The Fossil Record

[bob b]

I'm looking for something that specifically mentions 30,000 years as the maximum age using the GPC method of radiocarbon dating. I've never heard that before, and if it's true, I'd like to confirm it.

Measurement of 14C activity requires very sensitive techniques: gas proportional counters (GPC), liquid scintillation counters (LSC) or accelerator mass spectroscopy (AMS). The maximal age which can be measured by GPC is about 40,000 years, by LSC 50,000 years and by AMS more than 60,000 years. The amount of carbon measured by GPC and LSC techniques should be at least several grams, while by the AMS method miligram-sized samples can be measured.

The main international journal for research papers and data lists relevant to 14C problematic is RADIOCARBON. More information about radiocarbon dating can be found on Radiocarbon WEB info pages.

http://www.irb.hr/en/str/zef/z3labs/lna/C14/

 

[Lynn73]

Tell me, how many scientific journals have you read? How many biological conferances have you attended? How many researchers have you talked to?

None and I don't need to. There are those who have already done those things who believe the biblical account of things. I'm just a lowly Christian who happens to believe the biblical account and thinks that the evidence supports it. Fossils are made by rapid burial and pressure. Since, I assume, fossils are found all over the world; a worldwide flood would meet the requirements. My trust is in what God says, not what certain scientists with an agenda to support a preconceived conlusion say. Evidence can be ignored that don't fit the evolutionist program and evidence can be misinterpeted. What can you expect from people who build up a so called "prehistoric" man from a single tooth which later turns out to be the tooth of a pig? Sorry I'm not scientific enough for you.

 

[bob b]

I'd like to begin this article by describing one example of Carbon-14 dating, performed by one of the leading labs in the dating field. Their carefully done report is a classic illustration of the controversy that exists between most secular scientists and most Biblical creationary scientists.

The Hawkesbury Sandstone formation, near Sydney, Australia, is a massive and spectacular mass of hard rock, often used for construction of buildings in Sydney.(1) There are three principle layers of rock -- massive sandstone, sheet sandstone, and some thin mudstone. Although it is massive (7,700 square miles in area and up to 820 feet thick) it shows many of the features of deposition in fast-flowing waters. There are cross-beds, sloping at about 20o, some are up to 20 feet high, within the flat-lying strata. These were probably formed by huge sand-waves, swept by massive water flows. A number of lenses of mudstone contain many fossils, mostly of fish, sharks, and aquatic plants. Geologists have assigned it to the Middle Triassic 'age' (225 - 230 million years old), based on fossil content and the relative sequence of rock layers in the Sydney Basin. This "stratigraphic dating" is the technique most widely used by conventional geologists who believe in the long timescale of the Geologic Column.

The Bundanoon quarry found a finger-size piece of wood impregnated within the hard sandstone. Some Australian creationist scientists obtained part of this wood, and sent it to Geochron Lab in Boston for careful 14C analysis. Contrary to usual practice, they didn't tell the lab where it had been found, or what 'age' they expected it to reveal. This was to prevent possible bias in the dating tests.

The lab applied normal procedures, treating it with hot dilute hydrochloric acid to remove all the carbonates, then with hot dilute caustic soda to remove any humic acids or other organic contaminents. A 13C/12C measurement showed high probability that modern contamination was not a factor. The sample wood was found to contain measureable 14C, and the final age was determined to be 33,720 +/- 430 years BP.

That "age" is obviously very much younger than most secular scientists could accept, and very much older than most creationists think it really should be. We'll use that "age" as an example in the main discussion about Carbon-14 dating, and the probable sources of the controversy. That comes in the last several pages of this article.

http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html

 

[One Eyed Jack]

http://www.irb.hr/en/str/zef/z3labs/lna/C14/

Thanks, bob. How do you find stuff like that so easily?

 

[bob b]

Thanks, bob. How do you find stuff like that so easily?

Practice makes perfect.

I checked back and found to my surprise that the two C-14 readings of wood embedded in ancient sandstone from different parts of the world were amazingly similar.

36,440 years BP ± 330 years and

33,720 +/- 430 years BP.

Coincidence?

 

[Mr Jack]

None and I don't need to.

So, by your own admission you know nothing about the people involved, yet you think:

The second thing that becomes clear when observing evolution is the suppression of opposing views. You are free to think as long as you think within the realm of evolution. When a tooth is declared to be the missing link that ties apes to man, it makes headlines, science journals, lectures and text books. When it is disproven as belonging to a pig, it is swept under the rug. No headlines, no retraction statements, no lectures. It is quietly dropped. The masses are never informed of the error and therefore it continues to be presented as evidence. This deception is called education and those who believe it arrogantly condescend those who question the evidence. Countless school and college text books are teaching evolutionary 'facts' that even evolutionary scientists consider to be a mockery. The embarrassment of making such a pretence of discovery and shame of admitting defeat to rival point of views discourages evolutionist from admitting an error to the public. They would rather an error to be taught as science than risk the creation world view from gaining acceptance. Evidence that supports creation is ignored or disputed even if there is no basis for the dispute, while evidence supporting evolution is shouted from the rooftops and defended with vigor even though the evidence has no basis.

is truth.

Doesn't it embarass you to endorse such invective without having even a passing knowledge of the people you are demeaning?

 

[Lynn73]

No, I'm not embarrased. I'm entitled to an opinion just like everyone else and I happen to believe evolution is a big fat lie. No personal demeaning of anyone is intended so you can can the accusations. No real, hard evidence exists for evolution. It's just a twisted, desperate attempt to deny a Creator because to admit to a Creator means that Creator has authority over you and evolutionist won't stand for that. If you see a watch sitting by itself, you know it had a watchmaker, it didn't make itself. If you see a car sitting by itself, you know it had a maker. If you see a computer sitting by itself, you know someone designed it. Same goes for a radio or TV or whatever. You may never see the person who made those things but you know he or she exists because those things don't make themselves. If you see a painting by itself in the woods with no sign of life anywhere, you still know that it had to have a painter. Yet evolutionist look at the world and the stars and galaxies and the intricate design of us and the animal and plant and insect world and say "oh it just happened all by itself." Puleez. I hear people say "well this was designed to do that or that part of the body was designed for this. Well, guess what, a design has a Designer. It takes a lot more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than it does to believe in a Creator. The design and order of things, oh they all just happened by accident, uh huh. Everything just somehow came together at just the exact right time for everything to work out together just right. Suuure. Pure delusion.

Romans 1
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; F6 for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so F7 that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

 

[Lynn73]

And my agreement with the paragraph I posted stands.

 

[aharvey]

No, I'm not embarrased. I'm entitled to an opinion just like everyone else and I happen to believe evolution is a big fat lie. No personal demeaning of anyone is intended so you can can the accusations. No real, hard evidence exists for evolution. It's just a twisted, desperate attempt to deny a Creator because to admit to a Creator means that Creator has authority over you and evolutionist won't stand for that. If you see a watch sitting by itself, you know it had a watchmaker, it didn't make itself. If you see a car sitting by itself, you know it had a maker. If you see a computer sitting by itself, you know someone designed it. Same goes for a radio or TV or whatever. You may never see the person who made those things but you know he or she exists because those things don't make themselves. If you see a painting by itself in the woods with no sign of life anywhere, you still know that it had to have a painter. Yet evolutionist look at the world and the stars and galaxies and the intricate design of us and the animal and plant and insect world and say "oh it just happened all by itself." Puleez. I hear people say "well this was designed to do that or that part of the body was designed for this. Well, guess what, a design has a Designer. It takes a lot more faith to believe in the religion of evolution than it does to believe in a Creator. The design and order of things, oh they all just happened by accident, uh huh. Everything just somehow came together at just the exact right time for everything to work out together just right. Suuure. Pure delusion.

See, Lynn, the problem here is that you simultaneously admit that you don't actually read the scientific literature and deny that there is any evidence in favor of evolution. Just because you refuse to look at something doesn't mean it isn't there.

And I'm amazed that people who should know better rely on explicitly anti-evolution web sites for their understanding of evolution. What would you think of someone who gets their understanding of the Bible entirely from explicitly atheist, anti-Christian web sites? Pretty stoopid, huh?

And I am still baffled that Christians, who do have a strong, built-in reason for wanting everyone to believe the way that they do, accuse evolutionary scientists of wanting to get everyone to believe the way they do. This makes no sense for at least two big reasons: 1) by making it an accusation, you make it sound like scientists are bad for doing this, and yet it's something you yourself do quite happily, and 2) although it's easy to understand why Christians feel it necessary to convert others to their viewpoint, and why they consider their religious beliefs to be, well, religious beliefs, there's no reason I can think of why scientists would feel similarly about a scientific theory. Scientists strongly support it because it is strongly supported by the evidence. When the body of evidence no longer points that way, neither will scientific support. We are dedicated to a search for elusive truths, not to one particular dogmatic perspective. As, you must admit, you yourself are (no matter how justified you feel you are, the bottom line is that your faith compells you to adopt a strictly Biblical perspective). So please stop complaining about our doing something that 1) you yourself do and 2) we don't do, or at least do less than any other group of people.

I guarantee you that if I stumbled across some robust evidence that suggests that evolutionary theory is wrong, I'd be all over it. But every single piece of creationist "evidence" and "argumentation" that I've ever looked at succumbed in less than five minutes to scrutiny. And you should be aware that virtually all of this evidence attacks some cartoon version of evolution, it does not support the literal Genesis account. Why do you think that is?

 

[Mr Jack]

No, I'm not embarrased. I'm entitled to an opinion just like everyone else and I happen to believe evolution is a big fat lie. No personal demeaning of anyone is intended so you can can the accusations.

No personal demeaning? You've just accused hundreds of thousands of people of lying, distorting the truth, intentionally desemenating that which they know to be false and actively seeking to do their jobs as badly as possible. Not only that but you've done it without - by your own admission - knowing the slighest bit about these people or how they go about their work.

You should be embarassed by that.

 

[Shalom]

No personal demeaning? You've just accused hundreds of thousands of people of lying, distorting the truth, intentionally desemenating that which they know to be false and actively seeking to do their jobs as badly as possible.

Someday God will also do this, so I wouldnt feel to embarrassed Lynn73.

The bible is the only true account of the earth, and it doesnt take a scientist to figure it out.

 

[Jukia]

The bible is the only true account of the earth, and it doesnt take a scientist to figure it out.

Really? How do you handle the mountains of evidence which indicate that the Genesis story may not be accurate word for word? Do you simply ignore the evidence? Do you think God put it there so that men would try to understand it yet make mistakes in understanding to the extent that they do not beleive in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

 

[aharvey]

The bible is the only true account of the earth, and it doesnt take a scientist to figure it out.

Indeed, I'd go a step further and say that being a skeptical, critical thinker (i.e., a scientist) actually makes it harder to "figure it out"!

 

[bob b]

Indeed, I'd go a step further and say that being a skeptical, critical thinker (i.e., a scientist) actually makes it harder to "figure it out"!

Right on!

 

[Lynn73]

Some are ignorant of the truth. Evolution is what they've been indoctrinated to death with from kindergarten on up. And some, yes, deliberately ignore evidence that may be contrary to their precious theory. Evolution is a theory, not proven fact yet it's taught as fact in our schools. Why shouldn't the creation "theory" or other theories be taught along with it? And evolution is a lie, I can't help it that they keep propogating it to avoid being responsible to God. They simply just don't want anyone telling them what to do so they have to stick with evolution.

 

[Jukia]

Some are ignorant of the truth. Evolution is what they've been indoctrinated to death with from kindergarten on up. And some, yes, deliberately ignore evidence that may be contrary to their precious theory. Evolution is a theory, not proven fact yet it's taught as fact in our schools. Why shouldn't the creation "theory" or other theories be taught along with it? And evolution is a lie, I can't help it that they keep propogating it to avoid being responsible to God. They simply just don't want anyone telling them what to do so they have to stick with evolution.

Why do I get the impression that your knowledge of science and the way scientists work is, well, non-existent?

 

[Shalom]

Really? How do you handle the mountains of evidence which indicate that the Genesis story may not be accurate word for word? Do you simply ignore the evidence? Do you think God put it there so that men would try to understand it yet make mistakes in understanding to the extent that they do not beleive in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

At least I'm not ignoring the bible.

 

[Jukia]

At least I'm not ignoring the bible.

Not quite an answer to the questions but then what did I expect.

So, one should ignore the evidence but not the Bible. Okey dokey.

 

[koban]

At least I'm not ignoring the bible.

Really?

How does the bible instruct you to use a computer keyboard?

 

[Shalom]

Not quite an answer to the questions but then what did I expect.

So, one should ignore the evidence but not the Bible. Okey dokey.

Show me evidence that evolution is a fact and not a theory. God makes it real easy. The earth was created in 6 days. He created it and everything in it and on it including man. Its hard to comprehend if your are thinking like someone who came from a monkey, but when you clear away all the lies you have been told by the "scientists" then it will become more clear to you.