close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

The Holy Bible is both historically and scientifically correct.

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by Peace Warrior, Oct 17, 2012.

  1. So that we're clear, what is the assertion regarding a carbon-14 saturation point that you would like to advance?

    Or you can return to providing scientific evidence that stars cannot form.

    -ArtificialGrape
     
  2. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,322
    1,261
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    o
    He is suggesting that the atmosphere can only hold so much carbon-14 and that since carbon-14 is generated by the collison of cosmic rays with our atmosphere (so far true) and that we are not currently at full saturation (irrelevant) that the samples may not be as old as carbon-14 testing suggests they might be as the carbon-14 levels didn't start out as high as we have assumed they did.

    Or to say it differently, a sample from six thousand years ago would have allegedly been created when the carbon-14 in the atmosphere was allegedly extremely low and that due to this allegedly low starting point and the allegedly false assumption that there has always been a relatively constant level in the atmosphere (as measured by the ratio of carbon-14 to regular carbon), this measurement would yield an age of tens of thousands of years old instead of simply thousands of years old. Put forth in support of this nonsense is carbon-14 tests of relatively young samples with errors in the approximately 1-5 thousand year range (which is well within the expected margin of error for such tests).

    The major problem with this criticism comes from a failure to understand the nature of exponential decay (radioactive half life) and variations in the magnetic field of the earth. The creation of carbon-14 in the atmosphere via cosmic rays is relatively constant except for changes in intensity in the earth's magnetic field (which mostly shields us from cosmic rays). We can estimate the historical fluctuations in the magnetic field from other sources and thereby apply correction curves to account for this effect in carbon-14 testing.

    Once applied, we see that the levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere haven't changed all that much and that even uncorrected carbon-14 dates are pretty close to accurate. Furthermore, nothing suggests that carbon-14 build up in the atmosphere has been cumulative the way this criticism suggests.
     

    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012

  3. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,322
    1,261
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    For completeness sake, here is the calibration curve. Looks pretty darn close to a straight line, doesn't it?

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  4. That was in the good old days when men were men and women were ribs.
     
  5. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,322
    1,261
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    And the goats were scared...
     
  6. Gunhaver

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    Jan 24, 2012
    Well, my plans for tonight are shot. I find it amusing and ironic that GTRI has become the wealth of science links that it has. So often I come in here and find some link or graph or terminology that I hadn't heard of before or hadn't quite grasped it the first time I ran across it and then I'm lost in a google hole for hours again. I've worked with paleontologists as a volunteer several times and the carbon 14 dating method (which they don't use often as it's more of an ice age/anthropology thing) just sunk in a bit more thanks to some googling that Gecko's comment and graph prompted. I like that feeling when the light goes on.

    Thanks Gecko, Animal, Grape, Steve and a few others. You guys are making me smarter.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  7. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,322
    1,261
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    I've learned a lot here as well. I've always liked to think of myself as well versed in physics and cosmology (for an amateur), but I've read articles here on evolutionary biology and other topics that were simply astounding.
     
  8. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,247
    5,575
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    Precisely going to be my point. If a rock or fossil is found, say in a Jurassic Era stratum, who knows if the entire layer of rock, or just the fossil within it, had ever been exposed to ground water or running water sometime in its "multi-million year old" past history. So understanding, the damage has already been done prior to excavation or retrieval.

    ETA: I have no doubt that most scientists are rigorous in their keeping the testing material as close to original as possible. I'm sure most of them go to great lengths to prevent contamination after retrieval, but what they don't know is what happened to the sample before they collected it.

    Moreover, a repeated paradigm from evos is on this wise. Namely, lets say the testing results do not harmonize with the timeline stated for a Jurassic Era rocks or fossil sample. If this occurs, the testing results would be claimed to be in error and probably more samples would be tested. This can go on until either a test FINALLY scores a hit on or near enough to the PREDETERMINED date for the layer/fossil being tested, or, all the testing results will be thrown out in favor of the geologic column's presupposed record of timelines and era.



    The relatively 'modern skull' find of richard leaky, under the previously dated KBS tuft, is a great example of how radiometric dating methods are simply HUGE piles of bull"manure" as far as being empirically derived from good scientific methodology.

    When I brought this up with an evo friend of mine, he countered with a possible reason for such a "mix up," but before anyone here chases that same cold trail, let me say first off that after studies were completed by the researches at the site, they found conclusive proof that the skull was not and could not have been introduced lower down into the strata by way of ancient burial or some other previous excavation.

    In all fairness, if they want to know how that skull got there, they only need read Genesis, starting with chapter 6 and continuing until reaching verse 17 in chapter 9 (IIRC).
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  9. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,247
    5,575
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    Okay, I don;t know what you're trying to imply here, but the star (within the photo) you are referring to, it wouldn't by chance be that "white dot" nearest the middle of the photo would it? :whistling:
     
  10. wingryder

    wingryder

    4,912
    1,592
    Oct 9, 2012
    28.420, -81.171
    Here is an image of Betelgeuse, a red giant star:

    [​IMG]

    Here is an image of Eta Carina, a star in its dying throes:

    [​IMG]

    VY Canis Majoris:

    [​IMG]

    Size Comparison:

    [​IMG]

    Stars aren't just dots. They are massive nuclear furnaces. All of them. There are many different types of stars, of various size and temperatures... and the sun is far from special. It is a very ordinary star.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  11. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,322
    1,261
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    Really? You weren't able to make the mental leap that if we can image a planet 25 light years away as a "dot" then we would be able to image a star (several orders of magnitude more massive) with much better clarity? Well, I see Wingryder just schooled you on this so I need not post any more examples.
     
  12. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,247
    5,575
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    Simply put, atmospheric levels of C14 are currently GROWING.

    IIRC, calibrations show that a saturation point of C14 should have occurred when the Earth's intact atmosphere was roughly 30,000 years old. Since the levels are still growing, we are NOT at a saturation level as of yet. Three points:

    1) Testing is suspect due to its reliance on the atmosphere's near stable levels of C14.

    2) If C14's theory and practice is to be believed, then the Earth's atmosphere is not even 30,000 years old yet, which this fact blows a HUGE hole in the evos' multimillion year timeline.

    3) For whatever reasons, present day C14 testing has shown only two conclusive proofs. One, when the age of a C14 tested sample is known, the resultant C14 testing date is wrong. Two, when the age of a C14 tested sample is unknown, the resultant C14 testing date is believed to be right. This is NOT empirically derived scientific data.

    Simply put, at the present time, modern science cannot categorically and or empirically determine the ages of tested samples by radiometric dating methodologies.

    http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2112/is-k-ar-a-reliable-method-for-dating-rock-ages?lq=1
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  13. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,247
    5,575
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    wingryder's post of the image made my point for me, but I understand your bias in reasoning on this issue.

    ETA: He posted an image of a star, and it is merely a white dot, which he perfectly illustrated the point I was making. Now, if you show me solar flares, or the stars surface with say dark spots or spinning, then you'd have a good counter point.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  14. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,247
    5,575
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    They appears as dots of light on the photos we take of them.

    Your statement reveals at least three more, off topic rabbit trails similar to this issue, but we have had enough fun going off topic of the thread. You're more than welcome to start a thread about stars if you'd like.

    The thread is about the Holy Bible being historically and scientifically accurate. Anything you want to discuss or elaborate here about the thread's topic?
     
  15. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,322
    1,261
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    You can't simply state that as fact. You need to support that statement with scholarly, unbiased sources (not an apologetics website). Current scientific thinking is that the rate of decay and the rate of introduction via cosmic rays of new carbon-14 are in relative equilibrium and have been for tens of thousands of years. Who exactly is stating that carbon-14 has been steadily building (despite its known decay rate) in our atmosphere and what findings do they have to support that (and what were their methods in collecting that data)?
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  16. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,322
    1,261
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    Hubble isn't equipped with those kinds of lens filters because that was not the mission it was designed for. In order to get the kind of images you are looking for, an observatory would have to be purpose built for just that kind of imaging (and then it would be useless for just about any other purpose). Considering that there isn't much added scientific value to imaging sun spots or solar flars on remote stars (especially at a relatively poor resolutions), nobody has yet invested the millions of dollars needed to build and launch that kind of observatory. And that is not likely to change soon as most of the relevant questions about remote stars can be answered through spectral analysis and imaging in the non-visible spectrum.

    Still Wingryder's post shows that we can image stars at beyond the one pixel resolution, but not surprisingly they look a lot like the sun does if you look at it with the naked eye (please don't do this Peace Warrior) a blindingly bright ball of light.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  17. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,632
    1,942
    Jul 12, 2007
    Dancing? Really? What do you think that means? Are you joking or truly that stupid? Maybe you should stop dancing around and get to the point....

    Is there another language besides English you's be more at home with?

    Randy

    posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
     
  18. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,322
    1,261
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    Are you suggesting that there is some process that could act upon the interior of a sample that has never been exposed to the atmosphere or ground water since its formation? Exterior surfaces and the internal surfaces of cracks and fissures, sure. But what about internal areas that have been completely sealed from all external processes? Granted, it's sometimes hard to find such an area to test if the sample is small and extremely old, but in those instances we can readily tell if we have a good sample or not and know if our dating methods will be valid in that particular instance.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  19. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,247
    5,575
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    My math is suspect, but C14 rates are growing over 20% more than they are falling by way of decay.

    Nonequilibrium RadioCarbon Dating Substantiated, Vol. 2 - Melvin A. Cook, pp. 59 thru 68, (1986)
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  20. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai CLM

    29,247
    5,575
    Jan 12, 2007
    outside the wire perimeter.
    And a Dosado you go.

    Still no simple "yes," or "no."