Grant

I'm tired of the whole "NO! DARWIN WAS A FOOL! KILL THE EVOLUTIONISTS! IM RIGHT AND YOURE WRONG NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO!" "NO YOU'RE WRONG! DIE!" types of discussion (lol, yes thats an huge exaggeration). I suggest we put our egos and lifestlyes totally aside and look at the facts. Naturally, since you believe what you do, most of your statements will be supporting your beliefs (ie ill probably do more "defending" creationism than not). So who wants to put our heads together and look at the facts?

Let me throw something out there to get the discussion started...

Carbon dating... why or why not is it accurite?

To be honest, I haven't looked into the actual methods and everything behind it. I know they measure the decay and its proportions to time.

Here's C-14 dating EXTREMELY over-simplified

5 decay = 1 year
Therefore
5,000,000,000 decay = 1,000,000,000

How do we know the process doesn't speed up or slow down between 1 and 1 million years? Couldn't it just naturally be faster/slower or the Earth's properties changing over time, etc?

__________________
Hey.

George

Which is more believable:

A) Carbon dating is accurate
B) Scriptures and teachings originally written on tablets and passed down by word of mouth thousands of years ago is accurate.

Please pass your papers to the front when you're done.

__________________
What's that? You haven't Gone Green yet? What are you waiting for?
Got a question? Need help figuring out how something works here?
Send me a Private Message.

mplltt

I am not going to make you proud, I am not going to win you over, I am not going to make you envy, I want my fare share.

__________________
Thank you, I am impressed that you are forgiving enough to approach this line of reasoning.

}SoC{Sumguy

uh, could you explain why you have posted that in so many topics, and what the purpose of it is?


anyways, i see no problem with God having used evolution as a tol of creation.

some people i know are creatioinsts just because they think that they are "too good" to have come from monkeys.

__________________
"And now you've seen his face,
and you know that there's a place
in the sun, for all that you've done.
For you and your children.
You always wanted to beleive.
Just ask and you'll receive,
beyond your wildest dreams.
And you already know how this will end...."

George

Mr. mplltt, are you a spammer?

__________________
What's that? You haven't Gone Green yet? What are you waiting for?
Got a question? Need help figuring out how something works here?
Send me a Private Message.

NeanderThal

Carbon Dating is something that is a "thorn" in the side of some creationists, & they search for ways to discredit it. The first way they try , which is somewhat shown in your statements/questions above, (thru no fault of your own, keep reading), is bringing up possible ways of carbon dating inaccuracies (real or made up), when people mention a 150,000 yr old primate bone, a dinosaur find, or early homonid.
You, I & many others have heard these creationists "mention" carbon dating when these date type things are brought up....
* Read Carfully: - Carbon Dating , by it's very nature, simply Can't Be used, & NEVER Has been Used, to Date ANYTHING older than about 50/60,000 years, & is most commonly used to date items much younger. It's NOT used to date dinosaurs or early Homonids.

( Carbon 14 is a rare radioactive form of carbon , found in carbon dioxide all over the earth's air & water, it is constantly being replenished by cosmic rays hitting the nitrogen in the atmosphere from the sun & space. A "living" plant or animal is always breathing, eating other live things things ect to replenish C14. When it dies, no new c14 is absorbed, & radioactive C14 has a constant "half life" radioactive "sub atomic" decay rate, of clock-setting accuracy, that can be measured , up to about 60K years when it becomes depleted/undetectable. This decay rate is completly internal, & there are no external factors that can speed up or slow down the process, making it ideal for dating once-living things, such as seeds, organic cloth (shroud of Turin), wood, Bones. Scientist know that the slight variations in the amount of carbon in the atmosphere during different centries can cause the accuracy of the dating to vary by anywhere from about 30 years, to a few hundred years for samples older than 20,000 years, Unless a known Date-positive sample can be obtained/tested from the era to add a "correction factor". For example, flowers & seeds from 3,000 year old sealed date-specific egyptian tombs, & other date "known" artifacts have allowed Carbon Dating to become even more accurate than it already was. Many Egyptian, Maya, Medeval, Inca, Biblical, as well as Neaderthal, Mammoth & Sabertooth Tiger bones from 30K yrs ago have been accuratley dated with Carbon Dating.)

Like any test, such as testing a rapist's DNA, it is possible that the sample can become contaminated or a glitch causes an innacurate reading. This is very rare. (Holding a sample in the exhaust pipe of a diesel truck before testing would be a good way to render the carbon date finding useless). Some creationists, just like the Rapist's lawyer, will try to find the invalid test among the many thousands, & try to use/exploit it to try discredit the whole process to the jury.....
I can appreciate an uniformed individual "repeating" a creationist's "carbon Dating sound bites", But when I see a so called creationist "expert" on a news show mentioning the innacuracies of "carbon Dating" in a discussion of Million year old bones .. It's hard to believe He doesn't know better, & is just capitalizing on the interviewer not being a scientist, to just to get his "sound bite" out to the public.
Carbon 14 is 1 of many dating methods .... & can be used on a 750,000 yr old bone as a secondary "back up", to simply prove it's "older" than 60K yrs, bolstering the other methods that were used...

GodsfreeWill

It's not a thorn in the side of a creationist, but rather the evolutionist. We are finding C-14 in EVERYTHING. Diamonds, oil, etc. If the evolutionist is right, these things should have so little C-14 in them that it cannot be measured. C-14 dating is only capable of dating up to 60,000 years.

Yet another problem for the evolutionist. They won't date anything they have presupposed to be older than 60,000 years old, knowing that when fair amounts of C-14 are found, it blows their theory out of the water. Consider the recent finding of soft tissue in a T-rex fossil. Did soft tissue survive 70 million years? I personally don't think so. But what good is my opinion? Why don't we C-14 test it? If the evolutionist is right, there should be immeasurable amounts of C-14. Will they test it? Nope. A radio show offered a $25,000 grant to have it C-14 dated, and they refused.

The problem is that they won't do this, as I stated above.

hokeshel

Realy? I am Christian and that is not what I think. In fact, most Christians I know believe in evolution, we just happen to believe that God created the earth and probably by a a big bang, or series of big bangs. I think he started life on the earth and that evolution has gotten us to where we are today. I can't say exactly how God did it, I wasn't there but, neither were you, so you have no more proof that he didn't create than I have proof he did. I do not discount scientific proof because I don't need to. I have never found anything that goes against what I believe. If I did, I would do a lot of research on it. One needn't discount evolution just because one believes in creationism.

MickinEngland

Dawkins strikes me as somebody frantically clutching in the dark to make his evolution beliefs hold together.
His book "Climbing Mount Improbable" thoroughly discredits him in my eyes, because he makes the most outrageous statements. For example here's his explanation of how the eye developed - "It was not hard for a lump of transparent jelly to spontaneously form"..
No disrespect to him but I think he's so obsessed in pushing his absurd guesses that its driven him slightly neurotic, it shows in his fretful manner and body language, the dead eyes etc..
I hear he now refuses to shake hands with anybody who disagrees with his ideas.
I had a brief correspondence with him some years ago and he began by being slightly rude, but I told him "I believe God wrote the Evolution Program and then snapped his fingers to start it, THAT was the Big Bang", and after that Dawkins became less hostile towards me.