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

Skip to comments.

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL
http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

Posted on 08/11/2003 8:57:56 AM PDT by fishtank

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-962 next last
To: fishtank
I think I've seen this before. The authors neglected to describe what they were calling "fossilized organic material" and then measured C14 from rocks.

They also didn't address the effect of assuming changes in radioactive decay rates over time that their theory requires.

101 posted on 08/11/2003 11:15:08 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wysiwyg
Why is it the people who attack C14 dating as flawed, have no problem using it to try to suppor their own theories?
102 posted on 08/11/2003 11:16:21 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SengirV
I'm not talking about quasars and pulsars and such that emit radio waves but stars that emit visible light.
103 posted on 08/11/2003 11:18:48 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
It is known widely that deep coal deposits contain large amounts of C14. And it has been known for some time.

This is an unsubstantiated assertion. Please back it up. Since it's 'widely known', providing some indepedent corroboration should be easy.

The issue is that no amount of facts can be allowed to get in the way of liberal/atheistic postulations and theorizing

I am neither a liberal not an atheist, and resent the ad hominem attack

You want to argue that things don't get peer reviewed or published, yet it is minds like yours who stop scientific studies such as this from being peer reviewed and published because the facts are inconvenient.

Previous papers from Dr. Humphreys, one of which I critiqued in detail some months ago, were shoddy in methodology and data analysis; and needed to assume physical impossibilities in order to make them work. Almost evryone I know who does substandard work blames his rejection on 'ideology', when it's just bad science.

104 posted on 08/11/2003 11:27:52 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
"I'm told that the Vogons don't hold with the Young Earth Theory. "

Actually, they just consider it to be highly improbable.
105 posted on 08/11/2003 11:29:23 AM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (The Heart of the King is in the Hand of the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
This quote was posted on another thread; its reposting here seems to be an attempt to disrupt. In other words, it's a troll.
106 posted on 08/11/2003 11:29:29 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad
Not trying to talk you out of salvation, but if you don't believe the Bible, I don't know what kind of salvation you have:

John 5:46-47 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. 47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

However, I have no problem with your not putting the cart before the horse, BUT, those questions DO come up when witnessing to the lost, and when they do, they deserve to be scripturally answered, not ignored or covered up.

The Bible presents God as the Creator and Judge before it presents Him as Saviour. If He is not Creator and Judge, there is no need for a Saviour.

I believe losing that foundation is why fewer get saved today, and many that do make professions of faith, seem very shallow or false. They soon realize they are believing in a Jesus who supports all those things they were taught were myths - and if they did truly get saved, their growth wil be severely retarded until the accept the verse I posted above. And maybe, as we see happening in universities often, they will reject the faith that they professed.
107 posted on 08/11/2003 11:34:56 AM PDT by Con X-Poser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: IpaqMan
I followed some links in Talkorigins.org and found that there is significant research being done to try to account for "anomalous" quantities of C14 being found in coal deposits

Please post the citations or links.

108 posted on 08/11/2003 11:36:12 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad
Radiation and other mutagens have never shown to cause postive mutations. Scientists have raised literally thousands of generations of fruit flies in labs and have subjected them to every type of mutagenic compound or ray known and have yet to produce a BETTER fruit fly. Also, every cell contains an elaborate method of making sure that it's DNA does NOT change. It is the change and breakdown of our DNA that causes aging and many types of disease.
109 posted on 08/11/2003 11:38:29 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
another thread ...



Danger ... troll - CONTROL trap hole freaks --- ahead !

I had the cure - vaccine for the uri geller science virus a long time ago --- I'm immune now !
110 posted on 08/11/2003 11:38:54 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I'm a firm believer in the Big Bang theory. God spoke, and BANG! there it was.
111 posted on 08/11/2003 11:39:50 AM PDT by WestPacSailor (I used to be clueless but I've turned that situation around 360 degrees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Here is the talkorigins.org link about the C14 in coal research.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html
112 posted on 08/11/2003 11:42:18 AM PDT by IpaqMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
I suggest you take another look at the agreement you signed onto no more than 3 days ago.
113 posted on 08/11/2003 11:42:32 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Con X-Poser
Not trying to talk you out of salvation, but if you don't believe the Bible, I don't know what kind of salvation you have.

A fully grounded one that thanks Christ for the rock it is built upon. The fact that I take a long view of Creation does not threaten that salvation, and as I have said, Christ will explain the intricacies of where I am wrong in the Hereafter, which thankfully is no way threatened by the fact that I view a Long Miracle through the parable of a Short One.

Praytell, Christ said that "I am the door". What kind of hinges does He have?

114 posted on 08/11/2003 11:46:29 AM PDT by 50sDad ("Can't sleep...clowns will eat me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: wysiwyg
No, I don't intend to waste my time on it. The earth is old -- very old -- and no amount of pseudo-science will change that.

Los Alamos scientists are pseudo scientists? Ok.

115 posted on 08/11/2003 11:46:29 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%
One effect would be the distortion of the Po halos in rocks. Similarly for other decay events. Of course, the heat given off by more active decay would be obvious.
116 posted on 08/11/2003 11:47:42 AM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
One man's troll is another man's treasure ... some people pitch junk and other's can't stop their rubbish picking troll routines --- I thought troll trashing was legal now !
117 posted on 08/11/2003 11:47:48 AM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Stating the obvious; not peer reviewed, not published, chances are they're seeing contamination by modern 14C.

Right. Carbon 14 measurements are incorrect unless they support the presuppositions of evos. That's scientific!

118 posted on 08/11/2003 11:50:29 AM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wysiwyg
Nope, but it makes your earlier refusal palatable.
119 posted on 08/11/2003 11:51:51 AM PDT by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: IpaqMan
Thanks for the link.

The 14C levels they're referring to are extremely low. 10-13, the highest level in 'ancient' material they cite, corresponds to about 0.25% of the ambient, steady state value, and would correspond to a carbon date of around 34,000 years. That is far older than permitted by young-earth creationism.

The link suggests that these very low levels are produced by in situ transmutation by radioactive nuclides. Any production of 14C deep in the earth would of course result in a spuriously young date, probably in the range of 50K -100K years.

120 posted on 08/11/2003 11:54:35 AM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: WestPacSailor
Dead on!

And as has often been said, how did we gage a "day", what with the sun and the moon coming along "days" later?

Let me see, First Day, Big Bang created out of the separation between all the Void (the Heavens) and all Matter (The "earth"), and the "earth" was waste, having no shape, and God said "Let there be Light" and we had Cosmic Ignition. The Sun and the Moon, the matter of our individual system, coelested and formed some time after the Big Ignition, and then life appeared, with Man appearing on the scene made in the (mental, concious, inquisitive, adaptable, creative, inventive) form of God, having the qualities that allowed Man to become what God designed him to be, ruler of all created things? The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil indicating that Man is the only animal life that God gave the gift of rising above to have the ability to choose to do Right or Wrong, and know what it is. The Fall showing that we too often listen to the whisper of a physical devil who plays on our own vanity, and that we are Lost from what God would have us strive for, to be more like Christ in our Love?

121 posted on 08/11/2003 11:55:36 AM PDT by 50sDad ("Can't sleep...clowns will eat me!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Carbon 14 measurements are incorrect unless they support the presuppositions of evos. That's scientific!

It appears the paper is not published or peer reviewed. If it had been, the referees would undoubtedly have told the authors to examine the possibility that 14C might be produced endogenously at low levelswithin the earth by nuclear transmutation reactions, and to estimate the rate of such production. The referees might also have obligated the authors to point out that the levels of 14C are still extremely low, compared with 99% of the material used for radiocarbon dating.

122 posted on 08/11/2003 12:01:36 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
God didn't put fossils in the ground to fool anyone. Events on this planet cause fossils to form naturally

I used that line about God putting fossils in the ground to go hand in hand with God putting light from an object many billions of light years away 6K light years away so that the light is just hitting us now.

I agree, fossils are there through natural causes. Over millions of years(some have been found in the billions) a fossil history has been created. Your very simple flood explanation may work for you in your 6K old earth/universe, but it does not work for me. How does your flood account for the destruction of extinct aquatic life like Plesiosaurs, trilobytes, etc..?

How come Noah didn't take any dinosaurs with him in the ark? He was instructed to take representatives from every animal on earth, even reptiles(Gensis 6:19-20). But he didn't take any dinosuars. So there were not any in the ark. But the bible said he took every animal upon the Earth. In order for your world to not collapse around you, land based dinosaurs would have to be extinct by then. So EVERY kind of dinosaur would have to have lived between Adam&Eve and Noah. Genesis 2:5 tells us that there was no rain nor grass nor plants when God created Adam and Eve. In Genesis 2:19, God created all animals(after he created man). So Genesis Chapter 5 gives us the lifespan of the dinosaurs. I am not going to add it up, but I'll be kind and say a couple hundred years. Kinda wacky, don't you think? The fierce lion is mentioned many times in the bible. Don't you think a reptile the size of a bus with teeth 6 inches long would garner at least one entry? They would, if they didn't die out millions of years before Noah was born.

123 posted on 08/11/2003 12:06:22 PM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; Dataman
It's older, but I found this link to Dr. Baumgardner if you're interested.

John R. Baumgardner, PH.D.

124 posted on 08/11/2003 12:06:56 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
It appears the paper is not published or peer reviewed.

Your logic says that if a paper isn't peer reviewed by those with an evolutionary bias, then the paper can be dismissed. An excellent example of circular reasoning.

Let's try your gymnastics like this: Any element of the evolutionary hypothesis must be reviewed by a committee of French chefs else anyone who eats may dismiss them.

BTW, your comments aren't peer reviewed. Dismissed.

125 posted on 08/11/2003 12:12:34 PM PDT by Dataman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
No. The lower limit of detection (LLD) for the AMS instrument is 0.002 pmc (percent of the modern ratio of C-14). In Figure 3 in their paper, the mean pmc for 10 samples of coal was pmc = 0.247, which is about two orders of magnitude higher than the pmc.

I'm not talking about what your physical equipment can detect against zero background. I'm talking about what occurs in the environment from contamination, all sources.

I just wrote a document dealing with LLD determination for radioactive dose measurements. (I am the lead researcher on a new instrument.) They are not measuring noise.

So you're a recognized authority.

The tables have turned. The statues are falling. Many scientists are being exposed as being not only fallible but biased, deceiving and dishonest on the question of evolution.

So the recognized authorities are wrong.

126 posted on 08/11/2003 12:12:52 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: IpaqMan; Right Wing Professor
From the link:

Scintillation fluid is made from fossil fuels such as methane or oil (plus some other ingredients), and it sparkles when struck by beta particles or certain other events such as neutrinos.

The solution used is carbon tetrachloride. Makes me wonder if the author actually talked to someone.

127 posted on 08/11/2003 12:15:05 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
I have no idea why you directed that hysterical riposte to me.

You have never once on this forum seen an instance of me complaining about the way I am treated by either other posters or by site Management.

Nor do I play funny little games with other posters.

You live in freakin' Hawaii...go surfing, dude, get a life!

128 posted on 08/11/2003 12:15:20 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Also there is no evidence of giraffe necks ever growing ... or precambrian fossils ---

You were corrected on *both* of these points in another thread in the past three days. Selective amnesia?

true science will address all anomolies - assumptions

And honest debaters will address rebuttals which have been made to their posts and not just repost their incorrect claims over and over again as if they've never been challenged.

129 posted on 08/11/2003 12:15:55 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
I'm not talking about quasars and pulsars and such that emit radio waves but stars that emit visible light.

Last time I checked radio waves and light travel at the same speed, so the argument is EXACTLY the same.

BTW, you are not seeing these objects in question. You are seeing them thru the lengthy exposure of a device to a designated area of sky, be it visual or radio or any wavelenth you wish. The human eye can only pick up a couple thousand individual stars in the darkest of nights. Other objects can be detected by the naked eye, but they are made up of either large areas of excited gas(orion nebula) or thousands of stars(open or globular clustars) or millions of stars(galaxies).

130 posted on 08/11/2003 12:19:37 PM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad
Just FYI, I don't consider or make a young earth (or the KJV) a salvation issue.
131 posted on 08/11/2003 12:20:03 PM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
Your logic says that if a paper isn't peer reviewed by those with an evolutionary bias, then the paper can be dismissed.

My logic said no such thing. I said the paper ignored certain obvious alternative hypotheses, and as such failed ordinary scientific standards for publications. I think a reviewer would probably have told them to discard the lengthy and tedious discussion of young-earth creationism, since YEC has conflicts with virtually every field of science. However, they certainly could have published the data if they'd done what any of us submitting a controversial theory has to do; shown that their theory explains these results and has no other major conflict with scientific laws; and that no other currently accepted theory explains their results (assuming none does). Or they could have, without publishing their own theory, noted that the data conflict with current theories, and stated there's something here that needs to be explained.

Your logic says that if a paper isn't peer reviewed by those with an evolutionary bias, then the paper can be dismissed.

Free Republic is a discussion forum, not a scientific journal. Would you like me to review the differences for you?

132 posted on 08/11/2003 12:22:25 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
If you call mud dwelling sludge animals - remains precambrian fossils do you think that is ok ?

I mean real fossils of higher species than worms and mollusks !
133 posted on 08/11/2003 12:23:45 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
One man's truth is another man's hysteria !
134 posted on 08/11/2003 12:28:53 PM PDT by f.Christian (evolution vs intelligent design ... science3000 ... designeduniverse.com --- * architecture * !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Where did the C-14 come from if the fossil was formed eons ago, thereby trapping the carbon atoms in a rock-like matrix?

You're supposedly an expert? I don't like my experts to ask questions like, "If we all came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" or "If the earth is round, why doesn't it look round?"

Carbon forms such mobile compounds as carbon dioxide and carbonic acid, just to name two. It doesn't have to stay trapped in buried rock, nor are rocks necessarily impermeable to contamination from atmospheric, groundwater, or subterranean sources.

135 posted on 08/11/2003 12:31:00 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
One man's truth is another man's hysteria !

And, that I agree with you on. Sorta.

136 posted on 08/11/2003 12:34:37 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
"One man's truth is another man's hysteria!"

Finally - the crypto-poster gives us a clue!
137 posted on 08/11/2003 12:34:56 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
It is the change and breakdown of our DNA that causes aging and many types of disease.

And yet our lifespan of threescore and ten has remained pretty constant over thousands of years of recorded history.

And humans have only 300 generations in 6000 years, whereas bacteria have undergone upwards of 10 million replications. Bacteria have a genome almost as complex as ours. Why hasn't it deteriorated?

138 posted on 08/11/2003 12:37:03 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: f.Christian
Now you see why I didn't sign onto the good behavior agreement...
139 posted on 08/11/2003 12:37:45 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
"A straightforward conclusion that can be drawn from these observations is that all but the very youngest Phanerozoic organic material was buried contemporaneously much less than 250,000 years ago.

This is consistent with the Biblical account of a global Flood that destroyed most of the air-breathing life on the planet in a single brief cataclysm only a few thousand years ago."

Maybe, but it wouldn't have to be from the time of the Flood.

The Bible also alludes to man existing prior to Adam. He was annhilated catastrophically and left no living progeny, but before we can know any more about him, the curtain closes.

Some recent DNA analyses of ancient remains showing no relationship to modern man seem to support the Biblical assertion.

140 posted on 08/11/2003 12:40:38 PM PDT by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
"Now you see why I didn't sign onto the good behavior agreement..."

Me. too.
141 posted on 08/11/2003 12:43:38 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
There are 90 different samples listed in Table 1 of the paper. There are 22 different studies cited with various materials tested for C-14 concentrations, including but not limited to:

marble
shell
graphite
calcite
shells
bone
coal
foraminifera
fossilized wood
natural gas
etc.



Where does the C-14 come from, especially in the organic materials (i.e. fossil fuels) if they are eons old?












142 posted on 08/11/2003 12:43:53 PM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; Dataman
It appears the paper is not published or peer reviewed. If it had been, the referees would undoubtedly have told the authors to examine the possibility that 14C might be produced endogenously at low levelswithin the earth by nuclear transmutation reactions, and to estimate the rate of such production. The referees might also have obligated the authors to point out that the levels of 14C are still extremely low, compared with 99% of the material used for radiocarbon dating.

You also forgot the conclusion. I would have asked them to support their conclusions better, especially that last line. It's jarringly out of place, with not a shred of scientific evidence in the paper to back it up exclusive of any other conclusion you might draw.

143 posted on 08/11/2003 12:50:49 PM PDT by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad
The Holy Spirit leads us to the truth about what Christ did for us on the cross. By accepting that basic truth we have repented of our rebellion and acknowledged God's plan for our rescue.

Subsequently, God reveals Himself to us through the revelation of His Son, via the Holy Spirit authored Word of God. Blessed are those who believe not having "seen" these things. We can read of the truth's that God has preserved in the Holy Scriptures.

Christians have been wrong about the Bible over the years, but it is mostly due to their refusing to believe what the text says. (Luther's anti-Semitism - 1948 Israel regathered, a-millennialism - Augustine's incorrect allegorical view of The Book of Revelation, Crusades - the temple for the church is in believers hearts not the Holy Land, Inquisition - Christ is the mediator between man and God, not a power grab by a religious bureaucracy trying to shore up their leadership...).

Our relationship with God cannot be shaken by the musing of intelligent men. If we try to shape the Word of God to fit man's traditions, one of which is "science", we will fall into the same error as the religious leaders in Jesus' time. Science is correct only as long as it agrees with scripture, or it may or may not be correct if scripture doesn't comment on the topic.

HAVE YE NOT READ?
144 posted on 08/11/2003 12:53:01 PM PDT by bondserv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Because the life of a bacteria can be measured in days. We live for decades, continually absorbing DNA damaging cosmic and UV rays. Over the centuries our lifespan has steadily decreased as the DNA of the next generation gets less stable. Pre-flood people lived for hundreds of years because there the cosmic and UV rays were blocked.

There are dozens of examples of species today that suggest that at one time they were MUCH larger. For example, there are skeletons of alligators that were 50 feet long. Today we know that an alligator never stops growing.

There is no fossil whatsoever that suggests that a platypus was ever anything except a platypus, but fossils show that the platypus was actually much larger thousands of years ago.

Same with ferns and trees and sharks and turtles and so on.

Even the bible is consistent on this matter. Noah lived 950 years, his sons about 600 years, his grandsons 438 years, their sons 433 years, their sons 464 years, their sons 239, their sons 239, their sons 230, their sons 148, and it goes on down.
145 posted on 08/11/2003 12:55:40 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: js1138
P.S. Who is to say that the lifespan of a bacteria wasn't several weeks at one time?
146 posted on 08/11/2003 12:56:54 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Hegemony Cricket
"Actually, they just consider it to be highly improbable."

That d*mned Rudy Carnap was a Vogon - I always knew there was something funny about the guy...;^)

Myself, I'm with the necessity school - the universe necessarily exists as existent.

History, of course, including the varied sagas of theories, can not admit necessity to its lexicon, as all historical events are chock full of human beings, each with his own will.

And at each and every epochal moment in history, human action, or inaction, could have altered events radically. There is no 'necessity' in history, or by extension, in human life.
147 posted on 08/11/2003 12:58:10 PM PDT by headsonpikes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
Where does the C-14 come from, especially in the organic materials (i.e. fossil fuels) if they are eons old?

Atmosphere (CO2), groundwater (carbonic acid), subterranean sources. And we're talking very small, noise-level amounts here.

Let's list all the things this paper is doing wrong when it claims that its measurements are evidence for a young earth:

  1. It focusses entirely upon a single measure, carbon-14, because all the other radiometric dating techniques give answers incompatible with its premise.
  2. It ignores that even carbon-14 is giving answers incompatible with (too old for) its premise.
  3. It ignores more mundane explanations for non-zero carbon-14 in old rocks.

148 posted on 08/11/2003 12:59:48 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad
." I'd rather stake my soul on believing Christ died for my individual sins, accepting His Grace, and telling others about His love for them.

This is excellent. This is the start; but, doubts WILL come, and THEN the logical conclusion will bring a person to the brink where he either decides, "I don't know", and continues in Faith, or he'll be convinced, "That can't BE! -- look at the 'data'!"

149 posted on 08/11/2003 1:02:35 PM PDT by Elsie (Don't believe every prophecy you hear: especially *** ones........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
Now you see why I didn't sign onto the good behavior agreement...

Why, is it such a bad thing to actually be expected to behave well, and to the same standards as everyone else in the discussion?

150 posted on 08/11/2003 1:03:55 PM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 951-962 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