Creation vs. Evolution

[Jose Fly]

Given all that, 6days, why do you think that the RATE team refuse to use the multiple methods that would verify or refute their own C14 dates? As you have shown, real scientists cross check and retest and use a variety of methods before they reach an agreement.

And that touches on the point I made earlier, i.e., that creationists would have scientists throw out all the congruent results in favor of a single outlier result.

RATE are not doing real science. That is the only lesson we can take from your Leakey story.

In it we also see another one of 6days' heads-I-win, tails-you-lose scenarios. See, when scientists utilize multiple dating methods to establish a fossil as 75 million years old, they're just "assuming" the date. But when creationists assert the fossil is really less than 10,000 years old, that's a solid conclusion drawn from good science.....even though there isn't a single scientifically-derived result that gives a <10,000 year date.

But again....all this creationist hand-waving about C-14 and "assumptions" is terribly old. Not one of these arguments has had any impact on science....ever. So why 6days et al. think regurgitating them at ToL will change that is a mystery. Maybe they think God will reward them for endlessly repeating old failed arguments? :idunno:

 

[Jose Fly]

Lets start with something really basic Jose, since you persist in this charade of ignorance. Genesis mentions the SUN. Where do you assume Carbon 14 comes from?

Oh that's right, you really don't know or haven't thought about it, so you wouldn't recognize scientific significance of any of this. That's why you wouldn't give a brief statement of how you thought Carbon dating works. Why you would spend days arguing rather than give a simple statement...

Please explain why you posting whatever argument you have is contingent upon me posting a treatise on C-14 methodology.

 

[Rosenritter]

Please explain why you posting whatever argument you have is contingent upon me posting a treatise on C-14 methodology.

Because that is how you trap a troll. You force them to make a statement so they can't keep waffling flip flopping and evading. Then you show everyone how their own words betray their dishonest position.

But if you weren't a troll you would have nothing to fear.

 

[Jose Fly]

Fine.

Cosmic rays from the sun produce free neutrons that convert N14 to C14. The C14 combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide with C14 in it. This unstable form of carbon is taken up by living organisms in the carbon cycle. When they die they cease taking up C14 and over time the C14 undergoes beta decay and transforms into N14.

Scientists then measure the relative amounts of C14 and C12 in a specimen, and given the rate of decay of C14 to N14, they can estimate the amount of time that has passed since the specimen died.

Now, what is this brand new, never before heard of creationist argument regarding C-14 that you have been holding back on posting? Also, what is the "Genesis model"?

 

[Tyrathca]

Ty, what "science" would that be? You can't just take humanist denial and call that "science."

The problem is Rosen that you've already shown that there is little point engaging you in discussion except for entertainment. You're too much like Stripe.

Perhaps you should address the explanations others have already given before asking for yet another person to reinvent the wheel for you?

There are global evidences of mass extinction, mass fossil graveyards, marine organisms on mountains, etc. Then there are the worldwide flood legends from cultures around the globe, having common elements.

Blah blah blah...
You say that like the only way there could be mass graveyards is a singular global event. Or that floods aren't a common disaster experienced by all cultures.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

The problem is Rosen that you've already shown that there is little point engaging you in discussion except for entertainment. You're too much like Stripe.

Perhaps you should address the explanations others have already given before asking for yet another person to reinvent the wheel for you?
Blah blah blah...
You say that like the only way there could be mass graveyards is a singular global event. Or that floods aren't a common disaster experienced by all cultures.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

So you admit the evidence exists, you just look for an alternative explanation. Have never seen you display evidence against a worldwide flood. That leaves you a bit "high and dry."

 

[Rosenritter]

Fine.

Cosmic rays from the sun produce free neutrons that convert N14 to C14. The C14 combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide with C14 in it. This unstable form of carbon is taken up by living organisms in the carbon cycle. When they die they cease taking up C14 and over time the C14 undergoes beta decay and transforms into N14.

Scientists then measure the relative amounts of C14 and C12 in a specimen, and given the rate of decay of C14 to N14, they can estimate the amount of time that has passed since the specimen died.

Now, what is this brand new, never before heard of creationist argument regarding C-14 that you have been holding back on posting? Also, what is the "Genesis model"?

So in accord with what you read and comprehend in Genesis, if Adam on his hundredth birthday had access to the same carbon dating labs that we have today and he submitted tissue from a mouse that died on his tenth birthday, how old would the labs say it was?

One hundred years or "young?" or in excess of 50,000 years it being determined to be an "Ancient sample?" Assume Adam doesn't tell them he is a creationist and that the same methods and assumptions are used when dating.

Better yet. Instead of the mouse he submits soft tissue from his own rib on his first birthday. What does the lab say?

 

[Jose Fly]

So in accord with what you read and comprehend in Genesis, if Adam on his hundredth birthday had access to the same carbon dating labs that we have today and he submitted tissue from a mouse that died on his tenth birthday, how old would the labs say it was?

One hundred years or "young?" or in excess of 50,000 years it being determined to be an "Ancient sample?" Assume Adam doesn't tell them he is a creationist and that the same methods and assumptions are used when dating.

Better yet. Instead of the mouse he submits soft tissue from his own rib on his first birthday. What does the lab say?

So for all your griping and whining about scientists making "assumptions", you now want everyone to assume your interpretation of Genesis is actual history? Gee....no double standards there.

To answer your questions, let's assume there was a 100 year-old person named "Adam" that existed 6,000 years ago and he submitted a sample from a mouse that had been dead for 10 years and a sample from his own rib. Since the actual age of the mouse is within the standard error of C14 dating, and the rib sample is from a living organism, any results would be meaningless. Now, I've not done C14 dating so I don't know what sort of reporting of the results they give, but I'd guess it'd be something like "indeterminate", "within standard deviation", or "who in the world submitted a live sample".

Looks to me like you're the one who should've first demonstrated basic knowledge of C14 methodologies.

 

[Tyrathca]

So you admit the evidence exists, you just look for an alternative explanation.

Keep telling you self that.

By the same token I could justify intelligent falling. You do understand that merely interpretating evidence is not science though? What am I saying... Of course you don't....

Have never seen you display evidence against a worldwide flood. That leaves you a bit "high and dry."

That would be mainly because I haven't really engaged you much and have been increasingly lurking since you arrived (due to real life commitments).

You're still yet to show any signs of being anything more than a good example of the Dunning-Kruger affect so I don't see the point in repeating myself to you right now. You've got enough comments already directed to you still awaiting a meaningful reply as it is anyway.



Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

So for all your griping and whining about scientists making "assumptions", you now want everyone to assume your interpretation of Genesis is actual history? Gee....no double standards there.

To answer your questions, let's assume there was a 100 year-old person named "Adam" that existed 6,000 years ago and he submitted a sample from a mouse that had been dead for 10 years and a sample from his own rib. Since the actual age of the mouse is within the standard error of C14 dating, and the rib sample is from a living organism, any results would be meaningless. Now, I've not done C14 dating so I don't know what sort of reporting of the results they give, but I'd guess it'd be something like "indeterminate", "within standard deviation", or "who in the world submitted a live sample".

Looks to me like you're the one who should've first demonstrated basic knowledge of C14 methodologies.

Answer the question genius. All the lab knows is they have these samples. And FYI, you are SUPPOSED to allow the given assumptions of an argument when you examine it for consistency. That's what we did for you before we pointed out internal contradictions.

Now stop whining and give us our lab results, and then you will get your grade based on how you described carbon dating earlier.

 

[Jose Fly]

Answer the question genius.

Well, I don't know if you weren't paying attention, or just plain didn't understand what I posted. To quote myself....

To answer your questions, let's assume there was a 100 year-old person named "Adam" that existed 6,000 years ago and he submitted a sample from a mouse that had been dead for 10 years and a sample from his own rib. Since the actual age of the mouse is within the standard error of C14 dating, and the rib sample is from a living organism, any results would be meaningless. Now, I've not done C14 dating so I don't know what sort of reporting of the results they give, but I'd guess it'd be something like "indeterminate", "within standard deviation", or "who in the world submitted a live sample".​

Assuming it's the latter, let me see if I can put it in terms you can understand. When I said that the actual date for the mouse (10 years) was within the standard deviation of C14 dating, that was a very important point (that you would have understood if you knew anything about this subject). You see, the standard deviation for C14 dating is about 150 years. That means if C14 were a ruler, the first little line on it would correspond to 150 years and anything that was younger than that would essentially be unmeasurable using that "ruler" (C14 dating). So when Adam submitted his sample from the mouse that had only died 10 years ago to C14 testing, he did the equivalent of asking someone to measure the length of a bacterial cell with a ruler. What's the best result Adam will get for the cell? 1/16 of an inch, because that's the first line on the ruler, just like 150 years is the "first line" on the C14 "ruler".

Understand?

And as far as Adam's rib, as I noted in my response to your inane little quiz, C14 dating is only used on organisms that have died (thus having ceased taking in C14). So in this case it's not that you're using the wrong ruler, it's that you're using the wrong instrument altogether. Adam is asking the lab to measure the width of a bacterial cell with a decibel meter. :chuckle:

So to repeat, the answer to your question is that the lab would send back whatever verbiage they use to say "within the standard error of our methodologies", which if you want numbers translates to "less than 150 years old".

And FYI, you are SUPPOSED to allow the given assumptions of an argument when you examine it for consistency. That's what we did for you before we pointed out internal contradictions.

Ok, let's just go ahead and assume your interpretation of Genesis is actual history and see how it holds up to the data. First step (for about the fourth or fifth time now)...what is the "Genesis model"?

 

[Rosenritter]

Well, I don't know if you weren't paying attention, or just plain didn't understand what I posted. To quote myself....

To answer your questions, let's assume there was a 100 year-old person named "Adam" that existed 6,000 years ago and he submitted a sample from a mouse that had been dead for 10 years and a sample from his own rib. Since the actual age of the mouse is within the standard error of C14 dating, and the rib sample is from a living organism, any results would be meaningless. Now, I've not done C14 dating so I don't know what sort of reporting of the results they give, but I'd guess it'd be something like "indeterminate", "within standard deviation", or "who in the world submitted a live sample".​

Assuming it's the latter, let me see if I can put it in terms you can understand. When I said that the actual date for the mouse (10 years) was within the standard deviation of C14 dating, that was a very important point (that you would have understood if you knew anything about this subject). You see, the standard deviation for C14 dating is about 150 years. That means if C14 were a ruler, the first little line on it would correspond to 150 years and anything that was younger than that would essentially be unmeasurable using that "ruler" (C14 dating). So when Adam submitted his sample from the mouse that had only died 10 years ago to C14 testing, he did the equivalent of asking someone to measure the length of a bacterial cell with a ruler. What's the best result Adam will get for the cell? 1/16 of an inch, because that's the first line on the ruler, just like 150 years is the "first line" on the C14 "ruler".

Understand?

And as far as Adam's rib, as I noted in my response to your inane little quiz, C14 dating is only used on organisms that have died (thus having ceased taking in C14). So in this case it's not that you're using the wrong ruler, it's that you're using the wrong instrument altogether. Adam is asking the lab to measure the width of a bacterial cell with a decibel meter. :chuckle:

So to repeat, the answer to your question is that the lab would send back whatever verbiage they use to say "within the standard error of our methodologies", which if you want numbers translates to "less than 150 years old".



Ok, let's just go ahead and assume your interpretation of Genesis is actual history and see how it holds up to the data. First step (for about the fourth or fifth time now)...what is the "Genesis model"?

You failed the test. Apparently you lack practical application of the C14 dating science. The mouse and the rib would both come back as "old" past the "50,000 year" mark. Go back and read what you wrote earlier. It measures radioactive carbon. FORMED BY THE SUN. Now read Genesis 1. How long has a sun shined on this world?

The lab would say "you can't expect carbon dating to work in samples this old. But how did you keep soft tissue intact for such a long time?" In absence of any significant trace of C14 they judge the sample to be OLD not YOUNG.

Its not as if this hasn't been stated over and over in this forum already. But if you had a clue what you were talking about you should know anyway. If you really haven't read Genesis first five chapters just SAY SO instead of acting foolishly arrogant. If you don't know what you are arguing against you shouldn't be arguing.

Alternatively if you understand the mistake you made admit it and we can go forward. That's much preferable.

 

[Jose Fly]

You failed the test. Apparently you lack practical application of the C14 dating science. The mouse and the rib would both come back as "old" past the "50,000 year" mark. Go back and read what you wrote earlier. It measures radioactive carbon. FORMED BY THE SUN. Now read Genesis 1. How long has a sun shined on this world? The lab would say "you can't expect carbon dating to work in samples this old. But how did you keep soft tissue intact for such a long time?" In absence of any significant trace of C14 they judge the sample to be OLD not YOUNG.

So you're saying over Adam's 100 year life, he would not have taken up C14? Why not?

 

[gcthomas]

You failed the test. Apparently you lack practical application of the C14 dating science. The mouse and the rib would both come back as "old" past the "50,000 year" mark. Go back and read what you wrote earlier. It measures radioactive carbon. FORMED BY THE SUN. Now read Genesis 1. How long has a sun shined on this world?

The lab would say "you can't expect carbon dating to work in samples this old. But how did you keep soft tissue intact for such a long time?" In absence of any significant trace of C14 they judge the sample to be OLD not YOUNG.

Such an effect would be fantastically clear in the calibration data for radiocarbon dating, with older objects recording a younger radiocarbon age. There is no such effect, so your argument is false. Are you really so unaware of the calibration of C14 data by other methods?

OK, so you think that undermining C14 dating rules out reliable dating techniques that might disprove your mythological chronology. How about these other independent methods that give embarrassing dates for old items?

1. Uranium-lead dating,
2. potassium-argon dating and
3. argon-argon dating for rocks: three methods that give very similar results.
4. Uranium-thorium dating which is used to date fossil bones and corals: reliable up to about ¾ million years.
5. Electron-spin-resonance dating, for measuring solidification dates for igneous/metamorphic rocks.
6. Cosmogenic radionuclide dating, for dating relative to cosmic ray exposure on surfaces (rules out multiple strata being laid down at the same time)
7. Fission track dating
8. Dendrochronology
9. Ice cores
10. Lichenometry
11. Varves
12. Luminescence dating of archaeological samples such as pottery. Interestingly, this method overlaps strongly with radiocarbon date ranges, but IS NOT affected by variations on atmospheric C14. As you'd expect, the dates correlate strongly.
13. Isochron dating or meteorites, all converge on the SAME date for the age of the Earth. And it's not 6000 years.

You have already decided that C14 dating cannot be used to show the Earth is older than several thousand years, so please work through this list, explaining how they are all producing misleading ages by exactly the same amount necessary to support your claim. Independent methods, all wrong by the same amount? Needs some detailed critiques here, Ros.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Such an effect would be fantastically clear in the calibration data for radiocarbon dating, with older objects recording a younger radiocarbon age. There is no such affect, so your argument is false. Are you really so unaware of the calibration of C14 data by other methods?

OK, so you think that undermining C14 dating rules out reliable dating techniques that might disprove your mythological chronology. How about these other independent methods that give embarrassing dates for old items?

1. Uranium-lead dating,
2. potassium-argon dating and
3. argon-argon dating for rocks: three methods that give very similar results.
4. Uranium-thorium dating which is used to date fossil bones and corals: reliable up to about ¾ million years.
5. Electron-spin-resonance dating, for measuring solidification dates for igneous/metamorphic rocks.
6. Cosmogenic radionuclide dating, for dating relative to cosmic ray exposure on surfaces (rules out multiple strata being laid down at the same time)
7. Fission track dating
8. Dendrochronology
9. Ice cores
10. Lichenometry
11. Varves
12. Luminescence dating of archaeological samples such as pottery. Interestingly, this method overlaps strongly with radiocarbon date ranges, but IS NOT affected by variations on atmospheric C14. As you'd expect, the dates correlate strongly.
13. Isochron dating or meteorites, all converge on the SAME date for the age of the Earth. And it's not 6000 years.

You have already decided that C14 dating cannot be used to show the Earth is older than several thousand years, so please work through this list, explaining how they are all producing misleading ages by exactly the same amount necessary to support your claim. Independent methods, all wrong by the same amount? Needs some detailed critiques here, Ros.

Dear gcthomas,

You forgot! God created an older Earth and Heaven, and all of the host of them, just as He created an older Adam AND Eve, and trees, and creatures. He created adults. This is what our Bible tells us. Just as your carbon dating was affected by the Sun, so are all of your methods of dating anything. Sure, they all date that the Universe and the Earth, and the meteorites are 3 billion and 4.5 billion years old. Try 6.5 thousand years old. Your other methods of dating are stuck in the millions and billions of years old because they are founding wanting.

Dendrochronology tells us that the Earth is 3 million years old? Rather than that, they can age a tree within 13,000 years old, but not within 3 million years old. But God created aged trees. God created trees that were already grown and bearing fruit. Otherwise there would be no forbidden fruit to eat, much less all of the other fruit trees in the garden of Eden. God created everything this way to confuse men into thinking that they could date it older than it really is. Same reason you will never find the end of the Universe. He ISN'T going to LET you!!

As fast as you can see further and further, He expands the Universe more and more, so that man will never find the end/edge. Our God is One Smart Cookie, way ahead of man's insignificant dating techniques. He knew man would come to the point of dating with such techniques, for it is God Who gives man his ability to do anything. You'll find out only what God will let you. And you will get wrong answers. Just like man determined to build a tower to reach Heaven, there did God confound their languages, so that they were unable to go on. If it weren't for God, we would not even have computers. Read Genesis chapter one. You probably don't even own a Bible. Google it? Enough is enough.

Warmest Regards, gct,

Michael

 

[Tyrathca]

Watching Rosen argue against dating methods is like watching anti-vaccinators argue against vaccines. They read something somewhere on the internet and suddenly they think they're gods gift to the field (pun intended). With an ego the size of a house they can't conceive that the reason they find it all so obvious is not because they're so smart and the "experts" so dumb but rather because they don't understand enough to understand how little they actually know. That and what they do know is either wrong, rumour or a gross oversimplification... No need to actually look back over what they've concluded is wrong and read up on the subject a bit more, they know it all after all....

*grabs popcorn* your patience here is admirable.

Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk

 

[gcthomas]

Dear gcthomas,

You forgot! ….

Your argument Michael, if it qualifies as such, seems to be "You are wrong because … miracles."

Sorry, but that is thoroughly unconvincing in a world that seems to slavishly follow naturalistic laws without deviation since eternity.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Your argument Michael, if it qualifies as such, seems to be "You are wrong because … miracles."

Sorry, but that is thoroughly unconvincing in a world that seems to slavishly follow naturalistic laws without deviation since eternity.

Dear gcthomas,

My argument does involve 'miracles.' The Creator of the Earth and the Universe created them all within the space of six days. Man is the same age as the Universe, and foliage, and bison, lizards, etc. And the host of Heaven. That host is the stars and galaxies. And what would you know about eternity. If you thought that, then you would protect yourself in regards to your own eternity. You can live for eternity, and you will, even though you don't believe it for now. But where you live that eternity is up to God, the miracle-worker, to decide. Your soul, essence, being, will spend eternity in Heaven or in Hell. Those are the only two options, besides the Lake of Fire, which I include with Hell. The Lake of Fire is our Sun. You will long for a drop of water there, yet it will not be given to you.

Cheerio, Mate,

Michael

 

[gcthomas]

Dear gcthomas,

My argument does involve 'miracles.'

OK. I'm listening.

The Creator of the Earth and the Universe created them all within the space of six days.

Woooah there! That's miraculous!

And bang goes your claim …

 

[6days]

So for all your griping and whining about scientists making "assumptions", you now want everyone to assume your interpretation of Genesis is actual history?

Jose, you have the mistaken impression that if you put a white smock on someone, and call him or her a scientist, that they suddenly don't make any assumptions. Hope this doesn't burst your bubble, but the person inside the white smock is not a blank slate. All scientists have biases, and make certain assumptions when examining evidence and making interpretations about our origins.