Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
why not just sit on your butt and pray?
- Thread starter srlip
- Start date
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
God does answer prayers. Very distinctly at times.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given unto him." (James 1:5)
He will give anyone wisdom if they sincerely ask with faith that they will obtain it. You, me, everyone.
The key is a sincere desire to seek God. God isn't going to answer your prayers if you don't really care and are just doing so to mock Him or others.
Try seeking Him sincerely and you may be surprised
THIS is what I was refering to in my previous post. If you don't recieve the Grand Prize in the God Scam it is YOUR fault. It isn't god's or jeebus's fault that you didn't read the fine print.
I've got some good advice for those that seek wisdom.. Start thinking for yourself and stop wasting your time and money with this fraud called religion. You will instantly become smarter and richer.
My argument from the science perspective derives from the scientific method.
Your argument from the perspective of magic and supernaturalism derives from a book of tales and fables suggesting a 6,000 year old earth.
BTW, the earth is more than 6,000 years old.
The Bible says that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us.
It took God 6,000 years from start to finish for the creation of the Earth.
It does not tell how old the Earth is nor does it say how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they were cast out.
You are using faith that science age dating is correct, but there is no proof that it is correct.
If there was a world wide flood then any radio metric age dating would not be correct
Science is an educated guessing game, because no one was alive to ask for that proof of
actual facts.
You have faith in man's faulty science.
We have faith in God and someday you will find that God does exist.
1. You can certainly infer from the bible that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us. However, if you're then going to infer that the earth is 6,000 years old, you are in an Irreconcilable conflict with the relevant science community which says you're wrong.
You also have the option of retreating to the "it's a metaphor" statement but still, you're going to then have to do a lot of special peading and adjustments for what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are not.
The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.
I have no "faith" in science. There is simply no such requirement. As to your claim regarding man's "faulty science", there is no disagreement among the relevant science community regarding the age of this planet or the age of our universe in terms of billions of years.
If you choose to ignore it, that's fine.
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as it’s also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.
Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMU’s), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMU’s. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.
Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or “breath in” carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.
There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.
First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.
The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.
Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model
These are five faulty assumptions listed here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is – at best – reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results – human bias.
See, you said relevant science community. Anyone who disagrees can't be relevant.
Theories are all about differences of opinions and when anyone who has a different point of view in the main science community then becomes irrelevant.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.
Last edited:
- Moderator
- #124
God does answer prayers. Very distinctly at times.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given unto him." (James 1:5)
He will give anyone wisdom if they sincerely ask with faith that they will obtain it. You, me, everyone.
The key is a sincere desire to seek God. God isn't going to answer your prayers if you don't really care and are just doing so to mock Him or others.
Try seeking Him sincerely and you may be surprised
THIS is what I was refering to in my previous post. If you don't recieve the Grand Prize in the God Scam it is YOUR fault. It isn't god's or jeebus's fault that you didn't read the fine print.
I've got some good advice for those that seek wisdom.. Start thinking for yourself and stop wasting your time and money with this fraud called religion. You will instantly become smarter and richer.
Who else is responsible for yourself?
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
The Bible says that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us.
It took God 6,000 years from start to finish for the creation of the Earth.
It does not tell how old the Earth is nor does it say how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they were cast out.
You are using faith that science age dating is correct, but there is no proof that it is correct.
If there was a world wide flood then any radio metric age dating would not be correct
Science is an educated guessing game, because no one was alive to ask for that proof of
actual facts.
You have faith in man's faulty science.
We have faith in God and someday you will find that God does exist.
1. You can certainly infer from the bible that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us. However, if you're then going to infer that the earth is 6,000 years old, you are in an Irreconcilable conflict with the relevant science community which says you're wrong.
You also have the option of retreating to the "it's a metaphor" statement but still, you're going to then have to do a lot of special peading and adjustments for what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are not.
The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.
I have no "faith" in science. There is simply no such requirement. As to your claim regarding man's "faulty science", there is no disagreement among the relevant science community regarding the age of this planet or the age of our universe in terms of billions of years.
If you choose to ignore it, that's fine.
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as its also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.
Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMUs), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMUs. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.
Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or breath in carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.
There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.
First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.
The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.
Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as its formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this aint necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model
These are five faulty assumptions listed here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is at best reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results human bias.
See, you said relevant science community. Anyone who disagrees can't be relevant.
Theories are all about differences of opinions and when anyone who has a different point of view in the main science community then becomes irrelevant.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.
All of that does not change the FACT that faith is based on NO...ZERO... NONEXISTANT science.
The difficulty in accurately dating all things by the science of radio carbon depletion is NOTHING of a hurdle compared to the obstical of dating ANYTHING based on scripture.
But then this thread isn't titled the "dating thread" is it.
Religists specialize in obscuring the question with off topic answers to questions that were never asked.
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
God does answer prayers. Very distinctly at times.
"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who gives to all men liberally and upbraideth not and it shall be given unto him." (James 1:5)
He will give anyone wisdom if they sincerely ask with faith that they will obtain it. You, me, everyone.
The key is a sincere desire to seek God. God isn't going to answer your prayers if you don't really care and are just doing so to mock Him or others.
Try seeking Him sincerely and you may be surprised
THIS is what I was refering to in my previous post. If you don't recieve the Grand Prize in the God Scam it is YOUR fault. It isn't god's or jeebus's fault that you didn't read the fine print.
I've got some good advice for those that seek wisdom.. Start thinking for yourself and stop wasting your time and money with this fraud called religion. You will instantly become smarter and richer.
Who else is responsible for yourself?
Most people have SOME people they know and even some they do not know that feel some sense of responsibility towards them.
thebrucebeat
Senior Member
The Bible says that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us.
It took God 6,000 years from start to finish for the creation of the Earth.
It does not tell how old the Earth is nor does it say how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they were cast out.
You are using faith that science age dating is correct, but there is no proof that it is correct.
If there was a world wide flood then any radio metric age dating would not be correct
Science is an educated guessing game, because no one was alive to ask for that proof of
actual facts.
You have faith in man's faulty science.
We have faith in God and someday you will find that God does exist.
1. You can certainly infer from the bible that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us. However, if you're then going to infer that the earth is 6,000 years old, you are in an Irreconcilable conflict with the relevant science community which says you're wrong.
You also have the option of retreating to the "it's a metaphor" statement but still, you're going to then have to do a lot of special peading and adjustments for what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are not.
The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.
I have no "faith" in science. There is simply no such requirement. As to your claim regarding man's "faulty science", there is no disagreement among the relevant science community regarding the age of this planet or the age of our universe in terms of billions of years.
If you choose to ignore it, that's fine.
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as its also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.
Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMUs), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMUs. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.
Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or breath in carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.
There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.
First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.
The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.
Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as its formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this aint necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model
These are five faulty assumptions listed here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is at best reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results human bias.
See, you said relevant science community. Anyone who disagrees can't be relevant.
Theories are all about differences of opinions and when anyone who has a different point of view in the main science community then becomes irrelevant.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.
The part highlighted in red above shows why your understanding of the science involved is pathetically flawed.
See if you can figure out why.
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
1. You can certainly infer from the bible that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us. However, if you're then going to infer that the earth is 6,000 years old, you are in an Irreconcilable conflict with the relevant science community which says you're wrong.
You also have the option of retreating to the "it's a metaphor" statement but still, you're going to then have to do a lot of special peading and adjustments for what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are not.
The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.
I have no "faith" in science. There is simply no such requirement. As to your claim regarding man's "faulty science", there is no disagreement among the relevant science community regarding the age of this planet or the age of our universe in terms of billions of years.
If you choose to ignore it, that's fine.
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as its also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.
Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMUs), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMUs. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.
Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or breath in carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.
There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.
First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.
The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.
Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as its formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this aint necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model
These are five faulty assumptions listed here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is at best reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results human bias.
See, you said relevant science community. Anyone who disagrees can't be relevant.
Theories are all about differences of opinions and when anyone who has a different point of view in the main science community then becomes irrelevant.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.
The part highlighted in red above shows why your understanding of the science involved is pathetically flawed.
See if you can figure out why.
You mean to say it didn't convert to a gas and was breathed in by cows and turned into milk and drank by humans?
Well.. !!! I never .. !!!
1. You can certainly infer from the bible that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us. However, if you're then going to infer that the earth is 6,000 years old, you are in an Irreconcilable conflict with the relevant science community which says you're wrong.
You also have the option of retreating to the "it's a metaphor" statement but still, you're going to then have to do a lot of special peading and adjustments for what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are not.
The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.
I have no "faith" in science. There is simply no such requirement. As to your claim regarding man's "faulty science", there is no disagreement among the relevant science community regarding the age of this planet or the age of our universe in terms of billions of years.
If you choose to ignore it, that's fine.
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as its also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.
Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMUs), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMUs. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.
Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or breath in carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.
There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.
First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.
The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.
Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as its formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this aint necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model
These are five faulty assumptions listed here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is at best reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results human bias.
See, you said relevant science community. Anyone who disagrees can't be relevant.
Theories are all about differences of opinions and when anyone who has a different point of view in the main science community then becomes irrelevant.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.
The part highlighted in red above shows why your understanding of the science involved is pathetically flawed.
See if you can figure out why.
That is not me who said it.
It was the Scientist Willard Libby.
thebrucebeat
Senior Member
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
carbon-14 dating (or radiocarbon dating, as its also called) is not a precise dating method in many cases, due to faulty assumptions and other limitations on this method.
Carbon has a weight of twelve atomic mass units (AMUs), and is the building block of all organic matter (plants and animals). A small percentage of carbon atoms have an atomic weight of 14 AMUs. This is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is an unstable, radioactive isotope of carbon 12. As with any radioactive isotope, carbon-14 decays over time. The half-life of carbon 14 is approximate 5,730 years. That means if you took one pound of 100 percent carbon-14, in 5,730 years, you would only have half a pound left.
Carbon-14 is created in the upper atmosphere as nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic radiation. For every one trillion carbon-12 atoms, you will find one carbon-14 atoms. The carbon-14 that results from the reaction caused by cosmic radiation quickly changes to carbon dioxide, just like normal carbon-12 would. Plants utilize, or breath in carbon dioxide, then ultimately release oxygen for animals to inhale. The carbon-14 dioxide is utilized by plants in the same way normal carbon dioxide is. This carbon-14 dioxide then ends up in humans and other animals as it moves up the food chain.
There is then a ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the bodies of plants, humans, and other animals that can fluctuate, but will be fixed at the time of death. After death, the carbon-14 would begin to decay at the rate stated above. In 1948, Dr. W.F. Libby introduced the carbon-14 dating method at the University of Chicago. The premise behind the method is to determine the ratio of carbon-14 left in organic matter, and by doing so, estimate how long ago death occurred by running the ratio backwards. The accuracy of this method, however, relies on several faulty assumptions.
First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.
The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.
Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as its formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this aint necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model
These are five faulty assumptions listed here that have caused overestimates of age using the carbon-14 method. The list of non-compliant dates from this method is endless. Most evolutionists today would conclude that carbon-14 dating is at best reliable for only the last 3000 to 3500 years. There is another reason that carbon-14 dating has yielded questionable results human bias.
See, you said relevant science community. Anyone who disagrees can't be relevant.
Theories are all about differences of opinions and when anyone who has a different point of view in the main science community then becomes irrelevant.
Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model.
The part highlighted in red above shows why your understanding of the science involved is pathetically flawed.
See if you can figure out why.
That is not me who said it.
It was the Scientist Willard Libby.
If so he's in error.
I am sure he didn't.
The writer probably made this silly extrapolation.
The article isn't Libby's work.
The Bible says that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us.
It took God 6,000 years from start to finish for the creation of the Earth.
It does not tell how old the Earth is nor does it say how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden before they were cast out.
You are using faith that science age dating is correct, but there is no proof that it is correct.
If there was a world wide flood then any radio metric age dating would not be correct
Science is an educated guessing game, because no one was alive to ask for that proof of
actual facts.
You have faith in man's faulty science.
We have faith in God and someday you will find that God does exist.
1. You can certainly infer from the bible that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us. However, if you're then going to infer that the earth is 6,000 years old, you are in an Irreconcilable conflict with the relevant science community which says you're wrong.
You also have the option of retreating to the "it's a metaphor" statement but still, you're going to then have to do a lot of special peading and adjustments for what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are not.
The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.
I have no "faith" in science. There is simply no such requirement. As to your claim regarding man's "faulty science", there is no disagreement among the relevant science community regarding the age of this planet or the age of our universe in terms of billions of years.
If you choose to ignore it, that's fine.
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
......
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
I'm afraid your worldview will be negatively impacted to learn that the earth is a bit more than 50,000 years old.
In addition, your data regarding carbon-14 is, I'm afraid, a clone of the Kent Hovind / creation ministries argument that has long ago been debunked by the relevant science community. There have already been a number of solid rebuttals to your young earth creationist claims so for your use and information:
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
Oh, and the alleged biblical flood - didn't happen.
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Last edited:
1. You can certainly infer from the bible that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us. However, if you're then going to infer that the earth is 6,000 years old, you are in an Irreconcilable conflict with the relevant science community which says you're wrong.
You also have the option of retreating to the "it's a metaphor" statement but still, you're going to then have to do a lot of special peading and adjustments for what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are not.
The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.
I have no "faith" in science. There is simply no such requirement. As to your claim regarding man's "faulty science", there is no disagreement among the relevant science community regarding the age of this planet or the age of our universe in terms of billions of years.
If you choose to ignore it, that's fine.
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
......
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as its formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
I'm afraid your worldview will be negatively impacted to learn that the earth is a bit more than 50,000 years old.
In addition, your data regarding carbon-14 is, I'm afraid, a clone of the Kent Hovind / creation ministries argument that has long ago been debunked by the relevant science community. There have already been a number of solid rebuttals to your young earth creationist claims so for your use and information:
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
Oh, and the alleged biblical flood - didn't happen.
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
Where did I say the Earth is 50,000 years old?
I have never said anything one way or the other about how old I think the Earth is.
My info came from actual science on carbon dating not some bogus website.
I don't follow any creationisit ministries because I think that they are also wrong on Earth only being 6,000 years old.
The part highlighted in red above shows why your understanding of the science involved is pathetically flawed.
See if you can figure out why.
That is not me who said it.
It was the Scientist Willard Libby.
If so he's in error.
I am sure he didn't.
The writer probably made this silly extrapolation.
The article isn't Libby's work.
Denver University says it is.
Carbon
1. You can certainly infer from the bible that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us. However, if you're then going to infer that the earth is 6,000 years old, you are in an Irreconcilable conflict with the relevant science community which says you're wrong.
You also have the option of retreating to the "it's a metaphor" statement but still, you're going to then have to do a lot of special peading and adjustments for what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are not.
The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.
I have no "faith" in science. There is simply no such requirement. As to your claim regarding man's "faulty science", there is no disagreement among the relevant science community regarding the age of this planet or the age of our universe in terms of billions of years.
If you choose to ignore it, that's fine.
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
......
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
I'm afraid your worldview will be negatively impacted to learn that the earth is a bit more than 50,000 years old.
In addition, your data regarding carbon-14 is, I'm afraid, a clone of the Kent Hovind / creation ministries argument that has long ago been debunked by the relevant science community. There have already been a number of solid rebuttals to your young earth creationist claims so for your use and information:
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
Oh, and the alleged biblical flood - didn't happen.
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
I never said that what has been highlighted in red.
Someone added that and has tried to make it look like I typed that, when I didn't.
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
......
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as its formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
I'm afraid your worldview will be negatively impacted to learn that the earth is a bit more than 50,000 years old.
In addition, your data regarding carbon-14 is, I'm afraid, a clone of the Kent Hovind / creation ministries argument that has long ago been debunked by the relevant science community. There have already been a number of solid rebuttals to your young earth creationist claims so for your use and information:
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
Oh, and the alleged biblical flood - didn't happen.
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
I never said that what has been highlighted in red.
Someone added that and has tried to make it look like I typed that, when I didn't.
The problem arises when contender ministries is used as a source.
thebrucebeat
Senior Member
That is not me who said it.
It was the Scientist Willard Libby.
If so he's in error.
I am sure he didn't.
The writer probably made this silly extrapolation.
The article isn't Libby's work.
Denver University says it is.
Carbon
Care to quote any part of that very long article?
Or are you just trying to pretend you have something juicy?
Vandalshandle
Gold Member
Prayer works. I remember back in 1961 my grandmother praying that it would not rain one day. It didn't. She was so grateful that she sent a check to Oral Roberts.
If so he's in error.
I am sure he didn't.
The writer probably made this silly extrapolation.
The article isn't Libby's work.
Denver University says it is.
Carbon
Care to quote any part of that very long article?
Or are you just trying to pretend you have something juicy?
It's right at the very top
Introduction
Carbon is the lightest member of the IVA family of the periodic table, atomic number 6, electronic configuration 1s22s22p2. Its first ionization potential is 11.26V. Its naturally-occurring stable isotopes are of mass 12 (98.89%) and 13 (1.11%). C14 is produced by cosmic rays in the atmosphere at a constant rate, and decays to stable N14 by β- emission with a half life of about 5730 years. A living sample of wood, say, has the equilibrium amount of C14. When it dies, the radiocarbon decays steadily, and the ratio of C14 to C12 declines to half in 5730 years, and so on. By measuring this ratio, the time when the wood was living can be estimated. This method of dating was worked out by Willard Libby in 1947, and is called "carbon dating."
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
1. You can certainly infer from the bible that 1 day for God, is 1,000 years for us. However, if you're then going to infer that the earth is 6,000 years old, you are in an Irreconcilable conflict with the relevant science community which says you're wrong.
You also have the option of retreating to the "it's a metaphor" statement but still, you're going to then have to do a lot of special peading and adjustments for what parts of the bible are to be taken literally and which are not.
The only way to evaluate the veracity of an ideology is to examine the core documents of that ideology. Applying external standards does mean that we ignore the very document(s) upon which the ideology is based. Which words are gospel and which words are not? Does this related to specific letters as well? For instance, is English verified as a proper language by which these gospel words are delivered (I believe the Koran is considered corrupt by fundamentalists the moment it is translated out of Arabic). Can one sentence be gospel, the next not, the next two yes, the rest no? What is the standard by which this is judged?
I think you can see I'm being facetious here, but it really is the underlying context of your approach. Sure, you can pick and choose whatever you want, and think you are right -- but you have no baseline by which to assess whether or not your interpretation is correct.
I have no "faith" in science. There is simply no such requirement. As to your claim regarding man's "faulty science", there is no disagreement among the relevant science community regarding the age of this planet or the age of our universe in terms of billions of years.
If you choose to ignore it, that's fine.
I never inferred that the Earth is 6,000 years old. Re read what I said.
What I said was creation took 6,000 years. It still does not tell how old the Earth is.
Earth had to be older because of it's formation before anything could ever live or grow on the planet.
The Bible says that 1 day to God is 1,000 years to us.
2 Peter 3:8
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
And yes carbon 14 dating is flawed.
......
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 he assumed that they had reached a balance. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as its formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.
I'm afraid your worldview will be negatively impacted to learn that the earth is a bit more than 50,000 years old.
In addition, your data regarding carbon-14 is, I'm afraid, a clone of the Kent Hovind / creation ministries argument that has long ago been debunked by the relevant science community. There have already been a number of solid rebuttals to your young earth creationist claims so for your use and information:
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
Oh, and the alleged biblical flood - didn't happen.
Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition
The biblical flood is a patently rediculous concept. It is one of many myths the religists try to pawn off on ignorant people. Floods happen every year for a variety of reasons. If it rains too much in a specific region and a landslide happens like it did up here in Oso a river can be blocked for a time and then the blocked water can be released which could cause serious damage. Tsunamis have happened many thousands of times wth devastating results. These floods can cover many thousands of square miles.
Suggesting that some fool could have predicted a large flood in advance of a catastrophic rainfall episode causing "all of the world" to be under water is childlike beyond any reason.
Teaching this kind of nonsense to children a a factual occurance is willfully dumbing down children and deteriorating their ability to reason.
This practice is harmfull. Why religists need to dumb down the population is beyond me.
This is why religion will eventually go away. People don't need to know every answer but eventually they will reject every lie.
HenryBHough
Diamond Member
Sitting on your butt and praying your piles go away is, at least in part, counter-productive.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 390
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 518
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 211
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 21
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8553
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 485
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-