Christians Muslims Atheists. Who really is growing faster?

[Jeff250]

Hrm. For one, I don't equate self-consistent with good. We're in agreement that "good" and "evil" must be defined according to some standard.... so in your hypothetical, man says god is evil, by man's standard. I think the implication is that the hypothetical god knows that he is evil, and thus creates people who are better than him.

What I mean by as long as he is self-consistent is that, if God makes the rules and God is a total jerk and makes total jerk rules, then as long as he is self-consistent, then he's the paragon of virtue in the universe. What if God creates some people who some day don't want to be total jerks anymore? For instance, maybe they have evolved such a sense of ethics--all of the total jerks killed each other, and now there are only nice guys left who don't want to be totals jerks anymore. Are they doomed to live in sin?

but I see it as humanizing god, creating a god that's missing a lot of the attributes of the Biblical God.

If you think there are relevant disanalogies, then I think you should flesh them out. Your argument thus far has been built on an assumption that if you are all-powerful and create a universe out of nothing, then you can make whatever rules you want. Is the assumption even more complicated than that?

Again, I think that influence/authority is our point of difference. If God is who He claims to be, and will do what He claims that He will do, then His ethical opinion has supreme importance to the entire universe. Your opinion of His ethical opinion doesn't have bearing on Him, but His opinion of your ethical opinion has massive consequences to you according to the Bible.

Isn't this just "might makes right"? If someone holds a gun to my head, does that mean they control what is ethical for me to do?

I think that there is something to be said for the historical validity of the Bible. You may not agree with the meaning attached to historical events described in the Bible, but I'm not aware of any legitimate threats to the premise of the Bible's historical accuracy, so it merits attention at least on a historical level.

Two things come to mind... 1) there are a lot of people I would trust for historical information but not for spiritual information. Does being reliable for natural things mean that you're reliable for supernatural things? In fact, aren't the best lies laced with truths?

2) The Bible is historically reliable... except for when it isn't. The universe created in 6 days, the Tower of Babel, the worldwide flood... most people no longer see this as historical. Any takers on the Exodus from Egypt?

[flip]

Heh, you know Ferno, I went back and read what you posted again. I did actually misread you this time, a conditioned response no doubt,but honestly I was out of line, that time The answer is yes to all those questions but where you mistake me is that i don't believe in science. I highly respect the types of sciences you described, but had nothing to do with theory. Evolution and Creation both have valid arguments, so I'm thinking the truth is between the two. Not to exclude one or the other. That's what I'm astonished at at this point, that you haven't figured that out about me yet. All your responses towards my arguments are not counter-arguments, they are more like "here's another one of those misguided yokel's who can't see the light."

[flip]

2) The Bible is historically reliable... except for when it isn't. The universe created in 6 days, the Tower of Babel, the worldwide flood... most people no longer see this as historical. Any takers on the Exodus from Egypt?

I'd like to hear what evidence you have to dispute any one of those topics.

[vision]

2) The Bible is historically reliable... except for when it isn't. The universe created in 6 days, the Tower of Babel, the worldwide flood... most people no longer see this as historical. Any takers on the Exodus from Egypt?

I'd like to hear what evidence you have to dispute any one of those topics.

So you can reject it with a supernatural explanation? Seriously, I don't see why you want someone to post evidence you won't accept anyway. The evidence is all around you in the rules of the physical universe. You accept water boils at 100C right? Well, the science that gives us that fact is the same science that tells us the planet is 4 billion years old and the whole surface can't be under water. People are selective of facts as they are convenient I guess.

inb4 God days != Earth days.

[flip]

Cop-Out.

[CUDA]

Cop-Out.

I tried to tell you. but did you listen nnnNNNOOOOOOOoooooo

[flip]

Lol, my friend, I am not scared one bit. I'm still waiting for a real, down and dirty debate of the facts and honestly, I see that possibility here, still.

[SilverFJ]

2) The Bible is historically reliable... except for when it isn't. The universe created in 6 days, the Tower of Babel, the worldwide flood... most people no longer see this as historical. Any takers on the Exodus from Egypt?

I'd like to hear what evidence you have to dispute any one of those topics.

So you can reject it with a supernatural explanation? Seriously, I don't see why you want someone to post evidence you won't accept anyway. The evidence is all around you in the rules of the physical universe. You accept water boils at 100C right? Well, the science that gives us that fact is the same science that tells us the planet is 4 billion years old and the whole surface can't be under water. People are selective of facts as they are convenient I guess.

inb4 God days != Earth days.

You can watch cold water boil in front of you. You can't get into a time machine and travel 4 billion years in the past to observe the creation of the world. Conjecture is pointless when you go back that far. And in my opinion, carbon dating is bull****.

I'm not saying I'm a Christian, but I think most of the sciences dealing with explaining why we're here are also bull****.

Hell, I think the aliens planted us.

[Top Gun]

You can watch cold water boil in front of you. You can't get into a time machine and travel 4 billion years in the past to observe the creation of the world. Conjecture is pointless when you go back that far. And in my opinion, carbon dating is bull****.

What exactly is "bull★■◆●" about radiometric dating? And what are your qualifications to back that opinion up?

[vision]

You can watch cold water boil in front of you. You can't get into a time machine and travel 4 billion years in the past to observe the creation of the world. Conjecture is pointless when you go back that far. And in my opinion, carbon dating is bull****.

You can watch isotopes decay in front of you too. And knowing how they decay takes away the need for a time machine. Math is your time machine. You like math, right?

Also, science isn't necessarily telling you "why" we are here, but "how" -- especially if you want the "why" to be a divine purpose. That's a question for philosophers. However, science can probably tell you why you want the why to be divine, haha.

inb4 science of philosophy / philosophy of science.

[Sergeant Thorne]

You can watch isotopes decay in front of you too. And knowing how they decay takes away the need for a time machine. Math is your time machine. You like math, right?

It is my understanding that simple multiplication is not all that is taking place in carbon dating. Your time machine is fueled by assumptions. You like assumptions, right? Just have a look at the bit about calibration in radiocarbon dating on wikipedia.

[vision]

It is my understanding that simple multiplication is not all that is taking place in carbon dating. Your time machine is fueled by assumptions. You like assumptions, right? Just have a look at the bit about calibration in radiocarbon dating on wikipedia.

Oh I'm well aware of that. But it seems like even a horribly faulty calibration would still show that the world wasn't created in 6 days (to bring this back to point). You can slam science all you want, but with every passing second science gets more accurate and gets better at explaining phenomenon, even those in religious text which are to be taken verbatim.

But even that doesn't matter. Threads like this all boil down to one thing: cognitive dissonance. Some of us suffer from it and others don't, and neither will be able to understand the other.

[Sergeant Thorne]

It seems like? Not good enough for me, because it seems like the Bible is pretty right-on regarding everything else.

Also I'm a little tired of the fact that you folks keep insisting that myself or flip are "slamming science", as you most recently put it. We're just not buying everything that people associated with scientific study are selling.

[vision]

Oh right. The 99.9% certainty you can get from science isn't good enough for some people. They need the 100% they get from their own uncompromising convictions. That's cool, as long as you never waver in your ability to block out anything but your own opinion.

[Sergeant Thorne]

But it seems like even a horribly faulty calibration would still show that the world wasn't created in 6 days (to bring this back to point).

Frankly it doesn't matter what it seems like, uncertain is uncertain, and radiometric dating is not full-proof and thus can only cast doubt, not disprove (99% my ass, there are some relatively big assumptions made there, in my mind).

Also I think you're giving yourself heirs with the cognitive dissidence remark. First in assuming that it is exhibited only by opponents of generally accepted views, and second in assuming that the arguments are so solid as to elicit CD as the only possible motivation for objection. Frankly, I think your statement is outright wrong in addition to being presumptuous--I see a many more debates fall due to careless assumption, lack of communication, and inability to diligently/adequately and thoroughly address the real inadequacies in an opposing argument. Not to mention the fact that a lot of us lack the real complete first-hand, experiential knowledge required for a decisive conclusion in many areas, even if we are correct inasmuch as what we do know.

[Duper]

You can watch cold water boil in front of you. You can't get into a time machine and travel 4 billion years in the past to observe the creation of the world. Conjecture is pointless when you go back that far. And in my opinion, carbon dating is bull****.

What exactly is "****" about radiometric dating? And what are your qualifications to back that opinion up?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Just for definition's sake.

But it seems like even a horribly faulty calibration would still show that the world wasn't created in 6 days (to bring this back to point).

Frankly it doesn't matter what it seems like, uncertain is uncertain, and radiometric dating is not full-proof and thus can only cast doubt, not disprove (99% my ass, there are some relatively big assumptions made there, in my mind).

Also I think you're giving yourself heirs with the cognitive dissidence remark. First in assuming that it is exhibited only by opponents of generally accepted views, and second in assuming that the arguments are so solid as to elicit CD as the only possible motivation for objection. Frankly, I think your statement is outright wrong in addition to being presumptuous--I see a many more debates fall due to careless assumption, lack of communication, and inability to diligently/adequately and thoroughly address the real inadequacies in an opposing argument. Not to mention the fact that a lot of us lack the real complete first-hand, experiential knowledge required for a decisive conclusion in many areas, even if we are correct inasmuch as what we do know.

Lothar had an interesting take on Genesis and the 6 days. ( don't remember where that discussion was)
On the 6 day thing. Genesis is NOT astrophysics 101. Those who treat it thus miss the message entirely. (just an interjection, not a retort.)

[Top Gun]

It seems like? Not good enough for me, because it seems like the Bible is pretty right-on regarding everything else.

But it's not, not even remotely. And that's because it was never meant as a literal history textbook. Or a scientific treatise, as Duper snuck in right before me. Attempting to use it as one just leads to attempting all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify something that doesn't hold up at all in the first place.

[flip]

But it's not, not even remotely. And that's because it was never meant as a literal history textbook. Or a scientific treatise, as Duper snuck in right before me. Attempting to use it as one just leads to attempting all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify something that doesn't hold up at all in the first place.

Do you have any actual evidence or an argument to support this remark? So far, most of yall's arguments have really consisted of nothing more than a topic sentence. It goes something like this:

Topic:I believe in radio-carbon dating.
Argument: insert reason why here.

All that seems to be done around here is to swiftly change topics with no real supporting argument.

[flip]

All liquids, at any temperature, exert a certain vapor pressure. The vapor pressure can be thought of as the degree to which the liquid molecules are escaping into the vapor phase. The vapor pressure increases with temperature, because at higher temperature the molecules are moving faster and more able to overcome the attractive intermolecular forces that tend to bind them together. Boiling occurs when the vapor pressure reaches or exceeds the surrounding pressure from the atmosphere or whatever else is in contact with the liquid.

At standard atmospheric pressure (1 atmosphere = 0.101325 MPa), water boils at approximately 100 degrees Celsius. That is simply another way of saying that the vapor pressure of water at that temperature is 1 atmosphere. At higher pressures (such as the pressure generated in a pressure cooker), the temperature must be higher before the vapor pressure reaches the surrounding pressure, so water under pressure boils at a higher temperature. Similarly, when the surrounding pressure is lower (such as at high altitudes), the vapor pressure reaches that pressure at a lower temperature. For example, in the Denver, Colorado area of the U.S. where the elevation above sea level is approximately one mile (1600 meters), the atmospheric pressure is about 83% of a standard atmosphere, and water boils at approximately 95 degrees Celsius.

I would start to wonder if radio decay could be slowed down or hastened by atmospheric changes or some other variable. We now know that the temperature water boils at is not a constant either, but it can be measured and expressed in a mathematical equation.

[Top Gun]

So do I really need to spell out "this is why the Earth was not created in six literal 24-hour days," or "this is why Noah couldn't fit every single animal species on the planet onto a single boat," or anything else along those lines? See, the thing is, if you're making claims like that, claims that fly in the face of overwhelming physical evidence, then the burden of proof is kinda on you. I don't "believe in" radiometric dating...I understand the principles of exponential decay (hell, I tutor kids in it), and I understand the physical process of radioactive decay, and if I felt like it, I could go watch some guy in a lab run a mass spectrometer and read out the exact numbers that confirm it.

The bottom line here is that you can't equate physical science with spiritual tenets; they're completely separate entities. Not incompatible, per se, but existing in different spheres of influence. As vision put it, science tells you how the world works, while spirituality or philosophy attempt to answer why it works. You can't make some de facto statement about "evolution and creation both having good points"...they're not even attempting to answer the same questions, since evolutionary theory makes no statements about whether or not there was an overall divine purpose behind the rise of life. There's also the little fact that any branch of science by definition makes predictions that can be tested and upheld or overturned, while leaving it at "God did it" can do no such thing.

Edit: The Wiki article on radiometric dating explains that, by and large, variables like temperature and pressure have no effect on radioactive decay. At the scale of an atomic nucleus, the concept of "pressure" doesn't really have any meaning. You get into a lot of quantum-type entropy stuff with temperature at that scale, but suffice it to say that the mechanisms which drive radioactive decay aren't dependent on it.

[flip]

So do I really need to spell out "this is why the Earth was not created in six literal 24-hour days," or "this is why Noah couldn't fit every single animal species on the planet onto a single boat," or anything else along those lines? See, the thing is, if you're making claims like that, claims that fly in the face of overwhelming physical evidence

I've made none of those assertions. I am not gonna continue arguing against a stereotype. I think evolution and creation are very similar in both are steeped in theory and observation and both attempt to answer where we came from and how.

My question is if radio decay would be a constant under different atmospheric conditions spanning a 4 billion year span? I know it is observable, as Jeff says it should be, that water 'molecules' release at varying rates depending on atmospheric pressure . Why should I think that principal, a known and established fact, should not be then applied to all of nature? Notice nothing about God so try and stay focused.

[Top Gun]

I've made none of those assertions. I am not gonna continue arguing against a stereotype. I think evolution and creation are very similar in both are steeped in theory and observation and both attempt to answer where we came from and how.

...but they're not similar in the least, as "creationism" has absolutely no observation to back it up (nor can it, really), nor does it resemble scientific theory at all. And as I've already stated, evolutionary theory doesn't make any claims about how life originated, or if there was some sort of higher being with a vested interest in our eventual existence: it just states how the original life that did form became the life we see today.

My question is if radio decay would be a constant under different atmospheric conditions spanning a 4 billion year span? I know it is observable, as Jeff says it should be, that water 'molecules' release at varying rates depending on atmospheric pressure . Why should I think that principal, a known and established fact, should not be then applied to all of nature? Notice nothing about God so try and stay focused.

We know because we can replicate the conditions in Earth's history that have significantly differed from those today in a lab, and indeed far more extreme than that, and we've seen that the rate isn't affected at all. And the evaporation of a liquid has absolutely nothing in common physically with radioactive decay, so principles that affect evaporation likewise might not have any effect on decay.

[flip]

it just states how the original life that did form became the life we see today.

No it doesn't. It guesses

The steady state model does not appear to agree with the observed dL versus z relation or with source counts ... In a sense, the disagreement is a credit to the model; alone among all cosmologies, the steady state model makes such definite predictions that it can be disproved even with the limited observational evidence at our disposal. The steady-state model is so attractive that many of its adherents still retain hope that the evidence against it will disappear as observations improve. However, if the cosmic microwave background radiation ... is really black-body radiation, it will be difficult to doubt that the universe has evolved from a hotter, denser early stage.

Most steady state theories were dismissed almost within 10 years of their conception. Yet it holds true for radio decay? Based on what I've read, I would trust dates based on radio-carbon dating back to 60-70,000 years, but to gather back 4 billion years? Not even taking into account at one time there was no atmosphere. Well that my friend, that takes a great deal of faith too. These conversations are useless as we can't even agree on the similarities of the Creation and Evolution debate.

[flip]

Most of the Universe consists of matter and energy. Energy is the capacity to do work. Matter has mass and occupies space. All matter is composed of basic elements that cannot be broken down to substances with different chemical or physical properties. Elements are substances consisting of one type of atom, for example Carbon atoms make up diamond, and also graphite. Pure (24K) gold is composed of only one type of atom, gold atoms. Atoms are the smallest particle into which an element can be divided. The ancient Greek philosophers developed the concept of the atom, although they considered it the fundamental particle that could not be broken down. Since the work of Enrico Fermi and his colleagues, we now know that the atom is divisible, often releasing tremendous energies as in nuclear explosions or (in a controlled fashion in) thermonuclear power plants.

Subatomic particles were discovered during the 1800s. For our purposes we will concentrate only on three of them, summarized in Table 1. The proton is located in the center (or nucleus) of an atom, each atom has at least one proton. Protons have a charge of +1, and a mass of approximately 1 atomic mass unit (amu). Elements differ from each other in the number of protons they have, e.g. Hydrogen has 1 proton; Helium has 2.

Why wouldn't the principal of water vaporization apply to radio decay? We are still talking about the breaking down of the most basic building blocks. Everything breaks down into basic sub-particles. Why would the principals change?

[CUDA]

And as I've already stated, evolutionary theory doesn't make any claims about how life originated, or if there was some sort of higher being with a vested interest in our eventual existence: it just states how the original life that did form became the life we see today.

Creation and Evolution are not in Disagreement. Creation and the Origin of life are.

[Top Gun]

it just states how the original life that did form became the life we see today.

No it doesn't. It guesses

If you want to call a random original hypothesis a "guess," I'd agree with that, although in most cases it's a rather informed guess, as was the case with Darwin's original book. But a complex theory that has had a century's worth of experimentation and modeling and refining and new evidence involved in building it up...that's not a "guess."

Most steady state theories were dismissed almost within 10 years of their conception. Yet it holds true for radio decay? Based on what I've read, I would trust dates based on radio-carbon dating back to 60-70,000 years, but to gather back 4 billion years? Not even taking into account at one time there was no atmosphere. Well that my friend, that takes a great deal of faith too. These conversations are useless as we can't even agree on the similarities of the Creation and Evolution debate.

"Steady-state" theories have to do with the concept that the universe as a whole doesn't have any set starting point and has existed indefinitely; they're not related at all to the concept of radioactive decay. Given that said decay operates on the level of individual atoms, why would the presence or absence of an atmosphere matter in the least? A radioactive element will undergo decay just as easily in vacuum as it would in a cylinder of pressurized gas. There's no "faith" involved in this...it's basic observation and some fairly simple math.

Why wouldn't the principal of water vaporization apply to radio decay? We are still talking about the breaking down of the most basic building blocks. Everything breaks down into basic sub-particles. Why would the principals change?

Because you're talking about completely different levels of "breaking down," and completely different mechanics that cause them. Water evaporates when molecules at the surface happen to be moving in the right direction and have gained enough kinetic energy via collisions that they're able to overcome the forces between molecules. A water molecule remains as H2O after it evaporates; it's just in a gaseous form. In contrast, while radioactive decay has a few different mechanisms depending on which type of decay you're talking about, all of them operate on the level of individual nuclei. In alpha decay, a nucleus releases a helium nucleus; this occurs when the electromagnetic force repelling the protons in the nucleus apart is able to overcome the strong nuclear force that binds them together. Beta decay occurs when a neutron in the nucleus converts into a proton and releases an electron, via the weak nuclear force. In both of these cases, the number of protons in the nucleus changes, so the end result is a completely-different element than the one you started with.

The problem you're having here is that you're grabbing completely-unrelated concepts that happen to have a similar phrase associated with them and trying to mash them together. It just doesn't work, any more than claiming that gravity is responsible for two pieces of Velcro sticking together. You need to understand that individual theories, or models, or laws apply to specific mechanics, and while there are a few things that apply across several different mechanics, you can't throw them all in a blender and expect that everything works everywhere.

[flip]

I said the principal, not the mechanics.

Radiocarbon dating depends on the assumption that the relative abundance of the radioactive carbon isotope in the atmosphere has been constant throughout earth's history.

That's a huge assumption.

The above-ground nuclear tests that occurred in several countries between 1955 and 1980 (see nuclear test list) dramatically increased the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and subsequently in the biosphere; after the tests ended the atmospheric concentration of the isotope began to decrease.

In a period of just 25 years and because of a few nuclear tests the amount increased dramatically. How can you think it has remained constant throughout time which is what the whole theory depends on. How else have those tests affected it's decay? This theory of carbon-dating was actually contrived around the same time as those tests were being conducted. Maybe they were observing the world-wide effects of nuclear testing on the atmosphere? Maybe, because of those tests the characteristics of carbon-14 changed. Too many variables for me to think a very reliable date can be made. I do understand at the moment it's the best we got, so by all means exhaustively search it out, but don't just swallow the science hook line and sinker. Who knows, maybe some things can move faster than light.

When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis

[flip]

Since radioactive carbon is constantly being produced in the upper atmosphere by interaction of non-radioactive gases with sunlight, and we have no reason to believe that the rate of production has changed over earth's history, the assumption that the relative abundance in the atmosphere has not changed is is probably good

Apparently, just in my lifetime, the production rate changed dramatically. In light of that, the assumption that the relative abundance in the atmosphere has not changed is no longer likely.

[Top Gun]

Radiocarbon dating depends on the assumption that the relative abundance of the radioactive carbon isotope in the atmosphere has been constant throughout earth's history.

That's a huge assumption.

Not really. On the time scales we're talking about, the cosmic ray flux that generates carbon-14 in the first place would remain fairly constant. There have been some variations depending on location and time, but those have been taken into account and used to adjust raw dates, as your own quotes state.

In a period of just 25 years and because of a few nuclear tests the amount increased dramatically. How can you think it has remained constant throughout time which is what the whole theory depends on. How else have those tests affected it's decay? This theory of carbon-dating was actually contrived around the same time as those tests were being conducted. Maybe they were observing the world-wide effects of nuclear testing on the atmosphere? Maybe, because of those tests the characteristics of carbon-14 changed. Too many variables for me to think a very reliable date can be made. I do understand at the moment it's the best we got, so by all means exhaustively search it out, but don't just swallow the science hook line and sinker. Who knows, maybe some things can move faster than light.

Nuclear tests don't affect the decay at all, just the amount of carbon-14 present in the atmosphere. We understand that increase and can compensate for it. You can't change the "characteristics" of a given isotope of an element...an atom's an atom. Also, these tests have only generated increased amounts of carbon-14 since 1950 or so; any samples you're attempting to date would obviously be significantly older than that, so the original amount of carbon-14 present in them would be the previous normal level anyway.

Apparently, just in my lifetime, the production rate changed dramatically. In light of that, the assumption that the relative abundance in the atmosphere has not changed is no longer likely.

Yes, and the reason it changed dramatically was because of nuclear testing. Last time I checked, people weren't firing off nukes a few thousand years ago.

In any case, what you're overlooking in all of this is that carbon-14 is only one of multiple isotopes used to perform radiometric dating. It's very useful to date material up to about 60,000 years old, but it doesn't do you any good for items older than that due to the half-life of carbon-14. For older dating, you'd use other isotopes, which aren't affected by cosmic rays or nuclear tests or anything of that nature.

[vision]

It's so amusing how religious people will go to such great lengths to pick apart scientific theories in order to find fault, then dismiss a whole universe of scientific discovery based on small inconsistencies. But those same people gloss over major inconsistencies in their own religious beliefs.

Here is where science wins again. Religious texts, as a product of the perfect and the divine, necessarily need to be perfect themselves. The smallest failure destroys the entire structure. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are always "the best explanation until a better one comes along." Inconsistencies are expected and in some cases welcome. But here's the thing: the theories don't become useless when something doesn't match up. They are still perfectly useful tools (useful enough to save lives and send robots to other planets at least!).

The more people scrutinize science, the stronger it becomes -- regardless of who is doing the scrutinizing and why. Those who seek to destroy science through skepticism inadvertently reinforce it. Oh they irony.

[Heretic]

So why has Carbon 14 been found in dino fossils millions of years old?

[Tunnelcat]

So why has Carbon 14 been found in dino fossils millions of years old?

Carbon 14 is still being created today as it was back in the age of the dinos. It's created when cosmic rays bombard nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere, not just nuclear testing, although that contributed to the overall pool of carbon 14 on earth. It's half-life is around 5700 years. Once incorporated into an animal's bones, the clock of decay starts for that animal.

[Top Gun]

So why has Carbon 14 been found in dino fossils millions of years old?

Link?

[Tunnelcat]

Hmmmmm. Should've looked deeper. Getting old brain syndrome. Carbon 14 can't exist in bones or tissues that long, so any really old bones have to be dated via the rock that surrounds them by measuring an isotope with a far longer half life, like uranium 235 or 238. For the dating to work, it must be from igneous or volcanic rock, not the sedimentary rock that dino bones are usually found in, because sedimentary rock is old weathered rock and usually lacks those isotopes. But that's not a problem because there are many cases of igneous rock later infiltrating or covering sedimentary rock, so the rock can be dated that way, just by juxtaposition.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... e-age1.htm

[Heretic]

Your the one with the education there. I just asked a question. Answer it any way you can? TC didn't need a link to answer.

Paul Giems article in the magazine Origins Volume 51 of 2001. Will explain it better

[Jeff250]

2) The Bible is historically reliable... except for when it isn't. The universe created in 6 days, the Tower of Babel, the worldwide flood... most people no longer see this as historical. Any takers on the Exodus from Egypt?

I'd like to hear what evidence you have to dispute any one of those topics.

It's easy to prove that many people, including Christians, no longer see these events as historical. Just read this thread. My point is that it's easy to claim that the Bible is historical if everything that you know didn't actually happen then isn't supposed to be taken literally.

[flip]

Cop-Out.

[flip]

Since radioactive carbon is constantly being produced in the upper atmosphere by interaction of non-radioactive gases with sunlight, and we have no reason to believe that the rate of production has changed over earth's history, the assumption that the relative abundance in the atmosphere has not changed is is probably good

Right here it states that for the theory to stay sound the "rate of production" needs to remain constant.

When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis

Right here it states that plants incorporate a quantity of Carbon-14 roughly equal to that in the atmosphere. Nuclear testing causes an abnormal rise of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This now means that the entire biosphere has increased the amount of Carbon-14 that it incorporates. I wonder how this increase affects these tests? Especially considering that there is very little testing done in an atmosphere that didn't have nuclear weapons affecting it's balance. I imagine nuclear reactor meltdowns could also contribute in the same way.

[flip]

Trinity was the code name of the first test of a nuclear weapon. This test was conducted by the United States Army on July 16, 1945

In fact, there was never any carbon-dating done in a pre-nuclear testing atmosphere.

he technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby in a seminar at Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram.

As said before, most if not all theories based on steady state have been dismissed already.

[Tunnelcat]

One has to watch out for stuff one finds on the web. I found this little gem of "information" clearly from a religious viewpoint that tries to show that the earth is only as old as the Bible states.

http://www.earthage.org/radio/carbon14.htm

But they stick only with carbon 14 and conveniently ignore the other methods that use more long-lived isotopes to date metamorphic and igneous rocks, of which the earth is made. If dino bones were buried under a layer of igneous rock that happened to be millions of years old, then those bones are probably millions of years old as well.