• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

The Second biggest evidence of the Flood. Fossils

Derf

Derf

Well-known member
Idolater said:
Carbon-14 contamination of the sample or in the lab, sure.
Click to expand...
No, I meant that they fudge or ignore the numbers to make it support their view, sometimes calling it "contamination", or scrounging for a different source.
Idolater said:
But these labs that do carbon-14 dating are well aware of the risk, so they impose policies which prevent carbon-14 from even being in the facility, to prevent contamination. (Carbon-14 can be used as "tracers" I believe in certain applications, so there is legitimate reason for using carbon-14.)
Click to expand...
Agreed--they know how to do it, and yet they still want to retain the excuse when the results don't support their view.
Idolater said:
Tissue is made from carbon, but animals make tissue from the food they eat, which are plants and other organisms which consume plants. Plants make their own tissue from carbon in the atmosphere, and it is this carbon which contains the carbon-14, science says that the carbon-14 is formed when cosmic rays from the Sun impact atmospheric carbon, creating this carbon-14 isotope. So the atmospheric carbon has a certain proportion of carbon-14, but as this carbon is converted into tissue, the rules governing decay prevail. So all's to say, there is no way for tissue to absorb carbon-14 from the atmosphere since it would require chemical reactions that we know are not happening.

It's extremely curious that dinosaur soft tissue, desiccated and preserved, contains even a little bit of carbon-14, if science is correct in saying that the stuff is a million years old or older. Carbon-14 dating says, "No, this stuff is not that old." Why? Carbon-14 dating says that petroleum and coal are old, but not preserved dinosaur soft tissue. Why not?
Click to expand...
In coal? I was pretty sure there were measurable amounts (commiserate with the dino tissue) in both coal and diamonds (pressurized coal). Not sure about oil.
answersingenesis.org

Carbon-14 in Fossils, Coal, and Diamonds

Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays quickly.
answersingenesis.org answersingenesis.org

Some have suggested other mechanisms, like bacteria in the coal that would absorb C14 in recent times. These should have already been testeg by now to see if it's a likely source, but it doesn't work for diamonds.
 
Stripe

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Idolater said:
Is this an absolute policy for you? If instead of discussing the Flood, you were preaching the Gospel, you'd work with someone who "[approaches] it in the wrong mode," right? Even if they led with, "Christ's Resurrection and Christian faith and the Christian Gospel is pseudo-science," you'd still try to engage them, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you try to inflict fatal damage to their defenses?
Click to expand...
I don't think about stuff like that much. If someone wants to talk about something, I just answer their questions and it I think it might be worthwhile, share my opinions.

Sharing the gospel would be a distinct thing from a discussion over science, I think. Maybe. Maybe there wouldn't be much difference.

Maybe it's failing on my part, but generally speaking, I don't think much about trying to convince people to change their minds about stuff.

I'll let them know when they're wrong, but if they don't respond, I let it go.

It's a bit different online, in text. Things tend to come across more dogmatic, but I still have the same sort of approach.

Maybe. Lol
 
justatruthseeker

justatruthseeker

Member
Right Divider said:
This gets back to the common problems of all radiometric dating methods.
  1. Unknown and unknowable starting conditions.
  2. Assumed constant rate of decay during the entire time in question.
  3. No outside influences (additions or subtractions).
Click to expand...
What gets me is those that prescribe a constant rate also believe in Relativity and changes in decay due to both velocity and gravity. And this in a universe which they say is increasing in acceleration (hence decay rates would be slowing over time).

It would be like having a pipe with a decreasing rate of flow over time, measuring the amount of water in the pool (parent/daughter ratios) and then using the rate now observed to calculate a constant rate of how long it took the water to reach its current level. Of course the result would be exaggerated in time because the water flowed faster in the past.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
justatruthseeker said:
According to science every constant (radiometric decay) and the speed of light….
Click to expand...

Perhaps you were aware that the one-way speed of light has never been measured.

If the one-way speed of light is instantaneous, or at least different than the two-way speed of light, would that not cause you to question your beliefs?

We wouldn’t be discussing constant decay rates if they believed otherwise….
Click to expand...

How do you know that decay rates have been constant throughout the past? What if something caused the decay rates to drastically increase in the past? Wouldn't that throw everything off that you believe in??
 
justatruthseeker

justatruthseeker

Member
JudgeRightly said:
Perhaps you were aware that the one-way speed of light has never been measured.
Click to expand...
Of course, it’s impossible to do because clocks (decay rates) aren’t constant….
JudgeRightly said:
If the one-way speed of light is instantaneous, or at least different than the two-way speed of light, would that not cause you to question your beliefs?
Click to expand...
I already don’t believe constants are actually constant… after all we live in a universe in which God “stretched out the heavens “…..

But since we will never know what the one way speed of light is any answer is driven by belief…
JudgeRightly said:
How do you know that decay rates have been constant throughout the past? What if something caused the decay rates to drastically increase in the past? Wouldn't that throw everything off that you believe in??
Click to expand...
Why? Didn’t you read my argument in which I specifically stated I believed decay rates were faster in the past due to Relativity in a universe increasing in acceleration? You know when God “stretched out the heavens “…..
 
Right Divider

Right Divider

Body part
justatruthseeker said:
God is a God of consistency, which is why all life also shares large portions of its DNA…
Click to expand...
That doesn't meant that He had to make all of the planets and moons identical. It is clear from observation that they are all very different.
justatruthseeker said:
Only small minimal changes needed to be made for each distinct Kind and each distinct planet…
Click to expand...
You're making a false comparison without any justification.
 
JudgeRightly

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
justatruthseeker said:
Of course, it’s impossible to do because clocks (decay rates) aren’t constant….
Click to expand...

You don't seem to have understood the problem, then.

I recommend these shows:

https://kgov.com/bel/20210709 (Part 1)
https://kgov.com/bel/20210723 (Part 2)
https://kgov.com/one-way-speed-of-light-measurement-proposal (Part 3)

I already don’t believe constants are actually constant… after all we live in a universe in which God “stretched out the heavens “…..
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur.

But since we will never know what the one way speed of light is
Click to expand...

Based on what the actual problem is, explained above, all it would take is to devise an experiment that can show the one-way speed of light.

any answer is driven by belief…
Click to expand...

But not blind belief. Belief based on evidence, i.e. faith.

Why?
Click to expand...

Because physics is weird sometimes, and certain physical phenomena can accelerate decay rates of unstable elements.

Didn’t you read my argument in which I specifically stated I believed decay rates were faster in the past due to Relativity in a universe increasing in acceleration? You know when God “stretched out the heavens “…..
Click to expand...

I must have missed it, sorry.

You're going to have to explain what you mean by "Relativity," because depending on your answer, it may have absolutely no relevance to "God stretched out the Heavens."

And I can guarantee you that decay rates being faster in the past DEFINITELY has nothing to do with Relativity, in any case.

justatruthseeker said:
God is a God of consistency,
Click to expand...

And yet, sometimes, He does things differently. So?

which is why all life also shares large portions of its DNA…
Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you got this information, but you might want to check your sources.

Some species share some genetic code, in large and small amounts, but certainly not all life.

Only small minimal changes needed to be made for each distinct Kind and each distinct planet…
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur.

justatruthseeker said:
It’s clear from observation that all life is different, but He still used almost exactly the same DNA.
Click to expand...

No, He didn't. Most life on earth is genetically distinct, with some creatures having parts (not all) of their genetic code shared for similar functions

Water everywhere on moons and planets….
Click to expand...

Doesn't mean they were all created the same. In fact, it doesn't even mean that they were created with water at all to begin with.

Water and more water….
Click to expand...

And?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top