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

Skip to comments.

Do Young C-14 (Carbon-14) Results Reflect Contamination? (article)
Institute for Creation Research ^ | July 2013 | Jake Hebert, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/01/2013 10:48:55 AM PDT by fishtank

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: tacticalogic

Where did your research establish a beginning ratio of father vs daughter elements? You know with measurements in molten and all rock, eh?


41 posted on 07/03/2013 5:54:53 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
Where did your research establish a beginning ratio of father vs daughter elements? You know with measurements in molten and all rock, eh?

I will answer your questions if you will answer mine. What does your "critical thinking" tell you about the probability that nearly all of the samples are "contaminated" in exactly the same way, with exactly the right combination and ratio of daughter elements to present the same false age reading?

42 posted on 07/03/2013 6:01:16 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You already have the answer you prefer so why should I belabor it further - imho uniformity does not make the measurements reliable when the assumptions and anomalies are still there completely unanswered.


43 posted on 07/03/2013 6:57:17 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
You already have the answer you prefer so why should I belabor it further - imho uniformity does not make the measurements reliable when the assumptions and anomalies are still there completely unanswered.

If uniformity does not make measurements reliable, then nothing will.

If being "reliable" requires a total absence of anomalies, there is no known method of measuring anything that cannot be claimed to be "unreliable". It is a refutation of the whole of empirical science.

44 posted on 07/03/2013 7:14:48 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
DNA is living code - at least while we’re living.

It's living? What's your definition of living?

Once you die the required environment to maintain DNA structure is not there and the laws of entropy and decay take over.

And that means it can only last thousands of years? How did you test that theory?

45 posted on 07/03/2013 7:19:13 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
The majority of the factual and scientific evidence favors young ages -

Based on your link? So what is the age, based on the majority of the factual and scientific evidence?

46 posted on 07/03/2013 7:21:26 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BrandtMichaels
3.The decay in the human genome due to multiple slightly deleterious mutations each generation is consistent with an origin several thousand years ago.

Really? Wow!

47 posted on 07/03/2013 7:33:13 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 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