DescentBB

That's why I like Wikipedia Wikipedia lays all the facts out and leaves it up to you to make your own conclusions. Did you know it only takes around 4 feet of dirt to protect you from the worst of nuclear fallout? I would expect there to be differences in the concentration the deeper you dig or depending on the material involved. Also, I wonder if nuclear testing and dramatic increase could affect the life-span of Carbon-14? Kind of giving it a boost for a certain amount of time. Remember TC, all of this testing depends on things having remained constant from the beginning of earth's inception, keeping a steady state.

Atheists by definition... because there are more and more demoralized fools in the whirled. Figures you would start this thread. 9_9

flip wrote:Also, I wonder if nuclear testing and dramatic increase could affect the life-span of Carbon-14?

The half life of carbon-14 does not change regardless of how much of it there is present. It would be like expecting clocks to run differently depending on how many of them you brought together into one room.

But the math depends on a constant rate of production. It's that constant that the whole equation hinges on. Also, there is no prior test of the atmosphere as a baseline. I remember there actually being one group of scientist theorizing that the first test could start a chain reaction and destroy the whole atmosphere. The math is based on assumptions. Nothing id bet my house against. I've shown already that you cannot depend on a constant rate. Highly unlikely.

[ Post made via Android ]

Heretic wrote: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

I only asked that because I haven't come across any information like that, so I wanted to take a look at the context of what you were referring to. I'm not exactly sure which publication you're referring to, and I wouldn't exactly have access to it even if I did, so if you can dig up a link to it somewhere, I'll gladly read it over.

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

And it did...during the time period that we actually need it to. The thing is, organic material only accumulates carbon-14 during its lifetime: plants incorporate it through CO2 absorption, and animals do so via consuming plants or other animals. Whatever the case, as soon as the organism dies, it doesn't absorb any more CO2, so the amount of carbon-14 in it at that time is the "baseline" that we can measure from. Since the only above-ground nuclear weapons tests in history occurred from 1945 until a few decades later, the only organisms that would be affected by the higher concentrations of carbon-14 would be those alive during that time or afterwards, which includes us. A skeleton buried several thousand years hasn't absorbed any new carbon-14 over that time, so the increased concentrations today when compared to before 1945 don't affect it in the least.

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

As I mentioned before, the "steady-state theory" doesn't have anything to do with radioactive decay.

flip wrote:But the math depends on a constant rate of production.

The decay process itself doesn't depend at all on the production of new carbon-14; in fact, if such production did occur within a sample, then dating it would be impossible, since the process works by measuring the remaining amount of carbon-14 that hasn't decayed into nitrogen-14. Now obviously, the dating process as a whole does depend on the natural rate of carbon-14 production remaining fairly constant, but we've already determined that to be the case.

flip wrote:Cop-Out.

Nope. You're asking me to argue for something that I haven't claimed, so I don't owe you anything. My claim was and is simply that Christians seem to say that Biblical stories that don't seem to have happened historically should be interpreted figuratively. So of course among the remaining stories they seem to have happened historically. I'm pretty sure snoopy thinks at least some of my example Biblical stories in my prior post should be interpreted figuratively, so I'm hoping he finds my argument persuasive or responds with a good rebuttal. If you actually do interpret all of my example Biblical stories as historical stories, then relax, my argument doesn't apply to you.

flip wrote: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."

ah see that's much better. I do agree to a degree that the truth may lie somewhere in between. For all we know, it could have been a creator that started it all, and then mechanics that we refer to evolution took over.

The assumption is that their has always been asteady state of concentration of radioactive carbon-14 over the whole existence of earth. Nuclear testing proves that we can not rely in that.

[ Post made via Android ]

Top Gun wrote:

Heretic wrote: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

I only asked that because I haven't come across any information like that, so I wanted to take a look at the context of what you were referring to. I'm not exactly sure which publication you're referring to, and I wouldn't exactly have access to it even if I did, so if you can dig up a link to it somewhere, I'll gladly read it over.

What you are meaning to say is you searched and found a lot of creationist propaganda and disregarded it.

Maybe this will help.

http://dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm

http://sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... issue.html

Another question why is carbon 14 found in Oil?

flip wrote:The assumption is that their has always been asteady state of concentration of radioactive carbon-14 over the whole existence of earth. Nuclear testing proves that we can not rely in that.

...except we're the ones who threw a monkey wrench into things with the nuclear testing, so we know exactly why that anomalous increase occurred. And no, we don't have to worry about the entire existence of Earth...since radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years, we're talking about a far far smaller timeframe.

Heretic wrote:What you are meaning to say is you searched and found a lot of creationist propaganda and disregarded it.

Dude...I did one search for the title and date of the publication you mentioned, didn't find anything, and then stopped looking. But if you do want me to go down this route, yes, there are a significant number of issues with the sites you linked, including the "papers" about this alleged radiocarbon dating of the possibly-not-genuine tissue found within those T. rex leg fossils. There doesn't seem to be any external reference that such dating ever took place, and the style of that linked article is such that I'm certain it never appeared in any peer-reviewed journal. (Dating a fossil itself, as opposed to the supposed soft tissue, wouldn't accomplish anything, as fossils are made of minerals that replaced the original organic material.) The link in the first page to the original article you mentioned seems to be broken, so I can't evaluate that itself. Given the pattern of references in these other pages, though, I doubt it'd be any different.

The thing you have to realize about sites like this is that they're accusing "evolutionists" as having some sort of preset agenda...while blissfully dancing around the fact that that's exactly what they're doing themselves. They're essentially starting with a foregone conclusion, "The Earth has to be about 6000 years old," and then mash up some real science with some pseudoscientific stuff to build something to support that conclusion. Real scientific discovery doesn't say, "I want these bones to be this old"...it says, "Hey, let's figure out how old these bones are," and what it's figured out over the decades is that they're tens of millions of years old. It's not due to some omission of running certain tests on the fossils themselves...the dating process also involves looking at the rock layers right around the fossil, to give it a general age range. So unless you're suggesting that God went out of his way to bury 6000-year-old skeletons between layers of rock that he then disguised as being millions of years old...yeah.

You keep missing the point. The assumption is that it has always been a constant rate of production, and nuclear testing is just one way that changed that rate. I have to think that throughout history maybe some other event also changed the rate of production. Now that we see nuclear testing can how can we assume over that whole time that nothing else has? The math falls apart because the assumption is no longer likely. That makes sense to me.

ah see that's much better. I do agree to a degree that the truth may lie somewhere in between. For all we know, it could have been a creator that started it all, and then mechanics that we refer to evolution took over.

Cool, now we understand each other better. Should make for interesting discussions.

flip wrote:You keep missing the point. The assumption is that it has always been a constant rate of production, and nuclear testing is just one way that changed that rate. I have to think that throughout history maybe some other event also changed the rate of production. Now that we see nuclear testing can how can we assume over that whole time that nothing else has? The math falls apart because the assumption is no longer likely. That makes sense to me.

Nuclear testing was an exceptional event generated by humans; besides it, no activity throughout human history would have affected carbon-14 production, so we can rule ourselves out. As far as natural variations go, scientists can use calibrations from other sources in order to adjust the raw number obtained by assuming constant C-14 levels; the Wiki article goes into them somewhat. In the shorter term, we can take samples from human artifacts whose ages we know from historical records, like for instance ancient Egyptian tombs, and compare how the amount of C-14 in them matches our expectations. Going further back, scientists use dendrochronology, or counting the rings of trees, which conveniently enough grow a new ring every year; we can calibrate almost 10,000 years back using this method. Scientists have also looked at samples like sediment cores, coral, and certain cave formations that can take tens of thousands of years to form; by using another radioactive element to date them, one that doesn't depend on atmospheric variation, we can get another check on radiocarbon dating.

(Interestingly enough, while atmospheric nuclear testing largely increased the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere during the 1940s and 50s, there was something called the Suess Effect that decreased it somewhat from 1850 or so onward. During the Industrial Revolution, we started burning a crap-load of fossil fuels, which have essentially no C-14, so the amount in the atmosphere was diluted.)

Honestly, I think it's a good thing that you're thinking about how the model might not hold up, since that's exactly what you have to do to make sure that any model accurately describes what's going on. Scientists have been doing the same thing since the concept of radiocarbon dating was developed in the late 40s, using a variety of methods, and they've managed to both uphold the concept and produce very accurate calibrations for it. In fact, the original team that developed the method was able to very accurately date a wood sample from an ancient Egyptian funeral barge, even though they didn't know where the sample had come from.

Wow did not read the national geographic article?

Are they not the for most authority of all the papers I pointed to.

All I did was ask a question.

Evolutionist do have a preset agenda to prove life evolved .

Just as much as the creationist have one to prove life was created.

Every article talks about the errors of radiocarbon dating and you continue flaunt how accurate it is.

More Talks about the same T-rex as the first

Because the leg bone was deliberately broken in the field, no preservatives were added. As a result, the soft tissues were not contaminated.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... issue.html.

Most libraries have these sections call Periodicals which you can find Origins mags

of course there is no reference

link one

Origins Vol. 51: 6-30 2001 Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon
Lindgren J, Uvdal P, Engdahl A, Lee AH, Alwmark C, et al. (2011) Microspectroscopic Evidence of Cretaceous Bone Proteins. PLoS ONE 6(4): e19445. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019445 article
Radiocarbon Journal numerous articles
Young age of dinosaur with Carbon dating such as Mosasaur article by ICR's Brian Thomas
Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: Fifth International Conference on Creationism August 4-8, 2003.

Link 2
1 "Soft-tissue and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex," Science, 307 (2005), p.1952-1955.
2 La Brea Tar Pit Series, Radiocarbon 10(2) (1968), p. 402-403.
3 "Radiocarbon dating of bone and shell from their organic components," Science 144 (1964), 22 May, p. 999-1001.
4 "Radiocarbon dating dinosaur bone: More pseudoscience from creationists," Creation/Evolution, (1992) p.10–17.
5 Ibid.
6 DOUG WILDER, "Private communication," (1992).
7 J. DE VILBISS, Private communication on age of the clay (1987).
8 "Cedarite from Wyoming: Infrared and radiocarbon data," Prace Muzeum Ziemi 46 (2001) p. 77-80.
9 "Radiocarbon ages of mammoths in Northern Eurasia: Implications for population development and late quaternary environment," Radiocarbon 39(1) (1997) pp. 1-18.
10 Geochron Labs, March 26, (2004) GX-30816-AMS report to Bill White.
11 Radiocarbon 18 (1976) P. 148, samples WSU-1428 and WSU-1426.
12 Radiocarbon (1973), Smithsonian Inst. Sample SI-903, p. 398.
13 Radiocarbon 39(1) (1997), cit.
14 "Radiocarbon dating evidence for mammoths on Wrangel Island, Arctic, until 2000 BC," Radiocarbon 37(1) (1995) p. 1-6. http://packrat.aml.arizona.edu/Journal/ ... anyan.html
15 "Bone distribution and diagenetic modifications at the mammoth site of Hot Springs, South Dakota, United States," Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, 37(7), (2005) p. 116.
16 Smithsonian Institution radiocarbon measurements VI, Radiocarbon 12(1), (1970) p. 193-204.
17 "Death of American ground sloths," Science 186(4164) (1974) p. 638-640.
18 "Dating Infall of Australites," (1970), Radiocarbon Journal 13(1), (1970) p. 8-11. Smithsonian Institute, Washington D.C. Also visit "age paradox" on this web site: http://www.earthsci.org/fossils/space/t ... tites.html
19 "Quaternary geology, radiocarbon datings, and the age of australites," Geol. Soc. America Spec. Paper, 84, (1965) p.415-432.
20 "Dating Infall of Australites," (1970), Radiocarbon Journal 13(1), (1970), cit., p. 8-11.
21 Ibid.
22 "Analysis of main principles of stratigraphy on the basis of experimental data," Lithology and Mineral Resources, vol. 37(5), (2002) p. 509-515.
23 "Cataclysm," (1998) http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/fs49-98/ and http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/epubs/boli ... clysm.html
24 "Chesapeake Bay impact structure drilled," EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 87(35) (2006). p. 349-360. http://www.geosc.psu.edu/~jmacalad/Gohn ... yDrill.pdf.
25 "Improvements in procedural blanks at NOSAMS: Reflections of improvements in sample preparation and accelerator operation," Radiocarbon 37, (1995) p. 683-691.
26 "Progress at the Isotrace Radiocarbon Facility," Radiocarbon 28, (1992) p. 229-236.
27 "AMS sample handling in Croningen. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B, 123, (1997) p. 221-225.
28 "Progress at the Isotrace Radiocarbon Facility," Radiocarbon 28, (1992), cit. 29 "Ar/Ar analysis of historic lava flows," Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, (1969) p. 47-55.
30 "Use of natural diamonds to monitor C-14 AMS instrument backgrounds," Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 259, (2007) p. 282-287.
31 "Makoshika State Park, Montana USA," (2007). http://fwp.mt.gov/lands/site_283890.aspx and http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/artic ... oshika.htm
32 OTIS KLINE, Private communication, (2007), Director, Glendive Montana Dinosaur & Fossil Museum.
33 http://www.trieboldpaleontology.com/cas ... ratops.htm.
34 "Sample treatment strategies in radiocarbon dating," Chapter 12, p. 166-167. Radiocarbon after four decades, R.E. Taylor, A. Long, R. S. Kra editors (1992), Springer Verlag, New York.
35 Ibid.
36 "An improved method for radiocarbon dating fossil bones," Radiocarbon, 35(3), (1993) p. 387-391.
37 "Carbon isotope analysis of separate chemical phases in modern and fossil bone," Nature 292, (1981) p. 333-335.
38 "An improved method for radiocarbon dating fossil bones," Radiocarbon, 35(3), (1993), cit.
39 "Soft-tissue and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex," (2005) "cit" p. 1955.
40 "Tissue found in dino fossil may be biofilm," Science News (Aug. 30, 2008) p. 12.
41 "UGAM report," dated August 27, 2008: collagen 30,110 ± 80; bio-apatite 39,230 ±140.
42 "Radiocarbon dating of bone and shell from their organic components," "cit" (1964) p. 999-1001.
43 "Late Pleistocene Megafauna Extinctions and the Clovis culture: absolute ages based on accelerator C-14 dating of skeletal remains" in L. Agenbroad, J. I. Mead, and L. Nelson Eds. Megafauna and Man: Discovery of America's Heartland. The Mammoth Site of Hot Springs, South Dakota Scientific Papers, Volume 1. (2005) p. 118-122. 44 "NPS Archeology Program: Kennewick Man," Letter from the Department of the Interior National Park Service (2000), 1849 C St. NW, Washington D.C. 20240. http://www.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/c14memo.htm
45 http://www.crystalinks.com/earthsmagneticfield.html
46 "Recording gaseous exchange under field conditions," The Physiology of Forest Trees, K. V. Thinmann ed., New York, (1958) p. 194, cited in Ginenthal, op cit. p. 174.
47 "Radiocarbon and pollen evidence for a sudden change in climate in the Great Lakes Region 10,000 years ago," Quarternary Paleoecology, E. J. Cushing, H. E. Wright, Jr. eds., New Haven, CT, (1967) p. 119, cited in Ginenthal, op cit., p. 175.
48 "Radiocarbon dates in living plants based on absorbing of old carbon containing gases," Radiocarbon Journal, (1998) 40 #1 p. 57-60.
49 Internet web site blogs on origins.
50 "Radiocarbon dating dinosaur bone: More pseudoscience from creationists;" (1992), "cit."
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
53 "Soft-tissue and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus Rex," (2005) "cit" p. 1955.
54 "Radiocarbon dating dinosaur bone: More pseudoscience from creationists;" (1992), "cit."
55 Helfinstine, R.F. and Roth, J.D. (2007) Texas tracks and Artifacts (Do Texas fossils indicate coexistence of men and dinosaurs? R & J Publishing, 1136 5th Ave S. Anoka, MN 55303.
56 Zillmer, Hans J. (2008). Darwin's Mistake, Antediluvian findings prove: dinosaurs and humans lived simultaneously in coexistence. Adventures Unlimited Press, U.S. (Eng. Trans.)
57 http://www.dinosaursandman.com/ with many photos world-wide.
58 S. HUBBARD and C.W. GILMORE, The Doheny Scientific Expedition to the Hava Supai Canyon, Northern Arizona, Oakland Museum, Oakland CA. (1924).
59 "Radiometric dating does work," (1990) http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/rncse_ ... 0_1899.asp
60 "Human footprints in Central Mexico older than 40,000 years." Quaternary Science Reviews, (2006) 25, p. 201-222.
61 "Age of Mexican ash with alleged footprints." Nature, (2005) 438, E7-E8; http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 112805.php
62 "Radiocarbon dating dinosaur bone: More pseudoscience from creationists," (1992), "cit."
63 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
64 "Experiments in Stratification do not support the theory of evolution," (2008). A critique of evolution held at Sapienza University, November 3, 2008.
65 "Sedimentological interpretation of the Tonto Group stratigraphy (Grand Canyon Colorado River)," Journal of Russian Academy of Science, Lithology and Mineral Resources (2004) 39(5).
66 "Experiments in Stratification do not support the theory of evolution," (2008). A critique of evolution held at Sapienza University, November 3, 2008, cit.
67 "Radiocarbon dating dinosaur bone: More pseudoscience from creationists," (1992) "cit."
68 Ibid.
69 Initial RC date was 16,120 ± 60 for a fragment with a trace of water soluble glue, A-5810, UN of AZ, report dated August 10, 1990; UN of GA RC dated a different fragment free of any glue or preservative and treated with HAc under vacuum to remove surficial carbonates, RC date of 31,360 ± 100, UGAMS 02947, report dated May 1, 2008.
70 RC dated at Leibnitz Labor fur Alterbestimmung und Isotopenforschung Christian-Albrechts-Universitat, Kiel Germany, report dated October 1, 1998. Humic acid fraction was 36,480 + 560/-530 RC years or 5,000 years older than bone material.
71 "Quaternary geology, radiocarbon datings, and the age of australites," (1965), "cit."
72 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6676461.stm (2007).
73 CHARLES OFFICER, The Great Dinosaur Extinction Controversy, Helix Books, (1996), p. 56.
74 S. HUBBARD and C.W. GILMORE, The Doheny Scientific Expedition to the Hava Supai Canyon, Northern Arizona, cit., p. 9. Search Internet for the Doheny Report and other dinosaur depictions from Peru and other nations.
75 Ibid, p. 5.
76 C. JACQUES and M. FREEMAN, Angkor Cities and Temples. Thames and Hudson Ltd. London. (1997). Search Internet for Buddhist temple stegosaur in Cambodia and other depictions.
77 http://www.dinosaursandman.com/
78 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_mosaic_of_Palestrina
79 JOANNIS DAMASCENI (~AD 725), De Draconibus.
80 "Death of American ground sloths," Science (1964) 186(4164) p. 636-640.
81 "Evidence for human modification of a late pleistocene bison (bison sp.) Bone from the Klondike District, Yukon Territory, Canada.," Arctic, (2002) 55(2) p. 143-147. http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic55-2-143.pdf
82 "Analysis of main principles of stratigraphy on the basis of experimental data," Lithology and Mineral Resources, (2002) 39(5), 37(5), p. 509-515.
83 "Geological dating principles questioned. Paleohydraulics: A new approach," Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics (2002) 22(3), p.19-26, China.

Did you just skim?

I think a lot of scientists would love for dinosaur fossils to be a couple thousand or even a couple hundred years old because that would mean a greater possibility that some dinosaurs aren't extinct! I mean, how cool would that be? I would gladly give up the knowledge that dinosaurs lived >65million years ago if I could go see one today. Paleontologists don't really want ancient fossils; they want a pet dinosaur. Unfortunately, there are some facts in the way...

vision wrote:I think a lot of scientists would love for dinosaur fossils to be a couple thousand or even a couple hundred years old because that would mean a greater possibility that some dinosaurs aren't extinct! I mean, how cool would that be? I would gladly give up the knowledge that dinosaurs lived >65million years ago if I could go see one today. Paleontologists don't really want ancient fossils; they want a pet dinosaur. Unfortunately, there are some facts in the way...

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

Heretic wrote:Wow did not read the national geographic article?

Are they not the for most authority of all the papers I pointed to.

Of course I read the NatGeo article, and I found it to be very interesting, as I don't remember if I'd heard about that discovery when it happened. But nothing in that article stated that anyone had attempted radiocarbon dating on that specific sample, which was the question I was asking.

Evolutionist do have a preset agenda to prove life evolved .

Just as much as the creationist have one to prove life was created.

Except they don't, because the concept of "evolutionists" doesn't even exist...there's no secret cult out there that worships Charles Darwin. Scientists simply want to find out as much as they can about how stuff works. From all the stuff we've seen up to this point, it turns out that the way life got from how it started to how it is was via evolution, driven by natural selection. Again, that's the big elephant in the room. Darwin didn't start his voyage on the Beagle by saying, "I want to prove that all living creatures changed and evolved over millions and billions of years; he just observed what he found and drew the only logical conclusion. In contrast, people who try to foist "creationism" as a legitimate field are starting with the unshakeable premise that the Bible must be held as literally true, and that God plopped down everything that we see today out of nothingness just a couple thousand years ago. It's trying to generate evidence to prove a point, as opposed to looking at evidence and letting it dictate the possibilities.

Like vision said, it'd be freaking amazing if dinosaur fossils were legitimately confirmed to be just a few thousand years old. There would be a real chance that somewhere out there, a few might still be alive...we could have a real-life Jurassic Park. Who wouldn't want that? But that's just not the case...and it turns out fortunately so, since the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years in the past opened the way for mammals to start taking over.

Every article talks about the errors of radiocarbon dating and you continue flaunt how accurate it is.

The legitimate sources that talk about potential errors also discuss how these errors can be adjusted and corrected, as I explained above. We know how much the raw radiocarbon "date" is off by comparing it with other dating sources, and the result has led to very accurate calibration data.

Most libraries have these sections call Periodicals which you can find Origins mags

No offense, but I'm not exactly about to go digging through the periodicals section of my local library, in an attempt to find a magazine which they may not even have, and most likely isn't reputable in the first place, just so I can answer a question posted on an Internet forum. Like I said, I'll gladly take a look at anything that's linked in here, but I feel like jumping through twenty hoops is asking a bit too much.

Did you just skim?

If all I wanted to do was skim, would I bother taking the time to answer people?

I've seen far too many lame creationist arguments against both evolution and age of the earth data to really want to play this time around, but........I would like to point out that NO RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC SOURCE has ever put the inaccuracy of carbon dating up to the orders of magnitude necessary to make the Earth less than 10,000 years old. Being off by a few millenia is one thing, but you would have to be in error by a factor of a million-fold to justify the convictions of a lot of Fundamental Christians, for example the complete loons that gave us the Museum of Creation in Ohio.

Continue beating the dead horse, some good data citations in this thread, at least. And, remember, 2012 is coming, so we can all ponder whether the Mayans really had it all right.

TG wrote:Except they don't, because the concept of "evolutionists" doesn't even exist

evolutionists [ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]  
ev·o·lu·tion·ist   [ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]
noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
2.
a person who supports a policy of gradual growth or development rather than sudden change or expansion.
adjective Also, ev·o·lu·tion·is·tic.
3.
of or pertaining to evolution or evolutionists.
4.
believing in or supporting a theory of evolution, especially in biology.

Guess that blows you argument out of the water there TG

Heretic wrote:ev·o·lu·tion·ist   [ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]
noun
1. a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.

Ugh, soooo stupid that they made an entry for that. Makes no sense and is a sad sign of our culture. Notice there is no "gavitationist" for adherents of the theory of gravity, no "inertist" for the theory of inertia, and "relativist" isn't directly related to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but relativity in general. The dictionary adds "popular" words and unfortunately that term has been made popular by the ridiculous discussion of evolution vs mythology -- even though saying "evolutionist" is nonsensical. Heck, even "creationist" doesn't really make sense when you consider A) evolution is about how things evolve, not how they are created and B) the popular creation story in the Judeo-Christian tradition is just one of many creation myths. I personally prefer to be the kind of creationist who thinks...

Greek Creation Myth wrote:"In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love. "

I think some people confuse theories and laws.

Spidey wrote:I think some people confuse theories and laws.

agreed

Just to make clear, again I see stereotypes being attributed to me, and nowhere in this debate has anyone argued that. We can now though, if everyone is up for another topic change. I nor the bible has ever stated that the earth is only 6000 years old.
I've made this argument before, but real quick let me state my position.

He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.

Carbon dating is the best we got, but the assumptions are wrong. Change some of the assumptions and it may become dead right. I look around and can tell the earth is not 6000 years old, hell erosion itself could dispel that myth. In the bible it clearly say that "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." Meaning, He is not gonna be forthright about times or dates.

I remember when this theory first started going around. It began of that 'equation' above. A thousand years is as a day. Nowhere in the bible does it claim a young-earth, nor anywhere in the last 5-6 years on this board have I.

Peter 3:8 wrote:But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day

time has no meaning to God. Only to man

Well, time is measured in revolutions. God has just decided to keep His timing to His self.

EDIT: We are to know the seasons though

Ugh...that dictionary entry really is absurd.

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:I think some people confuse theories and laws.

agreed

I think some people haven't listened when we've repeatedly explained that the scientific usage of the terms "theory" and "law" is significantly different from the everyday words.

flip wrote:Carbon dating is the best we got, but the assumptions are wrong. Change some of the assumptions and it may become dead right.

Flip...are you even reading what I'm posting? The assumptions are not wrong. I've spent my last six posts explaining exactly that. I don't know how else to put it at this point. And for at least the third time, carbon-14 is only one of many isotopes used in radiometric dating.

TG…you’re kidding right?

My point was really directed at vision, based on the fact that we don’t discuss gravity in terms of “theory” anymore and normally refer to the “laws” of gravity instead. (most of the math in relativity is far from theory at this point, and the bending of space, is about the only remaining bit of “theory” left) As someone pointed out in their GPS statement.

In other words…the reason there is a word “evolutionist” is because there is a term “creationist” and two camps that totally disagree as to the origins of mankind…this is not the case anymore with regards to gravity and inertia.

(the neutrino findings not withstanding)

Spidey wrote:TG…you’re kidding right?

No, I'm not. The phrase "scientific theory" means something very different from how you're using it. It's an entire collection of concepts, together with scientific laws (basically simple statements that describe certain observations), that provides a framework for explaining data that we've observed and modeling future observations. To be a legitimate scientific theory that stands up over time, it has to be verified repeatedly by multiple observations and experimentation, and it has to be testable (read: falsifiable) in the first place. I know I've explained this at least once before in here. The concept of "creationism" doesn't fit any of these criteria, therefore it is not a scientific theory.

My point was really directed at vision, based on the fact that we don’t discuss gravity in terms of “theory” anymore and normally refer to the “laws” of gravity instead. (most of the math in relativity are far from theory at this point, and the bending of space, is about the only remaining bit of “theory” left) As someone pointed out in their GPS statement.

Gravity was never a "theory," but rather an "observation." Humans presumably figured out that people don't suddenly float up off the ground from the time we first became self-aware; they may have had no idea what was causing it, but it was something they could see. Galileo accurately observed that the mass of a falling object doesn't affect how quickly it falls, and Newton built upon and codified this to produce a scientific law of gravitational attraction, a simple equation that describes observed forces. Einstein's general relativity is very much a scientific theory, as it provides a framework to model and explain how objects interact with each other gravitationally, even at very high velocities and with very large mass. It produces predictions that can be tested, and pretty much every test we've run on it so far confirms it, so it's the currently-accepted model. However, as the neutrino result showed, even a single errant observation could require its revision or refinement, which is true of any theory.

In other words…the reason there is a word “evolutionist” is because there is a term “creationist” and two camps that totally disagree as to the origins of mankind…this is not the case anymore with regards to gravity and inertia.

As I said, the term "evolutionist" is conceptually wrong, as evolution isn't a belief system, but a scientific theory that describes the mechanisms by which new species of organisms arise. This is in contrast to creationism, which is built up as part of a belief system.

That belief system is also built upon observation. The mechanics of creation are great fun to search out, but the intelligence of which it is designed cannot be denied. That's not a guess, it's obvious to the naked eye.

TG, I’m pretty sure you are mixing up the people here…and who believes what.

And since when did the suffix “ist” only apply to people with belief systems?

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who was probably the most important of the 18th-century evolutionist

White House to honor prominent evolutionist

Prominent evolutionist reaches 100th birthday

http://www.oberlin.edu/alummag/oamcurre ... orian.html

Oberlin debated the validity of Charles Darwin's evolutionary theories as recently as 1983. (Some may ask: "That's recent?" For historians, 1983 was the day before yesterday.) One spring evening that year a long argument between a prominent evolutionist and a prominent creationist filled Finney Chapel-a rare academic happening in the 1980s.

seems to be a lot of EVOLUTIONIST for something that doesn't exist

Websters

evo·lu·tion·ist

noun \-sh(ə-)nəst\


Definition of EVOLUTIONIST

: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution out in the world

Just more of the downward slide of the American Education System?

I hereby declare myself a subductionist. I believe in the theory of subduction. Being the very first subductionist, I hope to spread awareness of subduction and counter the claims that an intelligent designer made mountains and oceanic trenches, and this same intelligent agent continues to influence the world with it's agency in the form of earthquakes and volcanoes.

One day my brethren and I will have our own dictionary entry too.



http://mygodthestupidity.lol/creationism

flip wrote:That belief system is also built upon observation. The mechanics of creation are great fun to search out, but the intelligence of which it is designed cannot be denied. That's not a guess, it's obvious to the naked eye.

How do you quantify "obvious," though? You can't put a value on a gut feeling, no matter how much you might commit to it. I mean, I happen to believe in a higher power myself, but I also know that said belief is just that, belief, not something backed by empirical evidence. I certainly don't accept it as something that everyone else should be able to see just by looking around, in the same way that anyone could look through a microscope at a cell.

Spidey wrote:TG, I’m pretty sure you are mixing up the people here…and who believes what.

And since when did the suffix “ist” only apply to people with belief systems?

I don't think I'm mixing anyone up, since I was addressing the terms that you yourself just used. And considering that the suffix -ist basically means "one who believes in or practices," I'd say there's a pretty strong correlation with belief systems.

Heretic wrote:seems to be a lot of EVOLUTIONIST for something that doesn't exist

I'm not denying that the term isn't used out there, but my point is that it's a terrible term that shouldn't be used, because it has a connotation that doesn't mesh with reality.

LOL to bad others are already claiming to be one of those.

TG most of the ones using the term EVOLUTIONIST are the ones who believe in evolution. Yes I said Believe because that what they believe in.

Randy Olson is a self-proclaimed evolutionist

Enrst Mayr, most self-proclaimed "evolutionists

Richard Dawkins Self proclaimed "Fundamentalist Evolutionist"

Phil Zuckerman self-proclaimed evolutionist

List goes on and on.

same for creationist

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:I think some people confuse theories and laws.

agreed

I think some people haven't listened when we've repeatedly explained that the scientific usage of the terms "theory" and "law" is significantly different from the everyday words.

I have a "theory" that you are wrong.

the·o·ry/ˈTHēərē/
Noun:

A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"

sup·po·si·tion/ˌsəpəˈziSHən/
Noun:
An uncertain belief.

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

by definition, a scientific theory is no more than a collection of theories or uncertain beliefs.

con·cept/ˈkänsept/
Noun:

An abstract idea; a general notion

ab·stract/ˈabˌstrakt/

Adjective:
Existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.

Just because something is an abstract concept doesn't make it uncertain, an example would be energy.
If you tell a theoretical physicist that, say, quantum field theory is just a collection of uncertain beliefs he might not agree .

And why is everyone still talking about carbon dating? It doesn't go back more than 60'000 years, is only used on organic material and uses other methods for calibrating (as has already been pointed out here). It is usefull for dating recent things, if the methods used to calibrate can't be applied directly (for example tree rings can only be used on wood samples and only in regions where a record is available).

For dating rocks, the earth and the solar system other methods are used for example uranium-lead and lead-lead. According to wikipedia a rock formation in greenland was dated with five different methods to 3'640 million years, with the results of the different methods within 30 million years.

Fibonnacci Numbers. Just one of many observations that point towards design.

http://christiannature.blogspot.com/200 ... rough.html

Top Gun wrote: And considering that the suffix -ist basically means "one who believes in or practices," I'd say there's a pretty strong correlation with belief systems.

You mean like “Scientist”?

Or Geologist