Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[james bond]

Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.

There you go. Ha ha.

 

[james bond]

Actually seals are more closely related to dogs than they are cats

Correct! Their lineages split about 50 million years ago.

One stayed in the water and one didn’t.

It’s a common mistake theists make when they mock science.

Lineages cannot just split. They can only produce a new species by reproduction. This is observable science.

 

[james bond]

>>@Syriusly: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<

The answers are NOT on the net. As usual, atheists are wrong. It is circular reasoning.

We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.

You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years

And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

• 2Modern dating methods
  • 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
  • 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
  • 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
  • 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
  • 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
  • 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
  • 2.7 Fission track dating method
  • 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
  • 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
  • 2.10 Other methods
  • .......
• 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
  • 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
  • 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
  • `

Of course but the christo-creationists will always whine 'but carbon 14!'

Why do you accept what he posted? He just discussed different techniques for dating. It doesn't mean they're true nor the methodology based on their assumptions is correct. It could be wildly incorrect. Which method can one use to date rocks that have been underwater for years? What method does one use to date objects/fossils in sedimentary layers?

YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS!!!

You have only answers you find in your big book of fairy tales.

Have you been to your Ark museum yet- to see the dinosaurs that were on Noah's Ark?

I was correct in that you have no answers. As for C-14, "On 14C in coal, in 2003, scientists obtained some coal samples from the US Department of Energy and carefully stored in its Coal Sample Bank. The coal samples were tested and 14C was detected in them indicating that these coal sample are not millions of years old."

 

[james bond]

The lowdown to the intrinsic C14 remaining in coal, oil and diamonds has not been explained by contamination or other hypothesis.

"RATE Carbon 14 Study Withstands Scrutiny
“… Baumgardner’s coal samples do show significant radiocarbon above background, inviting explanation.” –Dr. Kirk Bertsche, AMS Expert At left: Accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (From Wikipedia)

The RATE team from Institute for Creation Research has produced some very interesting physical evidence for a young earth … one of their experiments involves measuring Carbon 14 in coal. To make a long story short, there shouldn’t be any Carbon 14 in coal that is supposedly 300 million years old. BUT … there is and Dr. Baumgardner and his colleagues were alert enough to notice. Link here to Dr. Baumgardner’s paper. Paul Giem of GRISDA did a literature survey of studies in which “too much” carbon 14 was found. This prompted the RATE team to do their own experiment and sure enough … they found carbon 14 which was significantly above background. Dr. Baumgardner argues that the C14 is intrinsic but of course Old Earthers say it’s not. What are the Old Earth explanations? Dr. Bertsche in his article at Talk Origins has suggested mobile humic acids, microbial growth and neutron bombardment. Kathleen Hunt in her article at Talk Origins says …

The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment.

(The fungi/bacteria hypothesis [that 14C in coal is produced by modern microorganisms currently living there --Ed.] may also be plausible, but would probably only contribute to inflation of 14C values if coal sits in warm damp conditions exposed to ambient air. [It wasn't -- read Baumgardner's paper on how the samples were handled] There is also growing evidence that bacteria are widespread in deep rocks, but it is not clear that they could contribute to 14C levels. But they may contribute to 13C.)

…

So, it looks like in-situ production of new 14C is the best-supported hypothesis;

So this appears to be the leading Old Earth Hypothesis but Dr. Bertsche failed to mention in his article that Dr. Baumgardner had already thought of this hypothesis and had calculated the amount of Carbon 14 this would produce. His calculations showed that the amount of C14 produced would be 4 orders of magnitude too small. I challenged people at the Talk Rational forum to show that Dr. Baumgardner’s calculations are wrong and several people tried including Dr. Bertsche. Here is what he wrote recently …

“When I do the above [calculations on neutron bombardment of 14N to produce 14C in coal] on the back of an envelope, I get a 14C abundance that is too low by about 3 orders of magnitude. LINK HERE.“

So the two are very close. Dr. Bertsche has come back today (6/1/10) saying that this is not conclusive and “in situ” contamination is not ruled out. That’s fine, Dr. Bertsche, if you think it’s not conclusive … you are welcome to keep trying with the calculations. As for “in situ” contamination, don’t you think your friend Dr. Gove has considered those other sources of contamination? Why else would he think that in-situ production of new 14C is the best-supported hypothesis? If Old Earthers would stop ignoring the Elephant in the Living Room — the Global Flood, SOOO many things would be easier to explain … like the bazillions of fossils all over the world which require rapid burial to be preserved, like global sedimentary rock layers, the short history of civilization, legends of a global flood from around the world and so on. Oh … and Carbon 14 in coal that shouldn’t be there."

TRUTH MATTERS » Blog Archive » RATE Carbon 14 Study Withstands Scrutiny

And not just in coal, but oild and diamonds, too.

I'll file it under more stuff evos can't explain.

 

[RWS]

Just to clarify, people like bond think that our argument for evolution is that we evolved from monkeys.

He doesn't understand the common ancestor concept. He thinks we argue that we came from monkeys.

And no matter how much you try, you won't convince him. He's totally into his brainwashed religious mantra, and uses false science and links to prove it.

Better to ask philosophical questions. Like... "Does God let us into Heaven if we don't believe?"

And "Which God do we need to believe in?"

Stuff like that...

 

[ChesBayJJ]

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????

If evolution is real why are there still monkeys? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

Why There Still Are Monkeys: Lessons Learned From Teaching Evolution In Kansas – The Evolution Institute

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

Read and learn, doofus

LOL. The so called expert is using circular logic. There is no common ancestor because monkeys and humans cannot mate. We do not observe any common ancestor today.

You clearly don't understand the concept of speciation and how evolution works.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.

There you go. Ha ha.

Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...

 

[james bond]

If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?????

If evolution is real why are there still monkeys? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

Why There Still Are Monkeys: Lessons Learned From Teaching Evolution In Kansas – The Evolution Institute

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

Read and learn, doofus

LOL. The so called expert is using circular logic. There is no common ancestor because monkeys and humans cannot mate. We do not observe any common ancestor today.

You clearly don't understand the concept of speciation and how evolution works.

First, you couldn't explain how it works in your own words which means you did not understand. I understand speciation, which is how natural selection works, but that answer is mythology. If we take one step back, then ask why aren't there common ancestors? No amount of sexual reproduction produces sustainable ape-humans. Speaking of which, you can't even explain how sexual reproduction evolved.

 

[james bond]

Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.

There you go. Ha ha.

Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...

Tell us more about your background and what happened in middle school and how your education ended there lol lol lol.

 

[fncceo]

No amount of sexual reproduction produces sustainable ape-humans.

I beg to differ...

 

[dave p]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

I’m pretty sure liberals did.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.

There you go. Ha ha.

Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...

Tell us more about your background and what happened in middle school and how your education ended there lol lol lol.

Says the guy copy pasting things he doesn't understand, and saying things at odds with what is now common knowledge for 9 years olds...damn son, you are embarrassing yourself...

 

[james bond]

Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.

There you go. Ha ha.

Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...

Tell us more about your background and what happened in middle school and how your education ended there lol lol lol.

Says the guy copy pasting things he doesn't understand, and saying things at odds with what is now common knowledge for 9 years olds...damn son, you are embarrassing yourself...

Of course, I understand. There are no ape humans or common relative just like there are none now.

 

[james bond]

No amount of sexual reproduction produces sustainable ape-humans.

I beg to differ...

Not sustainable. Can't breed.

 

[fncceo]

No amount of sexual reproduction produces sustainable ape-humans.

I beg to differ...

Not sustainable. Can't breed.

Given enough alcohol and Barry White music ... anyone can breed.

 

[Syriusly]

We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.

You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years

And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

• 2Modern dating methods
  • 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
  • 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
  • 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
  • 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
  • 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
  • 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
  • 2.7 Fission track dating method
  • 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
  • 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
  • 2.10 Other methods
  • .......
• 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
  • 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
  • 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
  • `

Of course but the christo-creationists will always whine 'but carbon 14!'

Why do you accept what he posted? He just discussed different techniques for dating. It doesn't mean they're true nor the methodology based on their assumptions is correct. It could be wildly incorrect. Which method can one use to date rocks that have been underwater for years? What method does one use to date objects/fossils in sedimentary layers?

YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS!!!

You have only answers you find in your big book of fairy tales.

Have you been to your Ark museum yet- to see the dinosaurs that were on Noah's Ark?

I was correct in that you have no answers. As for C-14, "On 14C in coal, in 2003, scientists obtained some coal samples from the US Department of Energy and carefully stored in its Coal Sample Bank. The coal samples were tested and 14C was detected in them indicating that these coal sample are not millions of years old."

LOL notice the lack of citation- but where you got that quote was easy to find- Carbon-14 diamonds TalkOrigins - creation.com.

Not at all surprising is that they don't provide any citation- or the names of the 'scientists' either.

Creation.com appears to have just made it up- which considering that Creationism is all based upon a big book of fairy tales- makes sense.

 

[RWS]

So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Again, we did not evolve from monkeys.

There you go. Ha ha.

Laugh it up....youre the one getting laughed out of the middle school classroom...

Tell us more about your background and what happened in middle school and how your education ended there lol lol lol.

Says the guy copy pasting things he doesn't understand, and saying things at odds with what is now common knowledge for 9 years olds...damn son, you are embarrassing yourself...

Of course, I understand. There are no ape humans or common relative just like there are none now.

Of course, humans are apes, and all apes have a common ancestor that lived about 14 million years ago. This is a fact, and no, your psychobabble and crybabying has no more effect on this fact than it would have on the fact that the earth revolves about the sun.

 

[RWS]

Well it does, because he has an idea of who goes to heaven, and who doesn't.

That's what I want to find out.

 

[james bond]

So Bond... based on this thread, who deserves to go to Heaven?

"Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" Gal. 4:16

Going to heaven isn't in this thread, but those being headed for the lake of fire are numerous including yours since it's a heartfelt conviction of yours without any evidence.