Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Kootur Have any proof of those claims ?
I've posted various articles detailing what I'm talking about...like Modjoe said, the only people that tend to be admitting to this stuff, are the ones that want to shed light on the flaws of evolution, namely Christians...I'll go pull up a few of the other articles, I'll try to find one that people will consider non biased...because appearently having a bible verse in there creates bias Having a Bible verse in there does nothing more than show what the true intention is behind the article...pushing the anti-evolution pro-bible agenda. If they were truly interested in showing proper dating techniques, why would the Bible even be an issue?
Originally posted by Kootur Have any proof of those claims ?
I've posted various articles detailing what I'm talking about...like Modjoe said, the only people that tend to be admitting to this stuff, are the ones that want to shed light on the flaws of evolution, namely Christians...I'll go pull up a few of the other articles, I'll try to find one that people will consider non biased...because appearently having a bible verse in there creates bias Having a Bible verse in there does nothing more than show what the true intention is behind the article...pushing the anti-evolution pro-bible agenda. If they were truly interested in showing proper dating techniques, why would the Bible even be an issue?
I have a feeling their agenda is an ant-evolution agenda and creationists tend to try and prove their case with only the bible. They tend to only attack evolution and nothing else.
I have a feeling their agenda is an ant-evolution agenda and creationists tend to try and prove their case with only the bible. They tend to only attack evolution and nothing else.
Wrong...we attack bad science...here's one example of bad science...it details the flaws of radiometric dating...comes from a Christian science group, and doesn't even mention the Bible...I'm not out here to prove that the Bible is fact, I'm out here to prove that evolution is bunk, with as much, or less, factual evidence than creationism.
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Kootur
I have a feeling their agenda is an ant-evolution agenda and creationists tend to try and prove their case with only the bible. They tend to only attack evolution and nothing else.
Wrong...we attack bad science...here's one example of bad science...it details the flaws of radiometric dating...comes from a Christian science group, and doesn't even mention the Bible...I'm not out here to prove that the Bible is fact, I'm out here to prove that evolution is bunk, with as much, or less, factual evidence than creationism.
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
So you became convinced that the world is only 10,000 years old because some scientists use selective publication? There has to be more to your reasoning...
I have a feeling their agenda is an ant-evolution agenda and creationists tend to try and prove their case with only the bible. They tend to only attack evolution and nothing else.
Wrong...we attack bad science...here's one example of bad science...it details the flaws of radiometric dating...comes from a Christian science group, and doesn't even mention the Bible...I'm not out here to prove that the Bible is fact, I'm out here to prove that evolution is bunk, with as much, or less, factual evidence than creationism.
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
So you became convinced that the world is only 10,000 years old because some scientists use selective publication? There has to be more to your reasoning...
Of course Here's a relatively long article about the dating techniques that I have discussed..this is more of what Kootur asked for...I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for Modjoe, if you ask something a little more specific I'll try to look it up for you, but for now, I gotta go lift weights, so I'll get back to you when I'm done
oh, and yes, this comes from a Christian website...though it makes minimal mention of God..the purpose is educate people about dating techniques...if you percieve bias, it might be because you too have a little bit of it yourself
How does the carbon clock work? Is it reliable? What does carbon dating really show? What about other radiometric dating methods? Is there evidence that the earth is young?
People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric1 dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of yearscarbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and sufferingthe reason Jesus came into the world.
Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said, But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
How the carbon clock works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in lead pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a clock which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the half-life. So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constantfor example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the clock is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4
Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earths atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the suns activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earths magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earths magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphereplants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon datingfor example, very discordant dates for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
Other radiometric dating methods
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have always been constant.
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
There are patterns in the isotope data
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older ages. Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
Bad dates
When a date differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain bad dates.9
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was too old, according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.
A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans werent around then). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of good from bad results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being that old. A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Maagain several studies confirmed this date. Such is the dating game.
Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questionedit is a fact. So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly objective scientists in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the age is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.
We should remember Gods admonition to Job, Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? (Job 38:4).
Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years.12 John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.13 He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few good dates left after the bad dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
What date would you like?
The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a good date.
Testing radiometric dating methods
If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.
Methods should work reliably on things of known age
There are many examples where the dating methods give dates that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar dating of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the dates range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.14
Again, using hindsight, it is argued that excess argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age.15 This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earths crust. This is consistent with a young worldthe argon has had too little time to escape.16 If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons,17 make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such foolproof techniques can also give bad dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.
Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyonan impossibility.
Different dating techniques should consistently agree
If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.
In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.18 Again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the bad dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they dont agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.
In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was dated by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was dated by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!19
Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Ma, plus or minus 140 Ma.20 This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,21 and ages of 275, 61, 0,0, and 0 Ma for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system.22 The zero ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.
More evidence something is wrong14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old
Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little 14C to measure, but dating labs consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old.23,24 For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks 14C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon age of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating24 (see pp. 6569 in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book for why even these radiocarbon ages are inflated). Furthermore, there was no pattern of younger to older in the carbon dates that correlated with the evolutionary/uniformitarian ages.24
This evidence is consistent with the fossil-bearing rock layers being formed in the year-long global catastrophe of the biblical Flood, as flood geologists since Nicholas Steno (16311687) have recognized.
Even Precambrian (older than 545 Ma) graphite, which is not of organic origin, contains 14C above background levels.25 This is consistent with Earth itself being only thousands of years old, as a straightforward reading of the Bible would suggest.
Many physical evidence contradict the billions of years
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers verticallythese could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of rock bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris26 and Austin.27
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand yearscertainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.28
The earths magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the Flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.29, 30
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escapecertainly not billions of years.30
A supernova is an explosion of a massive starthe explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for young galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.31
The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric dates assigned to moon rocks.32
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years oldfar younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.33
Creationists cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific argumentsevolutionists have had to abandon many proofs for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admitted: Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed. 35
Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to prove that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God, and therefore totally reliable and error-free.
Then what do the radiometric dates mean?
What do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages? To answer this question, it is necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations.
The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling worked on dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid isochron lines with ages of up to 1,445 Ma.
Such false isochrons are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron. Zheng wrote:
Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd [samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods.37
Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. Again, the only way to know if an isochron is good is by comparing the result with what is already believed.
Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called concordant. However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curvethey are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data.38 However, such exercises in story-telling can hardly be considered as objective science that proves an old earth. Again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the existing long ages belief system.
Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in the earths mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages.
As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay.39 Cook noted that, in ores from the Katanga mine, for example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no Thorium-232 as a source for lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. The concentrations of lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 suggest that the lead-208 came about by neutron capture conversion of lead-206 to lead-207 to lead-208. When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.
Anomalies in deep rock crystals
Physicist Dr Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found.40 The amount of lead may be consistent with current rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in that time.
Furthermore, the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young earth (helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements).
The lead and helium results suggest that rates of radioactive decay may have been much higher in the recent past. Humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood. This would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. Whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by Cook (above).
Orphan radiohalos
Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206.41 Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.42
Some of the intermediate decay productssuch as the polonium isotopeshave very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, 218Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.
Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work.43 There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.44
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
I have a feeling their agenda is an ant-evolution agenda and creationists tend to try and prove their case with only the bible. They tend to only attack evolution and nothing else.
Wrong...we attack bad science...here's one example of bad science...it details the flaws of radiometric dating...comes from a Christian science group, and doesn't even mention the Bible...I'm not out here to prove that the Bible is fact, I'm out here to prove that evolution is bunk, with as much, or less, factual evidence than creationism.
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
Except in extremely rare circumstances, radio carbon dating cannot date something significantly older than it really is. The sample would have to be exposed to a significant source of radiation for that to occur. Most fossils were encased in rock, protecting them from most outside influence.
Besides, when the "wrong" dates indicate its still millions of years old, as it does much of the time, where does that leave your theory?
You seem to be falling into the conspiracy theory category here, for the scientific community to have pulled the above kind of bullshit off, nearly every last one of them would have to be in on it. Do you claim they would have faked results deliberately? Go ahead and clear that one up for us.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
This is actually just a petty attempt at making conjecture into fact.
First of all, even the article itself uses the words "could have" and "may have". As in not 100% fact.
Secondly, one strange mutation doesn't prove anything. What about people born with lobster hands, did we evolve from lobsters? What about people born with 6 fingers? What about bald people? What about giant people? What about those guys with hair all over their faces like even their noses, who people call wolf-men? What about the people with their legs fused together in a fin? What about people born with no legs whatsoever? What about people born with small horns?
They're just abnormalities, not proof of evolution, and you're dumb if you think they are.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
Originally posted by Aelfinn Except in extremely rare circumstances, radio carbon dating cannot date something significantly older than it really is. The sample would have to be exposed to a significant source of radiation for that to occur. Most fossils were encased in rock, protecting them from most outside influence. Besides, when the "wrong" dates indicate its still millions of years old, as it does much of the time, where does that leave your theory? You seem to be falling into the conspiracy theory category here, for the scientific community to have pulled the above kind of bullshit off, nearly every last one of them would have to be in on it. Do you claim they would have faked results deliberately? Go ahead and clear that one up for us.
I don't make it a secret that I believe that a large portion of the "science" community hides a significant portion of the results that they feel aren't conducive to their beliefs that the world is billions of years old...and I think that I have enough evidence to support my belief. I claim that the "science" field is so full of evolutionists that they will conduct test after test, until they get the results that they desire, and then show those results to the public, while hiding the initial ones...this has been proven to occur, so it's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact.
As for Carbon dating, it can't be used to date anything past 30,000 years, because that is the approximate amount of time that it takes for all of the C-14(an isotope of Carbon) to leave something, and it can only be used on something that was, at some point, alive...it is accurate to within about two thousand(ish) years, due to a few factors not being constant, such as rate of decay, and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, both then and now.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
" Japanese researchers said Sunday a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs"
If they are indeed remnants of legs then evolution can't be true... Since legs on dolphins would only be a hinderance I find it very hard to believe that one group of dolphins in the bottleneck family reproduced with this back leg gene for millions of years and it never went away...
This would make a much better case for continuing evolution... As in this is a random genetic mutation (evolution)... Thats alot easier to believe.... Its alot easier to believe that a nuclear missle landed in the japanese sea and exposure caused the mutation..
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by Xexima I don't see how people cannot make the connection between seafaring mammals and land mammals. They all have the same attributes, fins that contain the same type of bones as hands and feet do, spinal cords, lungs, etc.
To say that they just came into existance like that is retarded, to say the least.
Say that too outfkctrl's 13 year old son. He thinks the planet is only 10,000 years old. ( No offense! I just think your kid is...um.....interesting. Oo )
Makes me wonder... than what about the Dino's? ;D Man never lived with the Dino's, EVER. Only the during the ice age era did man evolve from ape's.
I bet their fossiles just "appeared" in the ground by some "god or goddess" for kicks and giggles. Yea..right. Lol.
The most accurate form of prehistoric dating (Carbon 14) dates things within a few thousand years of their origin, and dates the oldest rocks at about 10,000 years old...so no, his son isn't crazy, he has simply done more research than you.
Are you seriously stating that the oldest rocks on earth date back 10000 years? If I read that correctly then you are so way off its absurd and I really question the education facility you attained such bogus knowledge. If you even need to calculate stuff mathematicly just take the old map of Pangea and account for continental drift to see that the earth is well over 3 billion years old and its fact that the oldest plates in the earth were formed over 4 billion years ago so 10000 is a little off.
Didn't someone post on here a couple weeks about about how they Found tissue inside a dinosaur bone? Tissue that was still slightly elastic? elastic 65 million year old jerky FTL for that argument..
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by Slickinfinit Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by LilithIshtar Originally posted by Xexima I don't see how people cannot make the connection between seafaring mammals and land mammals. They all have the same attributes, fins that contain the same type of bones as hands and feet do, spinal cords, lungs, etc.
To say that they just came into existance like that is retarded, to say the least.
Say that too outfkctrl's 13 year old son. He thinks the planet is only 10,000 years old. ( No offense! I just think your kid is...um.....interesting. Oo )
Makes me wonder... than what about the Dino's? ;D Man never lived with the Dino's, EVER. Only the during the ice age era did man evolve from ape's.
I bet their fossiles just "appeared" in the ground by some "god or goddess" for kicks and giggles. Yea..right. Lol.
The most accurate form of prehistoric dating (Carbon 14) dates things within a few thousand years of their origin, and dates the oldest rocks at about 10,000 years old...so no, his son isn't crazy, he has simply done more research than you. Are you seriously stating that the oldest rocks on earth date back 10000 years? If I read that correctly then you are so way off its absurd and I really question the education facility you attained such bogus knowledge. If you even need to calculate stuff mathematicly just take the old map of Pangea and account for continental drift to see that the earth is well over 3 billion years old and its fact that the oldest plates in the earth were formed over 4 billion years ago so 10000 is a little off. Thats because the planet is over 10,000. 10,000 is just pure ridiculous, and nothing at all backs it up.
@ )
So sorry, no, the planet CANT be only 10,000 years old. If it was, than the Dino's Era's, Ice Age and Ours would all have to occur within that 10,000 years. And that ISNT possible.
So sorry, his son is being told wrong and being brain washed ( poor thing ) and he isn't doing his research. He's just feeding off what his teachers tell him. Lol?
Here's an article to shoot down yours Draenor. Enjoy it.
he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.
If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.
Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.
If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.
A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.
The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:
Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites. Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites:
As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.
Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:
Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.
Young-Earthers have several methods which they claim to give "upper limits" to the age of the Earth, much lower than the age calculated above (usually in the thousands of years). Those which appear the most frequently in talk.origins are reproduced below:
Note that these aren't necessarily the "best" or most difficult to refute of young-Earth arguments. However, they are quite popular in modern creation-"science" literature (even though they should not be!) and they are historically the ones posted to talk.origins more than any others.
The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)
But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to obtain a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers handwave away mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:
"There is no evidence at all that Helium 4 either does, or can, escape from the exosphere in significant amounts." (Morris 1974, p. 151 )
But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:
"Banks and Holzer (12) have shown that the polar wind can account for an escape of (2 to 4) x 106 ions/cm2 /sec of 4He, which is nearly identical to the estimated production flux of (2.5 +/- 1.5) x 106 atoms/cm2/sec. Calculations for 3He lead to similar results, i.e., a rate virtually identical to the estimated production flux. Another possible escape mechanism is direct interaction of the solar wind with the upper atmosphere during the short periods of lower magnetic-field intensity while the field is reversing. Sheldon and Kern (112) estimated that 20 geomagnetic-field reversals over the past 3.5 million years would have assured a balance between helium production and loss." (Dalrymple 1984, p. 112 )
Dalrymple's references:
(12) Banks, P. M. & T. E. Holzer. 1969. "High-latitude plasma transport: the polar wind" in Journal of Geophysical Research 74, pp. 6317-6332.
(112) Sheldon, W. R. & J. W. Kern. 1972. "Atmospheric helium and geomagnetic field reversals" in Journal of Geophysical Research 77, pp. 6194-6201.
This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:
The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.
There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:
While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.
There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on total energy useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988).
Much of the energy in the field is almost certainly not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.
Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.
That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.
The most common form of this young-Earth argument is based on a single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the Moon. Young-Earthers claim that the Moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the Moon is several billion years old.
Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:
"The best measurements have been made by Hans Pettersson, who obtained the figure of 14 million tons per year1." Morris (1974, p. 152) [italic emphasis added -CS]
Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He measured the amount of nickel collected, and published calculations based on the assumption that all nickel that he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate.
Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. In the very same paper, he indicated that he believed that value to be a "generous" over-estimate, and said that 5 million tons per year was a more likely figure.
Several measurements of higher precision were available from many sources by the time Morris wrote Scientific Creationism. These measurements give the value (for influx rate to the Earth) of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Multiple measurements (chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, microcratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface) all agree on approximately the same value -- nearly three orders of magnitude lower than the value which Morris chose to use.
Morris chose to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.
Some folks in talk.origins occasionally sow further confusion by discussing the thickness of the "lunar soil" as if it represented the entire quantity of meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The lunar soil is a very thin layer (usually an inch or less) of loose powder present on the surface of the Moon.
However, the lunar soil is not the only meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The "soil" is merely the portion of powdery material which is kept loose by micrometeorite impacts. Below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and packed powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands.
In addition, lunar rocks are broken down by various processes (such as micrometeorite impacts and radiation). Quite a bit of the powdered material (even the loose portion) is not meteoritic in origin.
There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the Moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system. In the Abstract, Snelling and Rush (1993) conclude with:
"It thus appears that the amount of meteoritic dust and meteorite debris in the lunar regolith and surface dust layer, even taking into account the postulated early intense bombardment, does not contradict the evolutionists' multi-billion year timescale (while not proving it). Unfortunately, attempted counter-responses by creationists have so far failed because of spurious arguments or faulty calculations. Thus, until new evidence is forthcoming, creationists should not continue to use the dust on the moon as evidence against an old age for the moon and the solar system."
Snelling and Rush's paper also refutes the oft-posted creationist "myth" about the expectation of a thick dust layer during to the Apollo mission. The Apollo mission had been preceded by several unmanned landings -- the Soviet Luna (six landers), American Ranger (five landers) and Surveyor (seven landers) series. The physical properties of the lunar surface were well-known years before man set foot on it.
Further, even prior to the unmanned landings mentioned above, Snelling and Rush document that there was no clear consensus in the astronomical community on the depth of dust to expect. So those making the argument do not even have the excuse that such an consensus existed prior to the unmanned landings.
Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for ten to twenty years longer than that), the "Moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:
In 1965, Chemical Oceanography published a list of some metals' "residency times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by dividing the amount of various metals in the oceans by the rate at which rivers bring the metals into the oceans.
Several creationists have reproduced this table of numbers, claiming that these numbers gave "upper limits" for the age of the oceans (therefore the Earth) because the numbers represented the amount of time that it would take for the oceans to "fill up" to their present level of these various metals from zero.
First, let us examine the results of this "dating method." Most creationist works do not produce all of the numbers, only the ones whose values are "convenient." The following list is more complete:
Al - 100 years
Ni - 9,000 years
Sb - 350,000 years
Fe - 140 years
Co - 18,000 years
Mo - 500,000 years
Ti - 160 years
Hg - 42,000 years
Au - 560,000 years
Cr - 350 years
Bi - 45,000 years
Ag - 2,100,000 years
Th - 350 years
Cu - 50,000 years
K - 11,000,000 years
Mn - 1,400 years
Ba - 84,000 years
Sr - 19,000,000 years
W - 1,000 years
Sn - 100,000 years
Li - 20,000,000 years
Pb - 2,000 years
Zn - 180,000 years
Mg - 45,000,000 years
Si - 8,000 years
Rb - 270,000 years
Na - 260,000,000 years
Now, let us critically examine this method as a method of finding an age for the Earth.
The method ignores known mechanisms which remove metals from the oceans:
Many of the listed metals are in fact known to be at or near equilibrium; that is, the rates for their entering and leaving the ocean are the same to within uncertainty of measurement. (Some of the chemistry of the ocean floor is not well-understood, which unfortunately leaves a fairly large uncertainty.) One cannot derive a date from a process where equilibrium is within the range of uncertainty -- it could go on forever without changing concentration of the ocean.
Even the metals which are not known to be at equilibrium are known to be relatively close to it. I have seen a similar calculation on uranium, failing to note that the uncertainty in the efflux estimate is larger than its distance from equilibrium. To calculate a true upper limit, we must calculate the maximum upper limit, using all values at the appropriate extreme of their measurement uncertainty. We must perform the calculations on the highest possible efflux rate, and the lowest possible influx rate. If equilibrium is within reach of those values, no upper limit on age can be derived.
In addition, even if we knew exactly the rates at which metals were removed from the oceans, and even if these rates did not match the influx rates, these numbers are still wrong. It would probably require solving a differential equation, and any reasonable approximation must "figure in" the efflux rate. Any creationist who presents these values as an "upper limit" has missed this factor entirely. These published values are only "upper limits" when the efflux rate is zero (which is known to be false for all the metals). Any efflux decreases the rate at which the metals build up, invalidating the alleged "limit."
The method simply does not work. Ignoring the three problems above, the results are scattered randomly (five are under 1,000 years; five are 1,000-9,999 years; five are 10,000-99,999 years; six are 100,000-999,999 years; and six are 1,000,000 years or above). Also, the only two results that agree are 350 years, and Aluminum gives 100 years. If this is a valid method, then the age of the Earth must be less than the lowest "upper limit" in the table. Nobody in the debate would agree on a 100-year-old Earth.
These "dating methods" do not actually date anything, which prevents independent confirmation. (Is a 19 million year "limit" [Sr] a "confirmation" of a 42,000 year "limit" [Hg]?) Independent confirmation is very important for dating methods -- scientists generally do not place much confidence in a date that is only computed from a single measurement.
These methods depend on uniformity of a process which is almost certainly not uniform. There is no reason to believe that influx rates have been constant throughout time. There is reason to expect that, due to a relatively large amount of exposed land, today's erosion (and therefore influx) rates are higher than typical past rates.
There is no "check" built into these methods. There is no way to tell if the calculated result is good or not. The best methods used by geologists to perform dating have a built-in check which identifies undatable samples. The only way a creationist can "tell" which of these methods produce bad values is to throw out the results that he doesn't like.
One might wonder why creationist authors have found it worthy of publishing. Yet, it is quite common. This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:
Obviously, these are a pretty popular set of "dating" mechanisms; they appear frequently in creationist literature from the 1960s through the late 1980s (and can be found on many creationist web sites even today). They appear in talk.origins more often than any other young-Earth arguments. They are all built upon a distortion of the data.
A curious and unbiased observer could quite reasonably refuse to even listen to the creationists until they "clean house" and stop pushing these arguments. If I found "Piltdown Man" in a modern biology text as evidence for human evolution, I'd throw the book away. (If I applied the same standards to the fairly large collection of creationist materials that I own, none would remain.)
This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:
First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.
How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations (Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.
Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science.
Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.
Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.
Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.
A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from USEnet article <CK47LK.E2J@ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):
For the case of alpha decay, [...] the simple underlying mechanism is quantum mechanical tunneling through a potential barrier. You will find a simple explanation in any elementary quantum mechanics textbook; for example, Ohanion's Principles of Quantum Mechanics has a nice example of alpha decay on page 89. The fact that the process is probabilistic, and the exponential dependence on time, are straightforward consequences of quantum mechanics. (The time dependence is a case of "Fermi's golden rule" --- see, for example, page 292 of Ohanion.)
An exact computation of decay rates is, of course, much more complicated, since it requires a detailed understanding of the shape of the potential barrier. In principle, this is computable from quantum chromodynamics, but in practice the computation is much too complex to be done in the near future. There are, however, reliable approximations available, and in addition the shape of the potential can be measured experimentally.
For beta decay, the underlying fundamental theory is different; one begins with electroweak theory (for which Glashow, Weinberg and Salam won their Nobel prize) rather than quantum chromodynamics.
As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).
Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from <16381@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip):
So there has been a lot of creative work on how to look for evidence of such changes.
searches for changes in the radius of Mercury, the Moon, and Mars (these would change because of changes in the strength of interactions within the materials that they are formed from);
searches for long term ("secular") changes in the orbits of the Moon and the Earth --- measured by looking at such diverse phenomena as ancient solar eclipses and coral growth patterns;
ranging data for the distance from Earth to Mars, using the Viking spacecraft;
data on the orbital motion of a binary pulsar PSR 1913+16;
observations of long-lived isotopes that decay by beta decay (Re 187, K 40, Rb 87) and comparisons to isotopes that decay by different mechanisms;
the Oklo natural nuclear reactor (mentioned in another posting);
experimental searches for differences in gravitational attraction between different elements (Eotvos-type experiments);
absorption lines of quasars (fine structure and hyperfine splittings);
laboratory searches for changes in the mass difference between the K0 meson and its antiparticle.
While it is not obvious, each of these observations is sensitive to changes in the physical constants that control radioactive decay. For example, a change in the strength of weak interactions (which govern beta decay) would have different effects on the binding energy, and therefore the gravitational attraction, of different elements. Similarly, such changes in binding energy would affect orbital motion, while (more directly) changes in interaction strengths would affect the spectra we observe in distant stars.
The observations are a mixture of very sensitive laboratory tests, which do not go very far back in time but are able to detect extremely small changes, and astronomical observations, which are somewhat less precise but which look back in time. (Remember that processes we observe in a star a million light years away are telling us about physics a million years ago.) While any single observation is subject to debate about methodology, the combined results of such a large number of independent tests are hard to argue with.
The overall result is that no one has found any evidence of changes in fundamental constants, to an accuracy of about one part in 1011 per year.
To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).
This is addressed in the most detail in the Isochron Dating FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.
It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.
Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.
Originally posted by Slickinfinit Are you seriously stating that the oldest rocks on earth date back 10000 years? If I read that correctly then you are so way off its absurd and I really question the education facility you attained such bogus knowledge. If you even need to calculate stuff mathematicly just take the old map of Pangea and account for continental drift to see that the earth is well over 3 billion years old and its fact that the oldest plates in the earth were formed over 4 billion years ago so 10000 is a little off.
Ummm Slickinfinit... You do know that that map probably isn't correct... I believe that map was made by taking continental drift and going backwards till they couldn't go anymore...
Continents could have indeed been originally oriented in any way between pangea and present.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by Slickinfinit Are you seriously stating that the oldest rocks on earth date back 10000 years? If I read that correctly then you are so way off its absurd and I really question the education facility you attained such bogus knowledge. If you even need to calculate stuff mathematicly just take the old map of Pangea and account for continental drift to see that the earth is well over 3 billion years old and its fact that the oldest plates in the earth were formed over 4 billion years ago so 10000 is a little off.
Ummm Slickinfinit... You do know that that map probably isn't correct... I believe that map was made by taking continental drift and going backwards till they couldn't go anymore...
Continents could have indeed been originally oriented in any way between pangea and present.
First you post and say its impossible for muscle tissue to be preserved under the right conditions for 65 million years then you state then the science behind the Pangea theory is backwards, well I ask you for some links to some evidence on that while I will be content to go with what proper observational and ration science has taught me. Where did you go to school is what I want to know?
Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Aelfinn Except in extremely rare circumstances, radio carbon dating cannot date something significantly older than it really is. The sample would have to be exposed to a significant source of radiation for that to occur. Most fossils were encased in rock, protecting them from most outside influence. Besides, when the "wrong" dates indicate its still millions of years old, as it does much of the time, where does that leave your theory? You seem to be falling into the conspiracy theory category here, for the scientific community to have pulled the above kind of bullshit off, nearly every last one of them would have to be in on it. Do you claim they would have faked results deliberately? Go ahead and clear that one up for us.
I don't make it a secret that I believe that a large portion of the "science" community hides a significant portion of the results that they feel aren't conducive to their beliefs that the world is billions of years old...and I think that I have enough evidence to support my belief. I claim that the "science" field is so full of evolutionists that they will conduct test after test, until they get the results that they desire, and then show those results to the public, while hiding the initial ones...this has been proven to occur, so it's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact.
As for Carbon dating, it can't be used to date anything past 30,000 years, because that is the approximate amount of time that it takes for all of the C-14(an isotope of Carbon) to leave something, and it can only be used on something that was, at some point, alive...it is accurate to within about two thousand(ish) years, due to a few factors not being constant, such as rate of decay, and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, both then and now.
There's one thing that confuses me about the science vs. religion crowd. How come people who scrutinize science and want to pull out all these "facts" that they have collected don't ever put their religion under the same scrutiny? There are fossils that point to an evolutionary tree and religious people say those are questionable, but they never look at the fact that they are reading from a book of ancient tales with no proof whatsoever on their part that any of them are true. Yet, when they are questioned they say it's just a matter of faith. Which is it? Are you basing things on fact or faith? Are we looking for physical evidence or not?
Oh, and I got this from HowStuffWorks.com
Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities.
Originally posted by Slickinfinit First you post and say its impossible for muscle tissue to be preserved under the right conditions for 65 million years then you state then the science behind the Pangea theory is backwards, well I ask you for some links to some evidence on that while I will be content to go with what proper observational and ration science has taught me. Where did you go to school is what I want to know?
heh? I'm saying Pangea theory isn't a truth is how somepeople THINK it could have been ... why you ask?
here's the first paragraph from wikipedia.org on continental drift
Continental drift, first proposed as a theory by Alfred Wegener in 1912, is the movement of the Earth's continents relative to each other. Francis Bacon, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, Benjamin Franklin, and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on either side of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together. The similarity of southern continent fossilfaunae and some geological formations had led a small number of Southern hemisphere geologists to conjecture as early as 1900[citation needed] that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent known as Pangaea. Wegener was the first to formally publish the theory that the continents had somehow "drifted" apart. However, he was unable to provide a convincing explanation for the physical processes which might have caused this drift. His suggestion that the continents had been pulled apart by the centrifugal pseudoforce of the Earth's rotation was considered unrealistic by the scientific community.[1]
I hope you know know that this is just a hypothetical entity......
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
One again we've got a Science VS. Religion debate going on, joy.
Gamewize's Theory of Controversy: The longer any controversal, quasi-controversal, or related topic goes on, the more likely it is that a 2-sided debate breakign out closes in on inevitability.
So far that one's got some support to it :P
I think it's the objective of your past self to make you cringe.
Originally posted by Finwe "...has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs..." Since when is a dolphin with a deformity proof of evolution?
exactly...They are truly grasping at straws with this one. But believing in a white haired man living in the clouds, snapping his fingers and creating life out of nothing isn't grasping at thin air?
They also choose to ignore other things that prove evolution to be right.
If it had any proof then it couldn't be debated. There is no proof, and thus it can. To believe in something you can't prove is ignorant, not believeing in something you can't disprove is equally as ignorant.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
Originally posted by methane47 I think you should change the name of the thread
Here is the first line in the article..
" Japanese researchers said Sunday a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs"
If they are indeed remnants of legs then evolution can't be true... Since legs on dolphins would only be a hinderance I find it very hard to believe that one group of dolphins in the bottleneck family reproduced with this back leg gene for millions of years and it never went away...
This would make a much better case for continuing evolution... As in this is a random genetic mutation (evolution)... Thats alot easier to believe.... Its alot easier to believe that a nuclear missle landed in the japanese sea and exposure caused the mutation..
Actually, if they are legs, it is proof.
Dolphins are supposedly the descendants of land mammals that for whatever reason in the past returned to the water, and adapted to it. Recursive genes such as limbs don't always go away, they are on occaision suppressed, only to come to the surface again through chance breeding.
Whether they actually are legs, and not an extra set of somewhat deformed fins... Well, thats the crux of the issue.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Originally posted by Awakened Originally posted by Kootur Originally posted by qotsa Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Finwe "...has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs..." Since when is a dolphin with a deformity proof of evolution?
exactly...They are truly grasping at straws with this one. But believing in a white haired man living in the clouds, snapping his fingers and creating life out of nothing isn't grasping at thin air? They also choose to ignore other things that prove evolution to be right. If it had any proof then it couldn't be debated. There is no proof, and thus it can. To believe in something you can't prove is ignorant, not believeing in something you can't disprove is equally as ignorant. That is retarded. So not believing in a flying spegghetti monster is ignorant? now wait a sec, isn't that a conundrum? If you say that it is ignorant to believe in the spegghetti monster, you are saying that you are ignorant for being religious. See the flaw in your logic?
Can you disprove evolution? No. And there are even facts that point directly at evolution as being their cause. Can you disprove creationism? No. But there are absolutly no facts whatsoever that point toward it.
btw, this wasn't targeted directly at you, but at many others here...
Originally posted by Finwe "...has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs..." Since when is a dolphin with a deformity proof of evolution?
exactly...They are truly grasping at straws with this one. But believing in a white haired man living in the clouds, snapping his fingers and creating life out of nothing isn't grasping at thin air?
They also choose to ignore other things that prove evolution to be right.
If it had any proof then it couldn't be debated. There is no proof, and thus it can. To believe in something you can't prove is ignorant, not believeing in something you can't disprove is equally as ignorant. That is retarded. So not believing in a flying spegghetti monster is ignorant? now wait a sec, isn't that a conundrum? If you say that it is ignorant to believe in the spegghetti monster, you are saying that you are ignorant for being religious. See the flaw in your logic?
Can you disprove evolution? No. And there are even facts that point directly at evolution as being their cause. Can you disprove creationism? No. But there are absolutly no facts whatsoever that point toward it.
btw, this wasn't targeted directly at you, but at many others here...
The saying isn't literal really, it's just a way of saying "none of us know the exact truth, we can only speculate with what we have". But it is sepculation, so for anyone to say that their belief is unquestionable fact is silly.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
Originally posted by Aelfinn Except in extremely rare circumstances, radio carbon dating cannot date something significantly older than it really is. The sample would have to be exposed to a significant source of radiation for that to occur. Most fossils were encased in rock, protecting them from most outside influence. Besides, when the "wrong" dates indicate its still millions of years old, as it does much of the time, where does that leave your theory? You seem to be falling into the conspiracy theory category here, for the scientific community to have pulled the above kind of bullshit off, nearly every last one of them would have to be in on it. Do you claim they would have faked results deliberately? Go ahead and clear that one up for us.
I don't make it a secret that I believe that a large portion of the "science" community hides a significant portion of the results that they feel aren't conducive to their beliefs that the world is billions of years old...and I think that I have enough evidence to support my belief. I claim that the "science" field is so full of evolutionists that they will conduct test after test, until they get the results that they desire, and then show those results to the public, while hiding the initial ones...this has been proven to occur, so it's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact.
As for Carbon dating, it can't be used to date anything past 30,000 years, because that is the approximate amount of time that it takes for all of the C-14(an isotope of Carbon) to leave something, and it can only be used on something that was, at some point, alive...it is accurate to within about two thousand(ish) years, due to a few factors not being constant, such as rate of decay, and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, both then and now.
There's one thing that confuses me about the science vs. religion crowd. How come people who scrutinize science and want to pull out all these "facts" that they have collected don't ever put their religion under the same scrutiny? There are fossils that point to an evolutionary tree and religious people say those are questionable, but they never look at the fact that they are reading from a book of ancient tales with no proof whatsoever on their part that any of them are true. Yet, when they are questioned they say it's just a matter of faith. Which is it? Are you basing things on fact or faith? Are we looking for physical evidence or not?
Oh, and I got this from HowStuffWorks.com
Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities.
You are making the assumption that I havn't stood my beliefs up to scientific scrutiny, and I have. I refused to call myself a Christian until I could say that I believed what was in the Bible, until I had some proof that any of that crazy stuff is true, things like the Great Flood, and the Tower of Babel. You make the false assumption that none of it can be held to scientific scrutiny...and my findings have lead me to believe that Creationism is actually a more reasonable belief than evolution. I have cited numerous times why I feel this way, with paragraph upon paragraph of examples, so I won't go into the specifics with this post. But I will say that I believe with all my heart that if more people had the actual facts about evolution, then they wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "it's fact" bandwagon.
so to sum up your answer: it's both, but I contend that a belief in Jesus Christ requires no more FAITH than a belief in evolution, the FACTS have driven me to arrive at that conclusion.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by Xexima That is retarded. So not believing in a flying spegghetti monster is ignorant? now wait a sec, isn't that a conundrum? If you say that it is ignorant to believe in the spegghetti monster, you are saying that you are ignorant for being religious. See the flaw in your logic?
Can you disprove evolution? No. And there are even observations that point directly at evolution as being their cause. Can you disprove creationism? No. But there are absolutly no facts whatsoever that point toward it.
btw, this wasn't targeted directly at you, but at many others here...
Corrected..... I can also observe that one of my best friends has scaley skin, therefore that must prove that he is closer related to reptiles then I am...
Most observations that scientists make about evolution (IE legs which are not even exclusive to mamals) are wholely physical. And while physical characteristics are important... they are also a very subjective science.
The protrusions found were fins not legs... it's grasping at straws saying they WERE legs at some point in time...
----------- In an unconnected question. I was under the impression that the evolution of sea mamals shows that their legs and arms turn INTO fins...?? Lets say for example that these fins were indeed the remnants of legs... Then This would be a mamal with 6 limbs.... which is quite odd for mamals
This leads me to even further to believe that this is just a crazy one off mutation caused by millions of japanese people peeing in the water..
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Comments
Of course it does, a bible verse cannot prove or disprove science.
Having a Bible verse in there does nothing more than show what the true intention is behind the article...pushing the anti-evolution pro-bible agenda.
If they were truly interested in showing proper dating techniques, why would the Bible even be an issue?
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Having a Bible verse in there does nothing more than show what the true intention is behind the article...pushing the anti-evolution pro-bible agenda.
If they were truly interested in showing proper dating techniques, why would the Bible even be an issue?
I have a feeling their agenda is an ant-evolution agenda and creationists tend to try and prove their case with only the bible. They tend to only attack evolution and nothing else.
Wrong...we attack bad science...here's one example of bad science...it details the flaws of radiometric dating...comes from a Christian science group, and doesn't even mention the Bible...I'm not out here to prove that the Bible is fact, I'm out here to prove that evolution is bunk, with as much, or less, factual evidence than creationism.
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Wrong...we attack bad science...here's one example of bad science...it details the flaws of radiometric dating...comes from a Christian science group, and doesn't even mention the Bible...I'm not out here to prove that the Bible is fact, I'm out here to prove that evolution is bunk, with as much, or less, factual evidence than creationism.
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
So you became convinced that the world is only 10,000 years old because some scientists use selective publication? There has to be more to your reasoning...
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Wrong...we attack bad science...here's one example of bad science...it details the flaws of radiometric dating...comes from a Christian science group, and doesn't even mention the Bible...I'm not out here to prove that the Bible is fact, I'm out here to prove that evolution is bunk, with as much, or less, factual evidence than creationism.
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
So you became convinced that the world is only 10,000 years old because some scientists use selective publication? There has to be more to your reasoning...
Of course
Here's a relatively long article about the dating techniques that I have discussed..this is more of what Kootur asked for...I'm not sure exactly what you are looking for Modjoe, if you ask something a little more specific I'll try to look it up for you, but for now, I gotta go lift weights, so I'll get back to you when I'm done 
oh, and yes, this comes from a Christian website...though it makes minimal mention of God..the purpose is educate people about dating techniques...if you percieve bias, it might be because you too have a little bit of it yourself
What about carbon dating?
by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland
First published in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book
Chapter 4
How does the carbon clock work? Is it reliable? What does carbon dating really show? What about other radiometric dating methods? Is there evidence that the earth is young?
People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric1 dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of yearscarbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and sufferingthe reason Jesus came into the world.
Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said, But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
How the carbon clock works
Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in lead pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.
Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.
Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.
We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a clock which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the half-life. So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constantfor example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the clock is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.
Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4
Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earths atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the suns activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
The strength of the earths magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earths magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.
Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphereplants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.
Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.
Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon datingfor example, very discordant dates for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7
Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
Other radiometric dating methods
There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.
The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:
The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
Decay rates have always been constant.
Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.
There are patterns in the isotope data
There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older ages. Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
Bad dates
When a date differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain bad dates.9
For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was too old, according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.
A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans werent around then). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of good from bad results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).
However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being that old. A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Maagain several studies confirmed this date. Such is the dating game.
Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questionedit is a fact. So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly objective scientists in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.
We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the age is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.
We should remember Gods admonition to Job, Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? (Job 38:4).
Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.
Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years.12 John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.13 He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few good dates left after the bad dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
What date would you like?
The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a good date.
Testing radiometric dating methods
If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.
Methods should work reliably on things of known age
There are many examples where the dating methods give dates that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar dating of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the dates range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.14
Again, using hindsight, it is argued that excess argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age.15 This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earths crust. This is consistent with a young worldthe argon has had too little time to escape.16 If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?
Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons,17 make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such foolproof techniques can also give bad dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.
Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyonan impossibility.
Different dating techniques should consistently agree
If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.
In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.18 Again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the bad dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they dont agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.
In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was dated by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was dated by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!19
Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Ma, plus or minus 140 Ma.20 This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,21 and ages of 275, 61, 0,0, and 0 Ma for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system.22 The zero ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.
More evidence something is wrong14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old
Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little 14C to measure, but dating labs consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old.23,24 For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks 14C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon age of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating24 (see pp. 6569 in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book for why even these radiocarbon ages are inflated). Furthermore, there was no pattern of younger to older in the carbon dates that correlated with the evolutionary/uniformitarian ages.24
This evidence is consistent with the fossil-bearing rock layers being formed in the year-long global catastrophe of the biblical Flood, as flood geologists since Nicholas Steno (16311687) have recognized.
Even Precambrian (older than 545 Ma) graphite, which is not of organic origin, contains 14C above background levels.25 This is consistent with Earth itself being only thousands of years old, as a straightforward reading of the Bible would suggest.
Many physical evidence contradict the billions of years
Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.
Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers verticallythese could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of rock bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris26 and Austin.27
Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand yearscertainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.28
The earths magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the Flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.29, 30
Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escapecertainly not billions of years.30
A supernova is an explosion of a massive starthe explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for young galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.31
The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric dates assigned to moon rocks.32
Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years oldfar younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.33
Dr Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet Evidence for a Young World.34
Creationists cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific argumentsevolutionists have had to abandon many proofs for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admitted: Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed. 35
Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to prove that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.
Creationists ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God, and therefore totally reliable and error-free.
Then what do the radiometric dates mean?
What do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages? To answer this question, it is necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations.
The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.
Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling worked on dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid isochron lines with ages of up to 1,445 Ma.
Such false isochrons are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron. Zheng wrote:
Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. Again, the only way to know if an isochron is good is by comparing the result with what is already believed.
Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called concordant. However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curvethey are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data.38 However, such exercises in story-telling can hardly be considered as objective science that proves an old earth. Again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the existing long ages belief system.
Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in the earths mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages.
As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay.39 Cook noted that, in ores from the Katanga mine, for example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no Thorium-232 as a source for lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. The concentrations of lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 suggest that the lead-208 came about by neutron capture conversion of lead-206 to lead-207 to lead-208. When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.
Anomalies in deep rock crystals
Physicist Dr Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found.40 The amount of lead may be consistent with current rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in that time.
Furthermore, the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young earth (helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements).
The lead and helium results suggest that rates of radioactive decay may have been much higher in the recent past. Humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood. This would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. Whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by Cook (above).
Orphan radiohalos
Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206.41 Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.42
Some of the intermediate decay productssuch as the polonium isotopeshave very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, 218Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.
Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work.43 There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.44
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Wrong...we attack bad science...here's one example of bad science...it details the flaws of radiometric dating...comes from a Christian science group, and doesn't even mention the Bible...I'm not out here to prove that the Bible is fact, I'm out here to prove that evolution is bunk, with as much, or less, factual evidence than creationism.
The validity of radiometric dating depends upon the three listed assumptions being correct. The decay rate being a constant is probably true but the other two are questionable (what was the parent/daughter ratio when the object being tested was "created"; and the assumption that there has been no loss or addition of the parent or daughter component throughout its history). Scientists, of course, try to correct for these flaws through techniques such as carefully choosing the samples, dating multiple samples, etc. However, there are many cited cases of inconsistent dating results where the obtained date was very different from the expected date based on the position of the rock in the geologic column (see Woodmorappe, "Studies in Flood Geology", where over 300 major inconsistencies are documented), and results where lava flow rocks of a known recent age were dated to millions of years old (such as at Grand Canyon, as documented by ICR scientists). There is also the issue of "selective publication", where the reported dates will always tend to be those that fall into the "already known to be approximately correct" range, while other samples giving the "wrong date" "must be bad".
Except in extremely rare circumstances, radio carbon dating cannot date something significantly older than it really is. The sample would have to be exposed to a significant source of radiation for that to occur. Most fossils were encased in rock, protecting them from most outside influence.
Besides, when the "wrong" dates indicate its still millions of years old, as it does much of the time, where does that leave your theory?
You seem to be falling into the conspiracy theory category here, for the scientific community to have pulled the above kind of bullshit off, nearly every last one of them would have to be in on it. Do you claim they would have faked results deliberately? Go ahead and clear that one up for us.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
This is actually just a petty attempt at making conjecture into fact.
First of all, even the article itself uses the words "could have" and "may have". As in not 100% fact.
Secondly, one strange mutation doesn't prove anything. What about people born with lobster hands, did we evolve from lobsters? What about people born with 6 fingers? What about bald people? What about giant people? What about those guys with hair all over their faces like even their noses, who people call wolf-men? What about the people with their legs fused together in a fin? What about people born with no legs whatsoever? What about people born with small horns?
They're just abnormalities, not proof of evolution, and you're dumb if you think they are.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
I don't make it a secret that I believe that a large portion of the "science" community hides a significant portion of the results that they feel aren't conducive to their beliefs that the world is billions of years old...and I think that I have enough evidence to support my belief. I claim that the "science" field is so full of evolutionists that they will conduct test after test, until they get the results that they desire, and then show those results to the public, while hiding the initial ones...this has been proven to occur, so it's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact.
As for Carbon dating, it can't be used to date anything past 30,000 years, because that is the approximate amount of time that it takes for all of the C-14(an isotope of Carbon) to leave something, and it can only be used on something that was, at some point, alive...it is accurate to within about two thousand(ish) years, due to a few factors not being constant, such as rate of decay, and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, both then and now.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Here is the first line in the article..
" Japanese researchers said Sunday a bottlenose dolphin captured last month has an extra set of fins that could be the remains of back legs"
If they are indeed remnants of legs then evolution can't be true... Since legs on dolphins would only be a hinderance I find it very hard to believe that one group of dolphins in the bottleneck family reproduced with this back leg gene for millions of years and it never went away...
This would make a much better case for continuing evolution... As in this is a random genetic mutation (evolution)... Thats alot easier to believe.... Its alot easier to believe that a nuclear missle landed in the japanese sea and exposure caused the mutation..
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Makes me wonder... than what about the Dino's? ;D Man never lived with the Dino's, EVER. Only the during the ice age era did man evolve from ape's.
I bet their fossiles just "appeared" in the ground by some "god or goddess" for kicks and giggles. Yea..right. Lol.
The most accurate form of prehistoric dating (Carbon 14) dates things within a few thousand years of their origin, and dates the oldest rocks at about 10,000 years old...so no, his son isn't crazy, he has simply done more research than you.
Are you seriously stating that the oldest rocks on earth date back 10000 years? If I read that correctly then you are so way off its absurd and I really question the education facility you attained such bogus knowledge. If you even need to calculate stuff mathematicly just take the old map of Pangea and account for continental drift to see that the earth is well over 3 billion years old and its fact that the oldest plates in the earth were formed over 4 billion years ago so 10000 is a little off.
{(RIP)} SWG
Didn't someone post on here a couple weeks about about how they Found tissue inside a dinosaur bone? Tissue that was still slightly elastic? elastic 65 million year old jerky FTL for that argument..
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Makes me wonder... than what about the Dino's? ;D Man never lived with the Dino's, EVER. Only the during the ice age era did man evolve from ape's.
I bet their fossiles just "appeared" in the ground by some "god or goddess" for kicks and giggles. Yea..right. Lol.
The most accurate form of prehistoric dating (Carbon 14) dates things within a few thousand years of their origin, and dates the oldest rocks at about 10,000 years old...so no, his son isn't crazy, he has simply done more research than you.
Are you seriously stating that the oldest rocks on earth date back 10000 years? If I read that correctly then you are so way off its absurd and I really question the education facility you attained such bogus knowledge. If you even need to calculate stuff mathematicly just take the old map of Pangea and account for continental drift to see that the earth is well over 3 billion years old and its fact that the oldest plates in the earth were formed over 4 billion years ago so 10000 is a little off.
Thats because the planet is over 10,000. 10,000 is just pure ridiculous, and nothing at all backs it up.
@ )
So sorry, no, the planet CANT be only 10,000 years old. If it was, than the Dino's Era's, Ice Age and Ours would all have to occur within that 10,000 years. And that ISNT possible.
So sorry, his son is being told wrong and being brain washed ( poor thing ) and he isn't doing his research. He's just feeding off what his teachers tell him. Lol?
Here's an article to shoot down yours Draenor. Enjoy it.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
--------
How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?
Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.
The most direct means for calculating the Earth's age is a Pb/Pb isochron age, derived from samples of the Earth and meteorites. This involves measurement of three isotopes of lead (Pb-206, Pb-207, and either Pb-208 or Pb-204). A plot is constructed of Pb-206/Pb-204 versus Pb-207/Pb-204.
If the solar system formed from a common pool of matter, which was uniformly distributed in terms of Pb isotope ratios, then the initial plots for all objects from that pool of matter would fall on a single point.
Over time, the amounts of Pb-206 and Pb-207 will change in some samples, as these isotopes are decay end-products of uranium decay (U-238 decays to Pb-206, and U-235 decays to Pb-207). This causes the data points to separate from each other. The higher the uranium-to-lead ratio of a rock, the more the Pb-206/Pb-204 and Pb-207/Pb-204 values will change with time.
If the source of the solar system was also uniformly distributed with respect to uranium isotope ratios, then the data points will always fall on a single line. And from the slope of the line we can compute the amount of time which has passed since the pool of matter became separated into individual objects. See the Isochron Dating FAQ or Faure (1986, chapter 18) for technical detail.
A young-Earther would object to all of the "assumptions" listed above. However, the test for these assumptions is the plot of the data itself. The actual underlying assumption is that, if those requirements have not been met, there is no reason for the data points to fall on a line.
The resulting plot has data points for each of five meteorites that contain varying levels of uranium, a single data point for all meteorites that do not, and one (solid circle) data point for modern terrestrial sediments. It looks like this:
After Murthy and Patterson (1962) and York and Farquhar (1972) .
Scanned from Dalrymple (1986) with permission.
Most of the other measurements for the age of the Earth rest upon calculating an age for the solar system by dating objects which are expected to have formed with the planets but are not geologically active (and therefore cannot erase evidence of their formation), such as meteorites. Below is a table of radiometric ages derived from groups of meteorites:
Dated
of years)
As shown in the table, there is excellent agreement on about 4.5 billion years, between several meteorites and by several different dating methods. Note that young-Earthers cannot accuse us of selective use of data -- the above table includes a significant fraction of all meteorites on which isotope dating has been attempted. According to Dalrymple (1991, p. 286) , less than 100 meteorites have been subjected to isotope dating, and of those about 70 yield ages with low analytical error.
Further, the oldest age determinations of individual meteorites generally give concordant ages by multiple radiometric means, or multiple tests across different samples. For example:
of years)
Also note that the meteorite ages (both when dated mainly by Rb-Sr dating in groups, and by multiple means individually) are in exact agreement with the solar system "model lead age" produced earlier.
Common Young-Earth "Dating Methods"
Young-Earthers have several methods which they claim to give "upper limits" to the age of the Earth, much lower than the age calculated above (usually in the thousands of years). Those which appear the most frequently in talk.origins are reproduced below:
Note that these aren't necessarily the "best" or most difficult to refute of young-Earth arguments. However, they are quite popular in modern creation-"science" literature (even though they should not be!) and they are historically the ones posted to talk.origins more than any others.
1. Accumulation of Helium in the atmosphere
The young-Earth argument goes something like this: helium-4 is created by radioactive decay (alpha particles are helium nuclei) and is constantly added to the atmosphere. Helium is not light enough to escape the Earth's gravity (unlike hydrogen), and it will therefore accumulate over time. The current level of helium in the atmosphere would accumulate in less than two hundred thousand years, therefore the Earth is young. (I believe this argument was originally put forth by Mormon young-Earther Melvin Cook, in a letter to the editor which was published in Nature.)
But helium can and does escape from the atmosphere, at rates calculated to be nearly identical to rates of production. In order to obtain a young age from their calculations, young-Earthers handwave away mechanisms by which helium can escape. For example, Henry Morris says:
But Morris is wrong. Surely one cannot "invent" a good dating mechanism by simply ignoring processes which work in the opposite direction of the process which the date is based upon. Dalrymple says:
Dalrymple's references:
This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:
Brown (1989, pp. 16 and 52)
Jansma (1985, p. 61)
Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 384-385)
Wysong (1976, pp. 161-163)
2. Decay of the Earth's magnetic field
The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.
There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:
That last part is more important than it may sound. The Earth's magnetic field is often split in two components when measured. The "dipole" component is the part which approximates a theoretically perfect field around a single magnet, and the "nondipole" components are the ("messy") remainder. A study in the 1960s showed that the decrease in the dipole component since the turn of the century had been nearly completely compensated by an increase in the strength of the nondipole components of the field. (In other words, the measurements show that the field has been diverging from the shape that would be expected of a theoretical ideal magnet, more than the amount of energy has actually been changing.) Barnes' extrapolation therefore does not really rest on the change in energy of the field.
For information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 106-108) or Strahler (1987, pp. 150-155) .
This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 37-38)
Jansma (1985, pp. 61-62)
Morris (1974, pp. 157-158)
Wysong (1976, pp. 160-161)
3. Accumulation of meteoritic dust on the Moon
The most common form of this young-Earth argument is based on a single measurement of the rate of meteoritic dust influx to the Earth gave a value in the millions of tons per year. While this is negligible compared to the processes of erosion on the Earth (about a shoebox-full of dust per acre per year), there are no such processes on the Moon. Young-Earthers claim that the Moon must receive a similar amount of dust (perhaps 25% as much per unit surface area due to its lesser gravity), and there should be a very large dust layer (about a hundred feet thick) if the Moon is several billion years old.
Morris says, regarding the dust influx rate:
Pettersson stood on a mountain top and collected dust there with a device intended for measuring smog levels. He measured the amount of nickel collected, and published calculations based on the assumption that all nickel that he collected was meteoritic in origin. That assumption was wrong and caused his published figures to be a vast overestimate.
Pettersson's calculation resulted in the a figure of about 15 million tons per year. In the very same paper, he indicated that he believed that value to be a "generous" over-estimate, and said that 5 million tons per year was a more likely figure.
Several measurements of higher precision were available from many sources by the time Morris wrote Scientific Creationism. These measurements give the value (for influx rate to the Earth) of about 20,000 to 40,000 tons per year. Multiple measurements (chemical signature of ocean sediments, satellite penetration detectors, microcratering rate of objects left exposed on the lunar surface) all agree on approximately the same value -- nearly three orders of magnitude lower than the value which Morris chose to use.
Morris chose to pick obsolete data with known problems, and call it the "best" measurement available. With the proper values, the expected depth of meteoritic dust on the Moon is less than one foot.
For further information, see Dalrymple (1984, pp. 108-111) or Strahler (1987, pp. 143-144) .
Addendum: "loose dust" vs. "meteoritic material"
Some folks in talk.origins occasionally sow further confusion by discussing the thickness of the "lunar soil" as if it represented the entire quantity of meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The lunar soil is a very thin layer (usually an inch or less) of loose powder present on the surface of the Moon.
However, the lunar soil is not the only meteoritic material on the lunar surface. The "soil" is merely the portion of powdery material which is kept loose by micrometeorite impacts. Below it is the regolith, which is a mixture of rock fragments and packed powdery material. The regolith averages about five meters deep on the lunar maria and ten meters on the lunar highlands.
In addition, lunar rocks are broken down by various processes (such as micrometeorite impacts and radiation). Quite a bit of the powdered material (even the loose portion) is not meteoritic in origin.
Addendum: Creationists disown the "Moon dust" argument
There is a recent creationist technical paper on this topic which admits that the depth of dust on the Moon is concordant with the mainstream age and history of the solar system. In the Abstract, Snelling and Rush (1993) conclude with:
Snelling and Rush's paper also refutes the oft-posted creationist "myth" about the expectation of a thick dust layer during to the Apollo mission. The Apollo mission had been preceded by several unmanned landings -- the Soviet Luna (six landers), American Ranger (five landers) and Surveyor (seven landers) series. The physical properties of the lunar surface were well-known years before man set foot on it.
Further, even prior to the unmanned landings mentioned above, Snelling and Rush document that there was no clear consensus in the astronomical community on the depth of dust to expect. So those making the argument do not even have the excuse that such an consensus existed prior to the unmanned landings.
Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for ten to twenty years longer than that), the "Moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis:
Brown (1989, pp. 17 and 53)
Jackson (1989, pp. 40-41)
Jansma (1985, pp. 62-63)
Whitcomb and Morris (1961, pp. 379-380)
Wysong (1976, pp. 166-168)
See the talkorigins.org archived feedback for February and April 1997, for additional examples.
4. Accumulation of metals into the oceans
In 1965, Chemical Oceanography published a list of some metals' "residency times" in the ocean. This calculation was performed by dividing the amount of various metals in the oceans by the rate at which rivers bring the metals into the oceans.
Several creationists have reproduced this table of numbers, claiming that these numbers gave "upper limits" for the age of the oceans (therefore the Earth) because the numbers represented the amount of time that it would take for the oceans to "fill up" to their present level of these various metals from zero.
First, let us examine the results of this "dating method." Most creationist works do not produce all of the numbers, only the ones whose values are "convenient." The following list is more complete:
Now, let us critically examine this method as a method of finding an age for the Earth.
One might wonder why creationist authors have found it worthy of publishing. Yet, it is quite common. This argument also appears in the following creationist literature:
Brown (1989, p. 16)
Morris (1974, pp. 153-156)
Morris & Parker (1987, pp. 284-284 and 290-291)
Wysong (1976, pp. 162, 163)
Conclusion
Obviously, these are a pretty popular set of "dating" mechanisms; they appear frequently in creationist literature from the 1960s through the late 1980s (and can be found on many creationist web sites even today). They appear in talk.origins more often than any other young-Earth arguments. They are all built upon a distortion of the data.
A curious and unbiased observer could quite reasonably refuse to even listen to the creationists until they "clean house" and stop pushing these arguments. If I found "Piltdown Man" in a modern biology text as evidence for human evolution, I'd throw the book away. (If I applied the same standards to the fairly large collection of creationist materials that I own, none would remain.)
Common Creationist Criticisms of Mainstream Dating Methods
Most creationist criticisms of radiometric dating can be categorized into a few groups. These include:
1. Reference to a case where the given method did not work
This is perhaps the most common objection of all. Creationists point to instances where a given method produced a result that is clearly wrong, and then argue that therefore all such dates may be ignored. Such an argument fails on two counts:
How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.
2. Claims that the assumptions of a method may be violated
Certain requirements are involved with all radiometric dating methods. These generally include constancy of decay rate and lack of contamination (gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope). Creationists often attack these requirements as "unjustified assumptions," though they are really neither "unjustified" nor "assumptions" in most cases.
2.1 Constancy of radioactive decay rates.
Rates of radiometric decay (the ones relevant to radiometric dating) are thought to be based on rather fundamental properties of matter, such as the probability per unit time that a certain particle can "tunnel" out of the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus is well-insulated and therefore is relatively immune to larger-scale effects such as pressure or temperature.
Significant changes to rates of radiometric decay of isotopes relevant to geological dating have never been observed under any conditions. Emery (1972) is a comprehensive survey of experimental results and theoretical limits on variation of decay rates. Note that the largest changes reported by Emery are both irrelevant (they do not involve isotopes or modes of decay used for this FAQ), and minuscule (decay rate changed by of order 1%) compared to the change needed to compress the apparent age of the Earth into the young-Earthers' timescale.
A short digression on mechanisms for radioactive decay, taken from USEnet article <CK47LK.E2J@ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip (subsequently edited in response to Steve's request):
As described above, the process of radioactive decay is predicated on rather fundamental properties of matter. In order to explain old isotopic ages on a young Earth by means of accelerated decay, an increase of six to ten orders of magnitude in rates of decay would be needed (depending on whether the acceleration was spread out over the entire pre-Flood period, or accomplished entirely during the Flood).
Such a huge change in fundamental properties would have plenty of noticeable effects on processes other than radioactive decay (taken from <16381@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> by Steve Carlip):
To summarize: both experimental evidence and theoretical considerations preclude significant changes to rates of radioactive decay. The limits placed are somewhere between ten and twenty orders of magnitude below the changes which would be necessary to accommodate the apparent age of the Earth within the young-Earth timescale (by means of accelerated decay).
2.2 Contamination may have occurred.
This is addressed in the most detail in the Isochron Dating FAQ , for all of the methods discussed in the "age of the Earth" part of this FAQ are isochron (or equivalent) methods, which have a check built in that detect most forms of contamination.
It is true that some dating methods (e.g., K-Ar and carbon-14) do not have a built-in check for contamination, and if there has been contamination these methods will produce a meaningless age. For this reason, the results of such dating methods are not treated with as much confidence.
Also, similarly to item (1) above, pleas to contamination do not address the fact that radiometric results are nearly always in agreement with old-Earth expectations. If the methods were producing completely "haywire" results essentially at random, such a pattern of concordant results would not be expected.
Independant, Shinto, Lesbian, and Proud!
Continents could have indeed been originally oriented in any way between pangea and present.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Continents could have indeed been originally oriented in any way between pangea and present.
First you post and say its impossible for muscle tissue to be preserved under the right conditions for 65 million years then you state then the science behind the Pangea theory is backwards, well I ask you for some links to some evidence on that while I will be content to go with what proper observational and ration science has taught me. Where did you go to school is what I want to know?
{(RIP)} SWG
I don't make it a secret that I believe that a large portion of the "science" community hides a significant portion of the results that they feel aren't conducive to their beliefs that the world is billions of years old...and I think that I have enough evidence to support my belief. I claim that the "science" field is so full of evolutionists that they will conduct test after test, until they get the results that they desire, and then show those results to the public, while hiding the initial ones...this has been proven to occur, so it's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact.
As for Carbon dating, it can't be used to date anything past 30,000 years, because that is the approximate amount of time that it takes for all of the C-14(an isotope of Carbon) to leave something, and it can only be used on something that was, at some point, alive...it is accurate to within about two thousand(ish) years, due to a few factors not being constant, such as rate of decay, and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, both then and now.
There's one thing that confuses me about the science vs. religion crowd. How come people who scrutinize science and want to pull out all these "facts" that they have collected don't ever put their religion under the same scrutiny? There are fossils that point to an evolutionary tree and religious people say those are questionable, but they never look at the fact that they are reading from a book of ancient tales with no proof whatsoever on their part that any of them are true. Yet, when they are questioned they say it's just a matter of faith. Which is it? Are you basing things on fact or faith? Are we looking for physical evidence or not?
Oh, and I got this from HowStuffWorks.com
Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain
archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years
old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant
fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human
activities.
here's the first paragraph from wikipedia.org on continental drift
Continental drift, first proposed as a theory by Alfred Wegener in 1912, is the movement of the Earth's continents relative to each other. Francis Bacon, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, Benjamin Franklin, and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on either side of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together. The similarity of southern continent fossil faunae and some geological formations had led a small number of Southern hemisphere geologists to conjecture as early as 1900[citation needed] that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent known as Pangaea.
Wegener was the first to formally publish the theory that the
continents had somehow "drifted" apart. However, he was unable to
provide a convincing explanation for the physical processes which might
have caused this drift. His suggestion that the continents had been
pulled apart by the centrifugal pseudoforce of the Earth's rotation was considered unrealistic by the scientific community.[1]
I hope you know know that this is just a hypothetical entity......
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
One again we've got a Science VS. Religion debate going on, joy.
Gamewize's Theory of Controversy: The longer any controversal, quasi-controversal, or related topic goes on, the more likely it is that a 2-sided debate breakign out closes in on inevitability.
So far that one's got some support to it :P
I think it's the objective of your past self to make you cringe.
But believing in a white haired man living in the clouds, snapping his fingers and creating life out of nothing isn't grasping at thin air?
They also choose to ignore other things that prove evolution to be right.
If it had any proof then it couldn't be debated. There is no proof, and thus it can. To believe in something you can't prove is ignorant, not believeing in something you can't disprove is equally as ignorant.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
Actually, if they are legs, it is proof.
Dolphins are supposedly the descendants of land mammals that for whatever reason in the past returned to the water, and adapted to it. Recursive genes such as limbs don't always go away, they are on occaision suppressed, only to come to the surface again through chance breeding.
Whether they actually are legs, and not an extra set of somewhat deformed fins... Well, thats the crux of the issue.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
But believing in a white haired man living in the clouds, snapping his fingers and creating life out of nothing isn't grasping at thin air?
They also choose to ignore other things that prove evolution to be right.
If it had any proof then it couldn't be debated. There is no proof, and thus it can. To believe in something you can't prove is ignorant, not believeing in something you can't disprove is equally as ignorant.
That is retarded. So not believing in a flying spegghetti monster is ignorant? now wait a sec, isn't that a conundrum? If you say that it is ignorant to believe in the spegghetti monster, you are saying that you are ignorant for being religious. See the flaw in your logic?
Can you disprove evolution? No. And there are even facts that point directly at evolution as being their cause. Can you disprove creationism? No. But there are absolutly no facts whatsoever that point toward it.
btw, this wasn't targeted directly at you, but at many others here...
http://www.legionofsteel.org
AoC Guild
But believing in a white haired man living in the clouds, snapping his fingers and creating life out of nothing isn't grasping at thin air?
They also choose to ignore other things that prove evolution to be right.
If it had any proof then it couldn't be debated. There is no proof, and thus it can. To believe in something you can't prove is ignorant, not believeing in something you can't disprove is equally as ignorant.
That is retarded. So not believing in a flying spegghetti monster is ignorant? now wait a sec, isn't that a conundrum? If you say that it is ignorant to believe in the spegghetti monster, you are saying that you are ignorant for being religious. See the flaw in your logic?
Can you disprove evolution? No. And there are even facts that point directly at evolution as being their cause. Can you disprove creationism? No. But there are absolutly no facts whatsoever that point toward it.
btw, this wasn't targeted directly at you, but at many others here...
The saying isn't literal really, it's just a way of saying "none of us know the exact truth, we can only speculate with what we have". But it is sepculation, so for anyone to say that their belief is unquestionable fact is silly.
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
I don't make it a secret that I believe that a large portion of the "science" community hides a significant portion of the results that they feel aren't conducive to their beliefs that the world is billions of years old...and I think that I have enough evidence to support my belief. I claim that the "science" field is so full of evolutionists that they will conduct test after test, until they get the results that they desire, and then show those results to the public, while hiding the initial ones...this has been proven to occur, so it's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact.
As for Carbon dating, it can't be used to date anything past 30,000 years, because that is the approximate amount of time that it takes for all of the C-14(an isotope of Carbon) to leave something, and it can only be used on something that was, at some point, alive...it is accurate to within about two thousand(ish) years, due to a few factors not being constant, such as rate of decay, and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, both then and now.
There's one thing that confuses me about the science vs. religion crowd. How come people who scrutinize science and want to pull out all these "facts" that they have collected don't ever put their religion under the same scrutiny? There are fossils that point to an evolutionary tree and religious people say those are questionable, but they never look at the fact that they are reading from a book of ancient tales with no proof whatsoever on their part that any of them are true. Yet, when they are questioned they say it's just a matter of faith. Which is it? Are you basing things on fact or faith? Are we looking for physical evidence or not?
Oh, and I got this from HowStuffWorks.com
Carbon-14 dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50,000 years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities.
You are making the assumption that I havn't stood my beliefs up to scientific scrutiny, and I have. I refused to call myself a Christian until I could say that I believed what was in the Bible, until I had some proof that any of that crazy stuff is true, things like the Great Flood, and the Tower of Babel. You make the false assumption that none of it can be held to scientific scrutiny...and my findings have lead me to believe that Creationism is actually a more reasonable belief than evolution. I have cited numerous times why I feel this way, with paragraph upon paragraph of examples, so I won't go into the specifics with this post. But I will say that I believe with all my heart that if more people had the actual facts about evolution, then they wouldn't be so quick to jump on the "it's fact" bandwagon.
so to sum up your answer: it's both, but I contend that a belief in Jesus Christ requires no more FAITH than a belief in evolution, the FACTS have driven me to arrive at that conclusion.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Most observations that scientists make about evolution (IE legs which are not even exclusive to mamals) are wholely physical. And while physical characteristics are important... they are also a very subjective science.
The protrusions found were fins not legs... it's grasping at straws saying they WERE legs at some point in time...
-----------
In an unconnected question. I was under the impression that the evolution of sea mamals shows that their legs and arms turn INTO fins...?? Lets say for example that these fins were indeed the remnants of legs... Then This would be a mamal with 6 limbs.... which is quite odd for mamals
This leads me to even further to believe that this is just a crazy one off mutation caused by millions of japanese people peeing in the water..
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>