So you get to demand answers while ignoring those posed to you?
Sorry, that's not how a conversation works.
Real Science Radio: More Soft Tissue Confirms RSR Dino Prediction
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
So you get to demand answers while ignoring those posed to you?
Sorry, that's not how a conversation works.
You're kidding with this answer, right? Oh wait, you're not.
Which would be nice if his analogy had said what your video said.
However, the analogy got it completely backward. Using the C12/C14 ratio will not "break the scales" when used on a supposedly million-year-old item. The idea that it would be like weighing a car on a bathroom scales is the wrong analogy.
That you will not concede this trivial point shows how disinterested you are in a rational discussion.
I don't think that the intention of the analogy was to suggest that carbon dating a fossil would break the accelerator mass spectrometer, but rather that the spectrometer would give either no result due to insufficient carbon present in the sample, or an erratic result due to ambient or background readings.
That's just because you will do anything to avoid conceding even the most trivial of points to a creationist.
It was a stupid analogy.
20 points for User Name
There's nothing wrong with the test. It is only if you fear a result that you would look for a reason not to do it. And your analogy got the issue from your perspective exactly backward.
This is another problem with young earth creationism. It must assume that virtually all of the modern sciences are wrong in order for YEC assumptions to be correct. In this case, YECs must assume that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were dramatically skewed by the Deluge, hence carbon dating anything older than about 4,500 years will give a skewed result. But paleoclimatology is a well-established science, and we have solid physical evidence for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels covering the past 800,000 years.
This is the fallacy of begging the question.
Both camps have assumptions. Evolutionists look to their assumptions as evidence. Creationists look at data for evidence.
And evolutionists must assume something to ignore C14 in significant quantities in, well, everything. Only they are off by millions or billions of years, but quibble about a few thousand when it comes to their assumptions forced on a YEC view.
And that's the other problem: Darwinists demand that YECs use evolutionary assumptions.
Nope. Accurate readings only go back a few thousand, if that. Beyond that, assumptions and interpretation kick in because the "layers" become so compacted.
And you still haven't shown any integrity over JD's bad analogy.
Because we were there. Oh, wait.
No, we were not there. But you knew that. I'll leave it to someone else to attempt to explain it to you, but given your lack of intellectual curiosity I suspect that to be a waste of time and effort.
Creationists look at the data for evidence? According to the data the universe is in a mature state, being approximately 13.8 billion years old. The earth is likewise found to be in a mature state, and multiple lines of evidence point to an age for the earth of around 4.5 billion years.
Of course, YECs would say that the earth and the universe were created some 6,000 years ago in an already mature state. Fine! If the earth and the universe were created in a mature state, then it must have an "appearance of age." So then, how old does the earth and the universe appear to be? Science gives us the answer.
And no police detective can ever solve a crime unless he was there to see it happen. Oh, wait.
The detective does what he can with the evidence he has. Not surprisingly, he often gets a remarkably detailed description of what happened from the traces left behind.
Lighthouse is doing the best he can, too.
We should be patient.
Yip.
Those are your assumptions talking. Show us the data and let us make our own judgement.
Nope. They were created in a just-created state.
Nope. they have the appearance of things in a 6,000-year-old universe.
Yip. And the answer is far less than the millions of years you need.
And you're still not willing to correct JD over his lame-o analogy.
For starters, the nearest star to earth (other than our sun) is Proxima Centauri. It is approximately 4.24 light years away. This means that it takes the light from Proxima Centauri 4.24 years to reach us. When we look at Proxima Centauri, we are seeing what that star looked like 4.24 years ago.
The disk of our galaxy, the Milky Way, is estimated to be at least 100,000 light-years across. If you were to use a telescope to observe a star located at the opposite end of the galaxy from us, the light that you would see coming from that star would have traveled upwards of 100,000 years or more to reach us.
The closest galaxy to our own Milky Way is the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy. A satellite galaxy of the Milky Way, it is estimated to be about 70,000 light-years from Earth, traveling in a polar orbit (i.e. an orbit passing through the galactic poles) at a distance of about 50,000 light-years from the core of the Milky Way:
The farthest observable supernova is SN UDS10Wil. It is estimated to have exploded more than 10 billion years ago:
The farthest galaxy observed from earth (so far) is EGSY8p7. It is estimated to be 13.2 billion light-years from Earth. This means that it takes light from EGSY8p7 13.2 billion years to travel through to reach us.
The universe must be an old place for light from such distant objects to reach us. If one takes the view that the universe was created 6,000 years ago, then it must necessarily have been created with this appearance of age.
6days
New member
13.2 billion light years is a measurement of distance...not time.
The radius of our light horizon is over 45 billion years, yet you don't believe it took that long for the light to get here.
Part of your answer is correct. How old did Eve look after God created her from the rib? How old did the fruit trees appear (that were in actuality only days old)? So, yes Adam could have seen stars that God created 2 days previous.
The universe is an awesome means of learning of the majesty of our Creator, who stretches the heavens. Psalm 19:1 "The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display his craftsmanship."
It is true that the observable universe has a radius of about 45 billion light years, and yet the age of the universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old. This is because space itself is expanding as light is traveling through it:
This does not invalidate the fact that light travels at approximately 6 trillion miles per year. There are stars in our own galaxy that are over 100,000 light-years away from earth, which means that it takes that much time for light from those stars to reach us.