Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

bob_2 · 03-18-09 10:44 pm

Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy Tales <blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:by jake marcob, Mar 9, 2008 Carbon Dating = Blind dating. Believing in evolution is like trying to shove a chair chopped up into a hundred pieces, with some glue on the cut ends of the pieces, into a washer on spin cycle, and expect it to rebuild itself after a few billion year. This is the probability of the world coming into existence according to evolutionists theory. Evolutionists make up long periods of time, like billions of years, to cover up there "chances of evolution actually happening" issues. This is because the chances of nonliving matter evolving into living matter are at zero. Ask any evolutionist how they know the earth is Billions of years old and they will either tell you that carbon dating determines the earths age, or they get stumped. The little problem with carbon dating is that it is totally inaccurate, you can ask any intelligent person and they will know. People have taken a shell from a snail still alive and carbon dated it and found the shell was 26K years old, even though it wasnt actually that old. radiocarbon dating has been so inaccurate that it has caused one scientist to say at the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, “If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely "out of date," we just drop it.” Another example of its inaccuracy is when a 15 thousand year difference has been found in dating a single block of peat; coal from Russia supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1680 years. These are just a couple of the inaccuracies of carbon dating processes that are still being used by hopeless evolutionists. Another question that gets evolutionist stumped is "where did the fossils come from?" fossilization is a very rapid process that usually only happens if buried instantaneously, Bringing in the Biblical World flood factor. Of course evolutionists never believe in much of the Bibles scientific facts because that would be believing the Bible! Evolutionists are interpreting the facts totally wrong. What are the chances of evolution happening? please Give me some proof evolutionists ... <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote> <a href="http://www.scienceray.com/Philosophy-of-Science/Accurate-Carbon-Dating-Evolution-Billions-of-Years-Fairy-Tales.116318" target=_top>http://www.scienceray.com/Philosophy-of-Science/Ac curate-Carbon-Dating-Evolution-Billions-of-Years-F airy-Tales.116318</a>

neal · 03-18-09 10:59 pm

How many LIARS can you read in one day? As many Creationist articles you read! I know next to nothing about this and I STILL know more than this Liar4Jesus. This is moronic Bob. Check your sources before you put your name on them otherwise you look as idiotic as them! There are too many errors in his piece to even attempt to respond to this late at night. Maybe google "carbon dating wiki" and get back to us for a beginning. (Message edited by neal on March 18, 2009)

neal · 03-18-09 11:27 pm

neal · 03-18-09 11:30 pm

Those would be first, a Mass Spectrometer and the other, uh, uh, palestinian goat herders.

john8verse32 · 03-18-09 11:34 pm

lets not make fun of that web page to easily...everybody is entitled to their ridiculous opinion, right? even ignorant, dumb, uneducated people, right? here's another article to prove the (in)validity of the scienceray web site!!! I shudder to quote this: Why I don't believe in evolution. In the bible, on Noah's ark, he did not take on species, he took on two of each KIND. This means that there is, and it's been proven that species do adapt, within their own KIND. Also, it has been proven that once there was a flood which covered the earth. Also from the direct translation of the bible, it says that the waters came up like a knife edge. All around the world, on the fault line there is a crack, like a knife edge. The land mass was once together, and it was enough time for the animals and people to spread out. Sin came into the world, and things like dinosaurs became carnivores, and were wiped out by the flood. Scientists have tryed to predict how they were wiped out, but they do not know the real reason. The flood explains it all! The world is not 50 billion years old or even 20,000, maybe even 6000! Why ever did people believe that we came from animals!? They have slightly similar skeletons, but completely different! What the bible says is true, it doesn't even need to be proven, it's the word of God! For example, in the red sea, they found thousands of skeletons from when Moses parted it, and that was meant to be thousands of years ago. Find me a half human, half something else and I'll believe in evolution. There is evolution (adaption) between species, but not between kinds! God made the earth, the stars, and the heavens. Even leaves are extremely well designed! wow...I'm certainly glad Bob found that great resource to elevate our knowledge about the world. NOT!!!!! and the article quoted by Bob??? total ignorance.... this article itself is a fairy tale!!! Ask any evolutionist how they know the earth is Billions of years old and they will either tell you that carbon dating determines the earths age radio carbon dating is only valid with any accuracy up to about 40-50,000 yrs...because of its short half life. so it is NOT USED to date the age of the earth, which is in the billions. It takes radioactive decay on far longer duration time scales to measure the millions of year ages of many earth processes...such as Potassium decay to Argon, or heavy isotopes of Uranium to decay into lead. Bob, if this web site is characteristic of what you place your trust in to prove creationism, you are either a willing or ignorant victim of a bad joke on yourself and the ideas you want to keep!!!! (Message edited by john8verse32 on March 18, 2009)

neal · 03-18-09 11:43 pm

I wasn't going to stoop as low as rebutting the stuff the kid said but I did check out the site. Looks like its kind of the equivalent of where 'poets' send stuff to get 'published'. He's likely to be 18 years old, upset at being taunted at HS about his ancient beliefs, and sits and writes stuff that he gets paid for if somebody clicks on an ad on the story. Saying its pathetic would be too kind.

john8verse32 · 03-18-09 11:43 pm

and the goat herders are smoking...ah, er, something to open up their uneducated minds to the universe? does that help validate their visions?

bob_2 · 03-19-09 7:18 pm

Modern day students, not goatherders, can see for themselves the strange arguments about evolution and where it leads. Blame it on the goat herders but the parents that have empathy for godless ideas of life and it's purpose are really the guilty ones for how these kids turn out. Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones. (Luke 17:12)

neal · 03-19-09 7:56 pm

Modern day students, not goatherders, can see for themselves the strange arguments about evolution and where it leads. Blame it on the goat herders but the parents that have empathy for godless ideas of life and it's purpose are really the guilty ones for how these kids turn out. I challenge your whole premise as being false. Show proof. The burden of proof is on you. I have put up scientific evidence showing completely the opposite yet you still make these false statements. Oh, and using circular reasoning (quoting a goat herder to prove a goat herder) is ridiculous. (Message edited by neal on March 19, 2009)

don · 10-25-09 11:55 am

A Creationist Examines Marcob's Statement For the statement under examination see <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=16&post=3172#POST3172" target="_blank">this earlier post.</a> This was made available here last March. That's a long time ago in "debate" time. But, for my own benefit, I present an analysis of Marcob's statement: by jake marcob, Mar 9, 2008 Marcob posted this two years ago. Carbon Dating = Blind dating. Believing in evolution is like trying to shove a chair chopped up into a hundred pieces, with some glue on the cut ends of the pieces, into a washer on spin cycle, and expect it to rebuild itself after a few billion year. This is the probability of the world coming into existence according to evolutionists theory. Marcob's example of the chair is not a very good comparison. Even creationists admit that the dog in their living room does not look like the two dogs in the Garden of Eden. Things change, adapt. The changes "appear" designed. Arctic Foxes are white with short, heat conserving ears whereas the Kit Fox of the desert has huge heat releasing ears. Changes happen. "Development", i.e. adaptation to one's surroundings, occurs. This, too, is within the realm of "evolution." Marcob presents a "sloppy" way of writing to the issues. Evolutionists make up long periods of time, like billions of years, to cover up there "chances of evolution actually happening" issues. This is because the chances of nonliving matter evolving into living matter are at zero. "To cover up" implies dishonesty. This is an unnecessary accusation. "Nonliving matter evolving into living matter." Evolutionists make a distinction. They study life, biology. They do not deal with nonlife to life. Of course, it kind of goes without saying that such a transition had to have happened, But, the evolutionist has nothing to say about how that happened. Ask any evolutionist how they know the earth is Billions of years old and they will either tell you that carbon dating determines the earths age, or they get stumped. Marcob demonstrates more sloppy thinking. Scientists use radiometric dating to propose how old the earth is, but radiocarbon dating is only used for dating the past 40 000 years. See <a href="http://www.atomorrow.net/cgi-bin/discus/show.cgi?tpc=6&post=7519#POST7519" target="_blank">this post</a> from another thread. The little problem with carbon dating is that it is totally inaccurate, you can ask any intelligent person and they will know. "Totally inaccurate." ??? Consider the Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:The following table shows all the Qumran-related samples that were tested by Zurich (Z), Tucson (T) and Libby (L). The column headed "14C Age" provides a raw age before 1950 for each sample tested. This represents the ideal date for the amount of 14C measured for the sample. However, as there is fluctuation from year to year as to the quantity of 14 absorbed by all life, the figure needs to be calibrated based on the known fluctuation. This calibrated range of dates is represented in the last column, given with a 2-sigma error rating, which means at 95% confidence. (Although the tests included documents which were not from Qumran, with the exception of the Wadi ed-Daliyeh deed these will not be listed below.) The texts are ordered chronologically, based on their 14C age. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/16/2096.jpg" alt=""> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls" target="_blank">Source</a><!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>People have taken a shell from a snail still alive and carbon dated it and found the shell was 26K years old, even though it wasnt actually that old. radiocarbon dating has been so inaccurate that it has caused one scientist to say at the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, “If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely "out of date," we just drop it.” Another example of its inaccuracy is when a 15 thousand year difference has been found in dating a single block of peat; coal from Russia supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1680 years. These are just a couple of the inaccuracies of carbon dating processes that are still being used by hopeless evolutionists. Marcob should provide citations to further his assertions. Another question that gets evolutionist stumped is "where did the fossils come from?" fossilization is a very rapid process that usually only happens if buried instantaneously, Bringing in the Biblical World flood factor. I think evolutionary biologists recognize the likelihood of catastrophes. They don't accept a one time worldwide flood. Of course evolutionists never believe in much of the Bibles scientific facts because that would be believing the Bible! This is unnecessary and judgmental. Evolutionists are interpreting the facts totally wrong. What are the chances of evolution happening? please Give me some proof evolutionists ... If by evolution, Marcob means "Common Ancestor" evolution, I agree with the challenge. Let's look at the proof. Young earth creationists, from a secular viewpoint, provide an ongoing challenge to "deep time" evolutionists: prove it. Of course, scientists thrive on such a challenge. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

elaine · 10-25-09 7:57 pm

Is radiocarbon dating the preferred method for all unknown artifacts? How does it compare to radiometric dating, and is either method the preferable one, depending on the objects tested? Was radiocarbon dating the best method for dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, or was the actual scrolls and writing that made the age determination?

elaine · 10-25-09 8:00 pm

Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were Masoretic texts dating to 9th century. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that date back to the 2nd century BC, and until that happened the oldest Greek manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were the earliest extant versions of biblical manuscripts. Although some of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most do not. The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea manuscripts agree with the Masoretic text or with the early Greek manuscripts. Further, the sectarian texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, most of which were previously unknown, offer new light on one form of Judaism practiced in the Second Temple period.

don · 10-26-09 12:33 am

Was radiocarbon dating the best method for dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, or was the actual scrolls and writing that made the age determination? Both, in this case, complement each other. Because we can date the scrolls using style of writing, mention of known events, etc. then we can radiocarbon date them and learn more about the scrolls and more about radiocarbon dating. Is radiocarbon dating the preferred method for all unknown artifacts? How does it compare to radiometric dating, and is either method the preferable one, depending on the objects tested? I think radiocarbon dating is the only radiometric process for "near" time. The other radiometric tests are used to measure "deep" time. Radio-carbon is only used back to about 40 000 BP and the further one goes back the accuracy can be off a few thousand years. Data from other radiometric tests give results in millions, or even billions, of years. If a test is off a few hundred thousand, or even a few million, years, it is still considered quite accurate. Further reading on the Dead Sea Scrolls: <a href="http://www.crystalinks.com/dss.html" target=_top>http://www.crystalinks.com/dss.html</a> (Elaine, the last post of yours reads like it is your composition. Is there a reason why you present someone else's writing in such a fashion that it seems like your own?) .

cadge · 10-26-09 7:39 am

Pertaining to the Dead Sea Scrolls: "many scrolls show evidence that the scroll authors believed the soul survived beyond death (and this belief included resurrection)" That's an interesting bit of info. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif" border=0> <a href="http://www.crystalinks.com/dss.html" target=_top>http://www.crystalinks.com/dss.html</a>

elaine · 10-26-09 10:38 am

Don, I didn't say it was my writing, nor did I intend for it to be taken as mine. I was copying a small portion of a much longer paper on the Dead Sea Scrolls. The link was impossible to show, but it was in agreement with all the others regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, so should have caused no consternation nor questions. Had it disagreed with the common knowledge, I would have declined showing it as an apologist link. I have not mastered the art of copying the link, and pasting it, as all efforts so far have been unsuccessful.

don · 10-26-09 5:16 pm

nor did I intend for it to be taken as mine Not a big issue. I did take your post as yours since I had no reason not to, until I checked, of course. I suppose quotation marks would help. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

elaine · 10-26-09 6:30 pm

Sometimes, there is a selection of paragraphs that seem pertinent to the discussion because experts have superior knowledge than we lay people.

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 03-18-09 10:44 pm

Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#2 03-18-09 10:59 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#3 03-18-09 11:27 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#4 03-18-09 11:30 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#5 03-18-09 11:34 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#6 03-18-09 11:43 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#7 03-18-09 11:43 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#8 03-19-09 7:18 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#9 03-19-09 7:56 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#10 10-25-09 11:55 am

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#11 10-25-09 7:57 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#12 10-25-09 8:00 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#13 10-26-09 12:33 am

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#14 10-26-09 7:39 am

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#15 10-26-09 10:38 am

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#16 10-26-09 5:16 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

#17 10-26-09 6:30 pm

Re: Accurate Carbon Dating, Evolution, Billions of Years: Fairy

Board footer