Okay, I give up: why not?

[Desertphile]

The ICR cult tried to find evidence that decay rates of radioactive isotopes of elements can be modified by natural causes; the cult did this by quote-mining physicists, and they still failed to find any quotes that they could mangle, lie about, and fraudulently use to make the quote mean what they want it to mean and not what the physicist meant.

There are no processes in normal space-time that can modify decay rates to the extent Creationists desperately need and want.

[wwickeddogg]

Can the age of a diamond be found through other tests? As for how long Carbon 14 lasts, I don't know of any process that slows radioactive decay, maybe extreme temperature or extreme speed relative to the observer. But, maybe there is a previously unknown process that occurs within diamonds? Maybe diamonds are so fascinating to look at because of this as yet unknown phenomenon. With all of these possible explanations why guess?

The truth is Carbon 14 dating does not work on diamonds.

[wwickeddogg]

There is a reason that RATE detected Carbon 14 in diamonds. Here are some possibilities:

1. The specimens tested were contaminated.

2. The test was performed improperly.

3. The Carbon 14 was formed through exposure to radioactive elements in the ground nearby.

4. The Carbon 14 was formed through exposure to radiation from a source other than elements in the ground.

5. The diamonds tested were formed recently and there are other diamonds that don't contain Carbon 14.

[mejc2]

you are really slow.

1. there should be no c-14 in diamonds if they are old.

2. there is c-14 in diamonds

3. Either the diamonds are not old or the c-14 can last a lot longer than expected.

simple, why can't you get this.

[wwickeddogg]

So you believe that there should be Carbon 14 inside diamonds?

Now your position is this:

RATE claims: There should be no Carbon 14 inside a diamond

RATE claims: We found Carbon 14 inside a diamond

RATE CONCLUSION: We were right?

Sounds like the RATE team started with a premise that was wrong. I still have no idea why this is a problem for me.

[mejc2]

This is not my premise. it has been studied by the RATE team. Those scientists claim that if diamonds are millions of years old, there should be no C-14 inside. Go tell them and the labs that did the testing that they are wasting their time. They should be on You Tube apparently DP knows better.

Sheesh DP

do a video on sailing .

[Desertphile]

"...I never made any claims about diamonds or Carbon 14."

Well, he had to imagine SOMETHING he could attack (however feebly). You left him with nothing else.

[wwickeddogg]

I liked how he claimed that I made the assertion that diamonds should be able to be dated using Carbon 14 dating. It was a very bold claim, since anyone reading the comments can see that I never made any claims about diamonds or Carbon 14.

[Desertphile]

I saw that assertion by "mejc2" and I fell out of my chair from shock. 14c dating of *ORGANISMS* is due to atmospheric inhalation, which ceases when the organism dies. That has nothing at all to do with 14c in diamonds, coal, mica, iron, etc. Gods, Creationists are nuts.