-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Perhaps the phrase 'come from' is simply inappropriate.
The point is that 'coming from' is a process in time. It assumes there was a time when there was no universe and a later time when there was.
Instead, time is *part of the universe*. At any 'time', the universe exists. So it does not 'come from' at all.
Instead, what I would say is that the universe, which consists of all mass, energy, space and time, *simply exists*.
The problem is that most people have difficulty understanding that the universe is four dimensional (three of space and one of time) and not just three dimensional (space).
To ask where the universe 'comes from' is rather similar to asking where the south pole 'comes from'.
I already stated that contamination leads to false age.... contrary to your claim that I do not understand the topic due to not understanding contamination leads to false age... which shows that it is you who does not understand what is being said to you
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Please document how any new gene came into being.
And give real details, codes through 20 generations with sexual reproduction.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then why do you keep objecting and stating the obvious? That tells us that you are not following along.I already stated that contamination leads to false age.... contrary to your claim that I do not understand the topic due to not understanding contamination leads to false age... which shows that it is you who does not understand what is being said to you
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Already done.
You have been the one objecting .. and complaining to be sure .. but your complaints were based on not understanding what was said. What was it you think I objected to ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This is just one of your posts that shows that you were not following the conversation:
"No Mixing ... was talking about old coral .. not the young ones ?! and I get that there are anomalies .. Got my C-14 test training in the lab friend .. albeit 40 years ago
-- but the basics are still the basics .. can't date something older than the test limit of the machine and Dino Bones are not 30,000 years old "
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
C-14 dating of many diamonds, fossils, fossilized wood that are supposed to be ancient are not C-14 dead.This is just one of your posts that shows that you were not following the conversation:
"No Mixing ... was talking about old coral .. not the young ones ?! and I get that there are anomalies .. Got my C-14 test training in the lab friend .. albeit 40 years ago
So that proves the flood.
Why are you talking this nonsense .. why do you want details and codes through 20 generations .. other than to request nonsense.
New genes come into being every second of every day .. Duh ... and you have been told this before .. its called mutation .. the process by which evolution happens.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Refuted a thousand times. Once again, not if that C14 is from contamination. And you cannot find any reliable sources with "not C-14 dead" examples.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Technically those would be alleles. "New genes" are often an emergent process. An allele keeps get used for more and more things that are different from its original function that it can become a "new gene". Or it can occur almost immediately when genes are swapped in location within an organism or from another organism. The result is a "new gene" since it no longer has its old job and now has a brand new one. That mutation is a transposan:
DNA Transposons: Nature and Applications in Genomics
Repeated DNA makes up a large fraction of a typical mammalian genome, and some repetitive elements are able to move within the genome (transposons and retrotransposons). DNA transposons move from one genomic location to another by a cut-and-paste mechanism. ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
This is just one of your posts that shows that you were not following the conversation:
"No Mixing ... was talking about old coral .. not the young ones ?! and I get that there are anomalies .. Got my C-14 test training in the lab friend .. albeit 40 years ago
What was it that shows not following ? you keep talking in riddles mate. You were blathering on about anomalies in young corral .. I told you I was talking about old corral .. not young .. followed by reminding you of the basics ..
What was not followed .. ?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
but they were handed correctly.
Also how would the diamonds have been contaminated.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, I was not. You were not paying attention as usual.
Technically those would be alleles. "New genes" are often an emergent process. An allele keeps get used for more and more things that are different from its original function that it can become a "new gene". Or it can occur almost immediately when genes are swapped in location within an organism or from another organism. The result is a "new gene" since it no longer has its old job and now has a brand new one. That mutation is a transposan:
DNA Transposons: Nature and Applications in Genomics
Repeated DNA makes up a large fraction of a typical mammalian genome, and some repetitive elements are able to move within the genome (transposons and retrotransposons). DNA transposons move from one genomic location to another by a cut-and-paste mechanism. ...
Dude .. shut up already with the purile nonsense .. "Technically those would be alleles" .. who cares .. the fellow was talking about new genes.. the point being that mutations happen .. creating new genetic material .. no need to go further .. as we both know said fellow has not managed to get this far .. and refuses to do so.
Yes you were .. did you forget what you said ? and what was not followed .. and why did you forget to include this in your response ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Prove it. I know that you cannot. I tried to find articles oh their sampling. None were to be found. And that means that they failed. If one does not follow proper protocols "dates" are worthless.
RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?
"
Contamination and instrument background are sometimes collectively referred to as “total background.” Taylor and Southon have characterized six general types of total background, each of which has multiple specific sources [4]. For our purposes, we will group these contributions into three general classes of contamination and background:
- contamination of the sample before reaching the testing laboratory (primarily contamination in situ but also during collection or storage)
- laboratory contamination before placement in the accelerator (handling, sample chemistry, etc.)
- instrument background, including sample contamination in the AMS accelerator system
The second contribution, laboratory contamination, is largely due to sample chemistry (pretreatment, hydrolysis or combustion to CO2, and reduction to graphite), which generally introduces a small amount of modern carbon, typically at least 1 microgram [8, 12, 13, 14]. Thus a 1 mg sample of infinitely old carbon would measure at least 0.1 pMC (percent modern carbon) before background subtraction. At least one laboratory reports sample chemistry contamination as low as 0.08 pMC (excluding chemical pretreatment, which can be a significant contribution), but this value does “not necessarily apply to other laboratories” [15]. Different sample chemistry techniques and processing equipment and variations in chemical batches can result in significantly more sample chemistry contamination.
The third contribution, instrument background, has a number of sources. The main sources are generally the following:
- ion source “memory” of previous samples, due to radiocarbon sticking to the walls of the ion source, thermally desorbing, and then sticking to another sample
- mass spectrometer background, non-radiocarbon ions that are misidentified as radiocarbon, sometimes through unexpected mechanisms [16]
- detector background, including cosmic rays and electronics noise"
"
Diamond
Diamond is difficult to combust. The RATE samples apparently required modifications to the normal procedure [1], presumably higher combustion temperatures and longer combustion times, likely increasing the sample chemistry contamination. The samples were reportedly pitted and may have been subjected to previous analyses and to unknown contamination. Nevertheless, RATE’s five deep-mine diamond samples had radiocarbon levels only slightly above background (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction), while the seven alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction.Subsequently, the RATE team inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the sample chemistry, and measured much lower radiocarbon values, “between 0.008 and 0.022 pMC, with a mean value of 0.014 pMC,” apparently with no background subtraction [6]. This much lower value for unprocessed diamond provides strong evidence that their processed diamond samples had been contaminated, most likely by the modified sample chemistry.
Taylor and Southon have also measured unprocessed diamond, finding a similar range of 0.005 to 0.03 pMC without background subtraction. They interpret this result as their instrument background, primarily due to ion source memory. Their ion source current varied, unintentionally, over about a factor of two, perhaps due to crystal face orientation or to conductivity differences between samples. “The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields” [4]. This important observation provides evidence about the source of the radiocarbon.
If the radiocarbon were intrinsic to the sample, there would be no change in the radiocarbon ratio with sample current. The 14C, 13C, and 12C would change in unison. However, if the radiocarbon were coming from ion source memory or elsewhere in the accelerator, it should give a count rate independent of ion source current. Normalizing the radiocarbon count rate to the ion source current, which is predominantly 12C, would result in higher radiocarbon content for lower source currents, as observed. This data provides clear evidence that at least a significant fraction of the radiocarbon detected by Taylor and Southon in diamond measurements did not come from the diamonds themselves and thus could not be “intrinsic radiocarbon.”
The lower values for unprocessed diamond and the current-dependent behavior find no explanation in Baumgardner’s “intrinsic radiocarbon” model. But these results fit well with the Taylor and Southon evidence that instrument background (specifically ion source memory) is material-dependent, with diamond exhibiting significantly less ion source memory than graphite. The radiocarbon detected in natural, unprocessed diamond measurements seems to be nothing more than instrument background."
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
LOL! Don't get mad just because you are wrong.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I do not play that game of going back and finding all of your errors again. Look at what happens. All that you have is denial.