The Holy Bible is both historically and scientifically correct.

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

  1. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai

    Like diamonds, oil, coal, certain fossils...?

    They all still have C14 out the yang when in actuality, they should have ZERO amounts.

    Based on evolutionary thinking: How would diamonds have high rates of C14?

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot

    The same Melvin A. Cook that authored "Science and Mormonism"? Do you have any scholarly (non-apologetic) sources for this claim?

    An excerpt from Melvin's wiki article:

    The problem with your/his claim is that when we use the carbon-14 dating method to date samples of a known age, we only see errors in the range of 10%+/-. If the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has previosuly been both 10% higher and 10% lower than current levels then that indicates expected variations around a reasonably certain equilibrium level.

    Now, we might be in the middle of an increasing trend at the moment, but unless that variation can be shown to exceed historic variations by a statistically significant amount then it is errant to assume that it is anything other than normal fluctuations in a relatively stable system.

  3. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot

    That wasn't really the question, but oil is a liquid (with organic origins), it's really not hard to imagine it containg some C14 is it? Coal is porous (and also of organic origin), also done.

    Fossils and diamonds have been found that have C14 "out the yang"? Are you sure? I think you mean to say that fossils and diamonds have been found to have barely detectable levels of C14. Much lower than would be expected through the mechanism of living tissue absorbing it through biological processes.

    Before I answer on the last two I have a couple of questions. Are you suggesting that cosmic rays impacting the atmosphere is the only way for C14 to be created here on Earth or merely just the most prolific? Are you suggesting that there is no minimum background level for C14 that can be found in just about any sample you care to test here on Earth?
    #303 Geko45, Nov 20, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  4. So that brings me back to my earlier question, do you think that carbon-14 dating is used to date the earth?

  5. This thread would be a riot if it wasn't so damn sad.

    A small world indeed is the one who's entire sphere is only the good old King James, all one's time spent trying to deny everything outside it's pages.
  6. Peace Warrior,
    in the interest of time, since I'm trying to get out of town for the holiday, allow me to ask a question, make a point, and share a story from the "science is cool" archive.

    The question...
    How would atmospheric saturation of carbon-14 contaminate readings of meteorites that crash to earth and are dated to around 4.6 billion years old? Scientific citation please.

    The point...
    To answer my own question above, no, carbon-14 is not used to date the earth. It is only used to date samples to around 50,000 - 60,000 years.

    The story from the "science is cool" archive...
    Professor John Wells of Cornell University devised a clever study to use biology to validate radiometric dating. Wells was studying corals that radiometric dating showed to live about 380, million years ago.

    Making use of the fact that tidal friction slows the earths rotation over time (length of day increases about 2 seconds every 100,000 years, although earth's orbit around the sun does not vary in duration), Wells calculated that 380 million years ago a year would have contained 396 days of 22 hours.

    Cool, but now what? Well, corals produce both daily and annual growth rings. By counting the number of daily growth rings between annual growth rings Wells determined that the coral experienced 400 days per year which would have meant a 21.9 hour day -- only a fraction of a percent deviation from what was predicted by radiometric dating. Ta da! Science is cool.

    Wells, J.W., 1963, Coral growth and geochronometry, Nature, v. 197, p. 948-950

  8. As a general rule, talkorigins is, at best, considered suspect by many here.
    #309 ksg0245, Nov 20, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  9. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    This is ridiculous. First of all, the atmospheric levels of C14 vary back and forth a little, but there's no trend of increasing levels. This has been verified from air samples frozen in ice. Its also corroborated with tree ring data. So your premise has been proven false two different independent ways.

    Second, even IF your argument was true, that has no effect on OTHER readiometric dating methods, none of which depend on measuring the C14.

    Its kind of amazing how you manage to find ever more massive displays of ignorance as time goes on.

    #310 steveksux, Nov 20, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012
  10. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai

    The so called "calibrations," which should be more correctly termed assumptions, are nothing more than manipulation of figures within the equation derived out of testing a sample with a KNOWN age.

    Then these same manipulated figures are assumed to take out "C14 fluctuation errors" for testing samples of an UNKNOWN age. Even you cannot call that good Science. At best it is literally guessing based on two or three assumptions, and at worst it is akin to medieval quackery of old, but now a bit modernized (i.e., technologically speaking) with an evolutionary timeline bias so as to make the results fit into an expected outcome.

    You claim that C14's dating errors have been fixed by taking into account the fluctuation of the amount of C14 for a given time period.

    I claim that C14 is still not reliable based on the assumptions used as well as the declining strength of the Earth's magnetic field, which I admit I use the latter fact to ASSUME that C14 rates are rising and have been doing so since they were first scientifically measured over 60 years ago (e.g., 1950's).

    Simply put, I think my assumptions are easier to ultimately realize as closer to fact, from a purely scientific stand point, than are the assumptions used for obtaining supposedly "correct" radiocarbon dates, but if we are going to be both intellectually honest, then we both must admit we are assuming facts not derived from empirical, scientific methodologies.

    As far as other radiometric dating methods, the tried and true tenet of the evos still holds true; namely, the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks. This is an undeniable and major tenet of those evos whom choose to religiously worship at their altar of time.

    Here's one example of a bivalve adding 50 million years to a previously established date for dino tracks in Alaska. You have to read it carefully as they don't clearly admit to using the bivalves as index fossils for the site, but it is plainly evident to anyone reading this article and whom has half a brain.

    The following is a clear example of "the fossils dating the rocks" for the evos, and then in turn using the "index fossil dated rocks" to date the footprints.

    ...Blodgett, who studies invertebrates, said fossilized bivalves called Buchia mosquensis found at the site date back to the late Jurassic Period, the name geologists give the time between 142 million and 205 million years ago.

    Blodgett said the Chignik area is known for its Jurassic rock formations. That alone was enough for them to suspect that the dinosaur prints were from the period. ...

    (Completely laughable conclusions in the light of empirical scientific methodologies.)
    #311 Peace Warrior, Nov 22, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
  11. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai

    No they don't, but I most certainly highly respect and admire Brother Kent as a Christian. We don't agree 100% on all issues biblical. And Dr. Hovind anf I do not agree on all things scientific.

    However, in my humble opinion, hands down, Pastor Kent Hovind is one the greatest Youth Pastors to ever walk on this planet.

    They weren't wrong, it was clear that the work done by Willard Frank Libby, while admirable, was predicated on at least two assumptions.

    Assumption one, he assumed the Earth was well over 30,000 years old. Assumption two, he assumed that the Earth's C14 level were already stabilized due to the Earth being well over 30,000 years old.

    While Creationists disagree with both assumptions, even the evos disagree with his 'C14 already being in equilibrium' assumption.
  12. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai

    Evos believe most coal found in the US to be between 40 million and 300 plus million years old. With a half life of 5700+ years, there should be NO measurable amounts of C14 in coal. Some insist that the C14 found in coal got there by way of contamination; however, there are some interesting facts that seem to rule out contamination.

    For instance, when coal samples FROM DIFFERENT SITES were collected for testing, all the samples tested revealed dates to that were within 12,000 years of each other. I don't remember the exact numbers, but IIRC, there over a half dozen coal samples, each from different places, and they all tested to within 12,000 years of each other.

    So knowing, based on your assertion of C14 coming from outside the samples, how would you explain all these samples, FROM DIFFERENT SITES, being contaminated with practically the exact same amounts of "outside" C14? Seems far fetched to me. :headscratch:

    As for diamonds, when I said "out the yang," I was exaggerating the logic in relation to diamonds and C14. Even so, I'll say I was wrong in that assertion.

    However, diamonds having ANY trace of C14 flies in the face of two assumptions from the evos. According to the evolutionary timeline, diamonds are anywhere millions to billions of years old. For the sake of argument, let's go with the lesser amount of time use the assumption they are merely millions of years old.

    How can something a millions years old and as hard as a diamond be contaminated with "outside C14?" However, like the coal, even evos found measurable amounts of C14 within diamonds. In fact, one study, which this study was conducted by the evos themselves, found, and I quote, "essentially identical" values as far as C14.

    ... Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical 14C values 69.3 ± 0.5 ka 70.6 ± 0.5 ka BP. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields. ...

    Okay, they cut a diamond into 6 parts, and each part showed essentially identical amounts of C14. Now I ask you, do you believe the C14 found in this diamond was derived due to contamination? Diamond itself seems too hard to allow for "outside C14" contamination.

    If you do think it's contamination, how do you explain the almost perfectly equal diffusion of "contaminating" C14? I mean, coupled with roughly equal coal sample dates, I think contamination can be ruled out as the amounts of it are too precise and equal throughout the tested samples of both coal and diamonds respectively.
    #313 Peace Warrior, Nov 22, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
  13. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    What do you think the ancestors of diamonds were? How many generations of proto-diamonds did it take to evolve into diamonds?

    Any other evolutionary stuff you object to regarding diamonds, or just C14 contents? Does that about cover the evolutionary aspect of how diamonds evolved from lesser minerals?

    Back to the C14 content of diamonds: How many diamonds are formed in the atmosphere out of atmospheric carbon where the ratio of normal carbon to C14 ratio that C14 dating is based on occurs?

    You do realize that living animals do not eat actually eat coal and **** diamonds, right? That is a figure of speech, not an actual physical phenomenon. Those diamonds would contain the correct ratio of carbon isotopes to allow us to carbon date the diamonds and determine when they were ****.

    C14 in the atmosphere is caused by cosmic rays, and naturally decays, a process that leads to the relatively constant ratio of C14 in the atmosphere. But diamonds have not been seen to form in the atmosphere out of atmospheric carbon. At least not yet.

    #314 steveksux, Nov 22, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
  14. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    From your link above.
    Guess you don't know what that means, huh? :rofl::rofl::rofl:

    Any idea what that "same level of c14 detected in all 6 samples" refers to/implies in this case? I'm thinking....... No.

    This should be entertaining.

    #315 steveksux, Nov 22, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2012
  15. This guy thinks 9-11 wase an inside job and someone is going to take his opinion on C14 seriously?
  16. Yeah, I've brought that up also.

    I think the only reason this thread is still going is the entertainment factor.:rofl:
  17. Animal Mother

    Animal Mother Not Enough Gun

    Just to be clear, before we move on to you next completely unsupported claim that you'll demand be accepted based on nothing more than your assertion, the answer to Geko45's question above is "No", correct?
  18. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai

    You're again not to well kept up to date on these matters... See, the nuclear testing done by Russia and the uSA threw "a monkey in the wrench," to quote a bruce willis movie character, as far as radiocarbon testing is concerned. Regardless, anyone obtaining "conclusions" from CURRENT radiometric or radiocarbon dating methods always rely on assumptions, which IMHO, at best leaves room for serious errors, and or at worst opens the door for manipulating the results.

    ...This regional difference from the average global marine reservoir correction is designated ΔR (Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993) As a first approximation, ΔR is assumed to be a constant for a given region...
    #319 Peace Warrior, Nov 23, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2012
  19. Peace Warrior

    Peace Warrior Am Yisrael Chai

    People like you, which have their heads so far up their rears they have to be led around by others, never cease to amaze me. Start a thread about 9-11 if you'd like, but stop trolling this one. Here are some links to expect in your new thread... K-thx.

Share This Page