Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Creation Museum Marries Adam, Eve and Dinosaurs
ABC News ^ | May 25, 2007 | Staff

Posted on 05/26/2007 9:24:34 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-359 next last
To: fortheDeclaration
Sorry bud, nothing that the evolutionists have come up has proven anything older than 6,000 years-period-and you know it!

So stop making claims that you know are not true.

Typical evolutionist assertions with no facts to support them

How about all those radiocarbon dates older than 6,000 years? I have obtained quite a few of those myself.

Not to mention all the other evidence.

101 posted on 05/29/2007 8:02:33 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Sorry bud, nothing that the evolutionists have come up has proven anything older than 6,000 years-period-and you know it! So stop making claims that you know are not true. Typical evolutionist assertions with no facts to support them How about all those radiocarbon dates older than 6,000 years? I have obtained quite a few of those myself. Not to mention all the other evidence.

As you well know, the dating methods are very suspect

The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods. You cannot expect this icon of evolution to be overthrown in a few short paragraphs.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp

102 posted on 05/29/2007 8:18:01 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (The)
by John Woodmorappe
SKU: 10-3-090
List Price: $12.99
Price: $12.99
Publisher: Institute for Creation Research
Published: 1999
A masterful demonstration of the fallacy of radioactive dating assumptions and techniques with citations of almost 500 articles by evolutionists. A solid refutation of the belief that radiometric dating proves the Earth is old.
Woodmorappe
10-3-090
radiometric
dating
radiation
radioactive
carbon
dating
http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/product/Mythology-of-Modern-Dating-Methods-The,4612,226.aspx


103 posted on 05/29/2007 8:19:28 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Thanks, but I don't need Woodmorappe (the pseudonym for a high school teacher) or Answers in Genesis to tell me about radiocarbon dating. Also, the RATE project is doing creation "science" and that says it all.

If you want to learn about radiocarbon dating, I have included some links below.

But I still need you to show me how radiocarbon dating past 6,000 years is incorrect. All you have done is link to religious apologists comments.

You need to use science in your argument if you want scientists to pay any attention. And creation "science" is not going to cut it. Just one quick example--don't some of these folks calibrate the radiocarbon method by reference to the global flood? What a joke!

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.


104 posted on 05/29/2007 8:27:14 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty
Mainstream scientists worry that because the museum is so technically sophisticated, it could be effective in giving children a distorted view of science.

I doubt that will happen. My daughter's been to Disneyland three times and she knows that mice don't actually talk.

105 posted on 05/29/2007 8:30:47 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Mainstream scientists worry that because the museum is so technically sophisticated, it could be effective in giving children a distorted an accurate, Biblical view of science.

It may give them an accurate view of what the Bible says. But let's not pretend it's science.

106 posted on 05/29/2007 8:32:32 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
We live in interesting times, where ignorance and superstition flourish.

Can you honestly name a time when it didn't?

107 posted on 05/29/2007 8:34:26 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating
by Tas Walker

Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations.


Many people think that radiometric dating has proved the Earth is millions of years old. That’s understandable, given the image that surrounds the method. Even the way dates are reported (e.g. 200.4 ± 3.2 million years) gives the impression that the method is precise and reliable (box below).

However, although we can measure many things about a rock, we cannot directly measure its age. For example, we can measure its mass, its volume, its colour, the minerals in it, their size and the way they are arranged. We can crush the rock and measure its chemical composition and the radioactive elements it contains. But we do not have an instrument that directly measures age.

Before we can calculate the age of a rock from its measured chemical composition, we must assume what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed.1 And then, depending on the assumptions we make, we can obtain any date we like.

It may be surprising to learn that evolutionary geologists themselves will not accept a radiometric date unless they think it is correct—i.e. it matches what they already believe on other grounds. It is one thing to calculate a date. It is another thing to understand what it means.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/radiometric.asp


108 posted on 05/29/2007 8:34:51 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Nice cut and paste; sorry, you got the wrong subject.

We were discussing radiocarbon dating, not radiometric dating. I know a lot about the former, not much about the latter.

Radiocarbon dating shows the earth is far older than 6,000 years. A couple of dozen dates I have done are older than that.

You have yet to show me that the radiocarbon method is incorrect. (And stay away from Answers In Genesis if you want to argue science. They are seriously deficient in that regard.)

109 posted on 05/29/2007 8:41:00 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Pretty puffed up talk from a guy who had to be shown that we do have dinosaur bones by a Creationist.

Evolutionists are full of assumptions, just like Creationists.

We operate from a different paradigm and deal with the data accordingly.

Both schools have scientists, and come to the same conclusion when dealing with objective evidence.

What they disagree with is over the implications of the evidence.

110 posted on 05/29/2007 8:41:34 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: M Kehoe

“Creation Museum Marries Adam, Eve and Dinosaurs”

Dang, and I always thought it was the liberals who would be pushing to legalize humans wedding animals.


111 posted on 05/29/2007 8:41:52 AM PDT by gracesdad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Pretty puffed up talk from a guy who had to be shown that we do have dinosaur bones by a Creationist.

I am always willing to learn something new. That separates me from the practitioners of creation "science."

Now, where is the evidence that radiocarbon dates older than 6,000 years are inaccurate?

112 posted on 05/29/2007 8:44:01 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You have yet to show me that the radiocarbon method is incorrect. (And stay away from Answers In Genesis if you want to argue science. They are seriously deficient in that regard.)

You have to show that the dating is indeed accurate.

As for AIG, that is where I found about the real dinosaur bones.

113 posted on 05/29/2007 8:45:07 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
CONCLUSION The concerns raised by Zheng [28] regarding U-Pb isochrons are warranted. At Koongarra a 207Pb/206Pb �isochron� produced from 11 hand-picked uraninite and galena grains, plus four whole-rock samples, yields an �age� of 863 Ma, the same as a near-concordant �age� from one of the uraninite grains. Nine weathered whole-rock samples yield an �isochron age� of 1270Ma, while 113 soil samples produce an excellent �isochron� with an �age� of 1445Ma. All of these �ages� are geologically meaningless. While the apparent isochron produced by the soil samples may be identified as a mixing line, produced by the mixing of radiogenic Pb with common or background Pb in the surrounding rocks and soils, even this explanation strains credulity because the samples come from up to 17km away from known uranium mineralization, and a few of the soil samples represent different rock types. Not only then has open system behavior of these isotopes been demonstrated, but apparent �isochrons� and their derived �ages� are invariably geologically meaningless. Thus none of the assumptions used to interpret the U-Th-Pb isotopic system to yield �ages� can be valid. If these assumptions were valid, then the 232Th/208Pb �age� of 0Ma for three of the five uraninite samples should be taken seriously. Creationists should therefore not be intimidated by claims that U-Th-Pb radiometric �dating� has �proved� the presumed great antiquity of the earth, and the strata and fossils of the so-called geological column. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_as_uthpbdating/
114 posted on 05/29/2007 8:49:23 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
You have to show that the dating is indeed accurate.

False. You are challenging mainstream science with a fringe idea. You have to show that your fringe idea has more merit than mainstream science.

That's the way it works in science. Fringe ideas stay on the fringe until they can bring some evidence to the discussion.

Where is your evidence?

I'll check back later. Right now I have more important things to do. I haven't dusted my dental floss collection in weeks.

115 posted on 05/29/2007 8:49:58 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I am always willing to learn something new. That separates me from the practitioners of creation "science."

Clearly, you are not willing to the learn the most important thing, In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth

116 posted on 05/29/2007 8:53:25 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
You have to show that the dating is indeed accurate. False. You are challenging mainstream science with a fringe idea. You have to show that your fringe idea has more merit than mainstream science. That's the way it works in science. Fringe ideas stay on the fringe until they can bring some evidence to the discussion. Where is your evidence? I'll check back later. Right now I have more important things to do. I haven't dusted my dental floss collection in weeks.

You asked for evidence against your dating.

You got it.

Deal with the evidence.

Just saying it is 'fringe' is a copout and you know it.

Your 'science' if dating is suspect and you well know it.

You have no dating that dates conclusively with over 10,000 years.

117 posted on 05/29/2007 8:57:33 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

radiocarbon dating n.
a method of estimating the ages of organic materials using the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 (the content of the former decreasing as the content of the latter increases within the organic material over time); tested effectively only to ages of about 3000 years

radiometric dating n.
a method of dating artifacts by the use of measurable, unstable isotope elements, which are known over time to to decay at currently known rates into measurable, stable elements; the difference in content of each element within the artifact in question is used as a ratio to estimate an “age” of the artifact; this process, while often portrayed as accurate and reliable, invariably requires multiple unverifiable assumptions in calculating alleged “ages”—making it highly suspect as a reliable dating method; results often vary widely (“useful” dates retained & published, others ignored), confirming the method’s unreliability.

http://www.trueorigin.org/glossary.asp


118 posted on 05/29/2007 9:03:56 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

I was quite surprised at reading this thoughtful piece from the New York Times.

It seems to be that the author of this review is a good multiculturalist.

He seems to be saying that if you grant the premises of multiculturalism, then even creationists are as entitled to tell their own story using privately donated funds as any other cultural group.

As long as there is no effort by anyone to squash this museum by force, I believe it will be good for science in the long run.

If the scientific evidence presented by this museum does not hold up, people will simply be looking at it as a curiosity — similar to mythology.


119 posted on 05/29/2007 9:04:12 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration; Coyoteman
You asked for evidence against your dating. You got it. Deal with the evidence.

I watched two old BBC Horizon reruns last night about Atlantis. The first one focused on this 'scientist' that reminds me of Ken Ham. One of a very few actual scientists that forwarded a crackpot idea that 10,500 years ago Atlanteans went around the world and instilled some sort of memory of Atlantis. Fast forward 7-8,000 years and all these monuments pop up that are reminiscent of star constellations. He had an answer, however ridiculous, for any refutation of his claims.

Now why do I bring this up? Because accepted science is that carbon dating works. Next you'll be telling us that Einstein's theory which helps astronomers measure the explosion of stars and their distance from earth (and therefore distance in time) is somehow flawed because it shows we're picking up gamma rays from 13 billion years in the past. Nowhere in the Bible does it state the earth is 6,000 years old. Nowhere. And to continually argue a point that in no way should shape a person's faith is sort of ridiculous

120 posted on 05/29/2007 9:14:06 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

The organisms which can be used in radiocarbon dating include charcoal, wood, marine shell, human or animal bone, antler, peat; in fact, most of what contains carbon during its life cycle can be used, assuming it’s preserved in the archaeological record. The farthest back C14 can be used is about 10 half lives, or 57,000 years; the most recent, relatively reliable dates end at the Industrial Revolution, when humankind busied itself messing up the natural quantities of carbon in the atmosphere. Further limitations, such as the prevalence of modern environmental contamination, require that several dates (called a suite) be taken on different associated samples to permit a range of estimated dates.

http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing_3.htm


121 posted on 05/29/2007 9:24:01 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: SirLinksalot

I thought the article was well done, too.

Over the weekend I saw videos of some of the park’s features and attractions. I think it would be fun to visit. If I’m ever in the area, I will.


122 posted on 05/29/2007 9:31:03 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: billbears
You asked for evidence against your dating. You got it. Deal with the evidence.

I watched two old BBC Horizon reruns last night about Atlantis. The first one focused on this 'scientist' that reminds me of Ken Ham. One of a very few actual scientists that forwarded a crackpot idea that 10,500 years ago Atlanteans went around the world and instilled some sort of memory of Atlantis. Fast forward 7-8,000 years and all these monuments pop up that are reminiscent of star constellations. He had an answer, however ridiculous, for any refutation of his claims.

You want to talk about the frauds and liars in the evolution movement?

I asked for evidence, not more empty evolutinist rhetoric.

The most ridiculous scientific claim ever made is evolution, something came from nothing, life came from non-life.

How?

Well, you can't expect us to answer that, the evolutionist protests, we just know that it did because we think it did.

Now why do I bring this up? Because accepted science is that carbon dating works. Next you'll be telling us that Einstein's theory which helps astronomers measure the explosion of stars and their distance from earth (and therefore distance in time) is somehow flawed because it shows we're picking up gamma rays from 13 billion years in the past. Nowhere in the Bible does it state the earth is 6,000 years old. Nowhere. And to continually argue a point that in no way should shape a person's faith is sort of ridiculous

First, now you are shifting the argument to the star issue.

The issue of light can be addressed from the Creationist view.

Moreover, it is not a necessity that the Universe to be only 6,000 years old for the Creation account to be correct.

So, we are back to where we started, with Evolutionists making assertions they cannot prove, on an assumption that is based on utter nonsense, that something can come from nothing and life from non-life and then evolve into man.

All you guys have to do to show how idiotic your view is to say it straight forward, without all the scientific jargon and you know it sounds like the myth that it is.

123 posted on 05/29/2007 9:33:42 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
The organisms which can be used in radiocarbon dating include charcoal, wood, marine shell, human or animal bone, antler, peat; in fact, most of what contains carbon during its life cycle can be used, assuming it’s preserved in the archaeological record. The farthest back C14 can be used is about 10 half lives, or 57,000 years; the most recent, relatively reliable dates end at the Industrial Revolution, when humankind busied itself messing up the natural quantities of carbon in the atmosphere. Further limitations, such as the prevalence of modern environmental contamination, require that several dates (called a suite) be taken on different associated samples to permit a range of estimated dates.

http://archaeology.about.com/cs/datingtechniques/a/timing_3.htm

That's Archaeology 101 material. Try again.

124 posted on 05/29/2007 9:43:56 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
You want to talk about the frauds and liars in the evolution movement? I asked for evidence, not more empty evolutinist rhetoric.

I was pointing out that he sounded about as ridiculous as those that claim Adam was off riding dinosaurs. I'm not doubting God's hand in things. But I don't see the importance of limiting His actions to a specific timescale that can be found nowhere in the Bible.

Moreover, it is not a necessity that the Universe to be only 6,000 years old for the Creation account to be correct.

Ah but it can't be over 10,000 years old can it? 6,000, 10,000, 50,000,000. Does it really matter that much to you? Why?

125 posted on 05/29/2007 9:45:51 AM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
And how does it change the fact in the accuracy of the dating-it doesn't.

Stop blowing smoke, like you did with the dinosaur bones.

126 posted on 05/29/2007 9:46:14 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I doubt that will happen.

Maybe you need to reassure those mainstream scientists. ;)

127 posted on 05/29/2007 9:47:45 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
And how does it change the fact in the accuracy of the dating-it doesn't.

I challenge you to show that your fringe idea that radiocarbon dating only goes back some 6,000 years is accurate, and you post a paragraph from Archaeology 101 which is both true and fails to support your position.

You don't know enough about radiocarbon dating to even cut and paste pertinent articles from the web correctly and you are trying to tell scientists how the method works and what its limitations are? What a joke!

128 posted on 05/29/2007 9:51:29 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: billbears
You want to talk about the frauds and liars in the evolution movement? I asked for evidence, not more empty evolutinist rhetoric. I was pointing out that he sounded about as ridiculous as those that claim Adam was off riding dinosaurs. I'm not doubting God's hand in things. But I don't see the importance of limiting His actions to a specific timescale that can be found nowhere in the Bible.

Never heard of anyone riding any dinosaurs.

But very likely they existed with man.

We are now finding all kind of species that we did not know even existed, so who is to say what existed with man before the flood.

Moreover, it is not a necessity that the Universe to be only 6,000 years old for the Creation account to be correct. Ah but it can't be over 10,000 years old can it? 6,000, 10,000, 50,000,000. Does it really matter that much to you? Why?

Frankly the age of the Universe is not as important to me as is the age of man and the method of creation, direct and immediate.

Adam was a real man, the Fall was real, and the need for a saviour is real.

No Adam, no Fall, no need for a Second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ, since, according to evolution, man is not made in the image of God, he is just an highly evolved animal.

129 posted on 05/29/2007 9:52:50 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
And how does it change the fact in the accuracy of the dating-it doesn't. I challenge you to show that your fringe idea that radiocarbon dating only goes back some 6,000 years is accurate, and you post a paragraph from Archaeology 101 which is both true and fails to support your position. You don't know enough about radiocarbon dating to even cut and paste pertinent articles from the web correctly and you are trying to tell scientists how the method works and what its limitations are? What a joke!

The joke is on you.

The article states very clearly the limits in radiocarbon dating.

Now, you have yet to show otherwise.

All dating has its limits, and is very limited, and you know it.

That is why you are so desperate to avoid dealing with that fact.

130 posted on 05/29/2007 9:55:19 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: billbears
evolution, general theory n. the notion of a continuous naturalistic, mechanistic process by which all living things have arisen from a single living source, which itself arose by a similar process from a non-living, inanimate world, which in turn came into being and developed from nothing (i.e., spontaneous generation).

Now this is what evolutionists don't want anyone to see, what is behind the curtain, what their theory really states.

And that is suppose to be 'rational'!!!

131 posted on 05/29/2007 9:57:38 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
I challenge you to show that your fringe idea that radiocarbon dating only goes back some 6,000 years is accurate, and you post a paragraph from Archaeology 101 which is both true and fails to support your position. You don't know enough about radiocarbon dating to even cut and paste pertinent articles from the web correctly and you are trying to tell scientists how the method works and what its limitations are? What a joke!

I don't know what is sillier - this museum or people like you who actually get worked up about it. I think the latter.

132 posted on 05/29/2007 9:59:52 AM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty
"In an evolutionary world view, why should you have things like absolute morality? Why would it be wrong to kill someone?" said Jason Lisle, of Answers in Genesis. "I'm not saying that evolutionists aren't moral. I'm saying they have no reason to be moral."

This is wrong because it conflates evolution with atheism, when they aren't the same thing at all. On the other hand, there are plenty of militant evolution proponents who perpetuate this misperception by displaying overt God-hatred.

133 posted on 05/29/2007 9:59:54 AM PDT by Sloth (The GOP is to DemonRats in politics as Michael Jackson is to Jeffrey Dahmer in babysitting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Other factors affecting carbon dating
The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth’s passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the earth’s 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 earth’s 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 atmosphere—plants 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 dating—for 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.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp


134 posted on 05/29/2007 10:02:49 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Natural Corrections

Reservoir effects
Radiocarbon samples which obtain their carbon from a different source (or reservoir) than atmospheric carbon may yield what is termed apparent ages. A shellfish alive today in a lake within a limestone catchment, for instance, will yield a radiocarbon date which is excessively old. The reason for this anomaly is that the limestone, which is weathered and dissolved into bicarbonate, has no radioactive carbon. Thus, it dilutes the activity of the lake meaning that the radioactivity is depleted in comparison to 14C activity elsewhere. The lake, in this case, has a different radiocarbon reservoir than that of the majority of the radiocarbon in the biosphere and therefore an accurate radiocarbon age requires that a correction be made to account for it.

One of the most commonly referenced reservoir effects concerns the ocean. The average difference between a radiocarbon date of a terrestrial sample such as a tree, and a shell from the marine environment is about 400 radiocarbon years (see Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993). This apparent age of oceanic water is caused both by the delay in exchange rates between atmospheric CO2 and ocean bicarbonate, and the dilution effect caused by the mixing of surface waters with upwelled deep waters which are very old (Mangerud 1972). A reservoir correction must therefore be made to any conventional shell dates to account for this difference. Reservoir corrections for the world oceans can be found at the Marine Reservoir Correction Database, a searchable database online at Queen’s University, Belfast and the University of Washington. Human bone may be a problematic medium for dating in some instances due to human consumption of fish, whose C14 label will reflect the ocean reservoir. In such a case, it is very difficult to ascertain the precise reservoir difference and hence apply a correction to the measured radiocarbon age.

Spurious radiocarbon dates caused by volcanic emanations of radiocarbon-depleted CO2 probably also come under the category of reservoir corrections. Plants which grow in the vicinity of active volcanic fumeroles will yield a radiocarbon age which is too old. Bruns et al. (1980) measured the radioactivity of modern plants growing near hot springs heated by volcanic rocks in western Germany and demonstrated a deficiency in radiocarbon of up to 1500 years through comparison with modern atmospheric radiocarbon levels. Similarly, this effect has been noted for plants in the bay of Palaea Kameni near the prehistoric site of Akrotiri, which was buried by the eruption of the Thera volcano over 3500 years ago (see Weninger, 1989). The effect has been suggested as providing dates in error for the eruption of Thera which has been linked to the demise of the Minoan civilisation in the Aegean. One modern plant growing near the emanations had an age of 1390 yr. The volcanic effect has a limited distance however. Bruns et al. (1980) found that at 200 m away from the source, plants yielded an age in agreement with that expected. They suggested that the influence of depleted CO2 declined rapidly with increasing distance from the source. Radiocarbon discrepancies due to volcanic CO2 emissions are a popular source of ammunition for fundamentalist viewpoints keen to present evidence to show that the radiocarbon method is somehow fundamentally flawed.

http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html


135 posted on 05/29/2007 10:11:21 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
Maybe you need to reassure those mainstream scientists. ;)

Then what would they have to complain about? Besides, I thought I heard on the news this morning that openining weekend attendence was underwhelming so I doubt it will be much of an issue.

136 posted on 05/29/2007 10:15:50 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
let's not pretend it's science.

Sure it is...you obviously have not read the literature.

137 posted on 05/29/2007 10:19:39 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Where did God come from?


138 posted on 05/29/2007 10:25:17 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
Sure it is...you obviously have not read the literature.

Well I've read the Bible, but not as a science textbook. And I've read science books, but not looking for any theology. And so far I've managed to keep the two separate.

139 posted on 05/29/2007 10:27:41 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Where did God come from?

Good question.

We Creationists always acknowledge that our views are based on faith (Heb.11:3).

But, on that we are at least honest.

The evolutionist wants to pretend that he is not depending on faith for his system as well.

Both systems are faith based, and what has to be seen is which seems the most reasonable, based on the condition of the Universe and man.

140 posted on 05/29/2007 10:28:53 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
Where did God come from?

Good question.

And?

141 posted on 05/29/2007 10:30:51 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater
Where did God come from? Good question. And?

And where did the Universe come from?

What do you believe?

142 posted on 05/29/2007 10:32:53 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration (We must beat the Democrats or the country will be ruined! -Abe Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

The big dinosaur in the sky that gave birth to the god of humans also gave birth to the original creation, of course.


143 posted on 05/29/2007 10:34:55 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
"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."

Of course it doesn't. AIG is VERY misleading (lying?)

144 posted on 05/29/2007 10:35:31 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

You keep evading the question.


145 posted on 05/29/2007 10:36:50 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: PigRigger

A big part of believing in religions in the first place is trying to get everything to wrap up nicely and tied with a bow, ignoring everything that doesn’t at all make sense about your belief (and there’s plenty). My wife is the same way. She loves the idea that God is some safety net for her 24/7 (like a drug addict) and she thinks that not believing in Genesis literally would cause the whole house of cards to crumble (like being forced to go cold turkey and going through withdrawal). It’s willful ignorance because they don’t like the alternative.


146 posted on 05/29/2007 10:40:36 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration
You keep posting basic low-level facts on the radiocarbon method, such as that it only extends some 50,000 years into the past, as if that should be hot news! Archaeologists are way ahead of you. We know those types of limitations and more, and we don't need cut-and-paste creationists to try to teach us how to do our jobs.

You also cite the reservoir effect as if that's something that is a serious problem for archaeologists. The reservoir effect is old news, I deal with that all the time. I have even done numerous comparisons of charcoal vs. shell to see what the extent of the reservoir effect is in the areas in which I work.

Your cut-and-paste also cites the problem of the reservoir effect when dealing with human bone, as fish in the diet can throw the age off. Actually sea mammals can be worse than fish. That's why when I radiocarbon date human bone I obtain the 13C and 15N stable isotope readings so that the percent of marine organisms in the diet can be ascertained and accounted for.

You are way out of your depth here. You seem to believe that radiocarbon dating is wrong (for religious reasons I presume) and you are surfing the net for anything that might help your position -- without understanding much about the subject at all.

Not very impressive. If you wish to convince anyone that the radiocarbon method is inaccurate, you have to really study and understand it first.

147 posted on 05/29/2007 10:53:00 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Est autem fides sperandorum substantia rerum argumentum non parentum


148 posted on 05/29/2007 11:16:54 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

“A masterful demonstration of the fallacy of radioactive dating assumptions and techniques with citations of almost 500 articles by evolutionists. A solid refutation of the belief that radiometric dating proves the Earth is old.”

Your link gives nothing to refute radioactive dating.


149 posted on 05/29/2007 11:28:26 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: fortheDeclaration

Isn’t it lovely when John Woodmorappe quotes Illinois high school science teacher Jan Peczkis?


150 posted on 05/29/2007 11:32:30 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-359 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson