Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.

[Subduction Zone]

I have an inquiring mind.

Inquiries without a point are rarely of value. Do you understand that radioactive decay is an exponential process? That we use "half-lives" tells you that. Let's take a grossly overexaggerated example. Let's say that you had a grand total of 3*10^50 C14 atoms. That is a bit more than if all of the mass of the Earth was C14. After 5,507 years there would be only 1.5*10^50 atoms. Every 5,507 years there will be half as many as we started with. After only 933,985 years you would be down to only 1 single atom of C14 left. That is assuming that exactly half decay every half life. You can see that with real world numbers that the amount of detectable C14 in samples that are as young as only 100,000 years would be so low that even the most sensitive equipment could not detect its presence. That is why C14 dating on almost all sedimentary strata is a waste of money.

You may have remembered that a group of creationists tired to date dinosaur bones. One thing that screams incompetence is that they did not properly record their work so that others could verify that they followed proper protocols to prevent contamination. To be honest we cannot tell if their was contamination or not, but what we can do is to look at their work and see if it matches predictions. According to YEC's the sedimentary strata that the dinosaurs are found in are from before the flood. Which was about 4,500 years ago according to them. So all of their dates should be from that age. Scientists would say that they are more likely from contamination. If that was the case we should see a range of dates in the low ranges since contamination does not tend to be consistent. Here is a link to their works The numbers look as if they match the contamination claim, not the "flud" claim:

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

 

[Subduction Zone]

Before the flood, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was 1/30th or less than today.
Most of this is from the fact that carbon dioxide levels were over 20x that of 1960.
That would add up to 5 x 5730 years or 28,000 years.

Someone does not know how to do math.

 

[Astrophile]

What you are saying doesn't make sense. So nothing can be absolutely trusted but yet if you repeat the same thing every time and get the same results that's not enough to be absolutely trusted with certainty ?

Nothing can be absolutely trusted, because there is always the possibility that new observations will give different results. However, if, for example, radiometric dating of the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary by different methods and in different continents consistently yields ages of about 65 million years, it is more reasonable to accept those ages, at least provisionally, than to reject them and say that the true age is less than 10,000 years.

I would believe in a shorter age because millions and billions and trillions are huge numbers that I don't think any human can really wrap there head around I mean you almost might as well say that the earth is eternal.

Are you able to accept that the Earth's average distance from the Sun (one astronomical unit) is 149.6 million kilometres and that the distance of the Sun from the Pleiades star cluster is about 28 million astronomical units? If you are, why do you have difficulty is accepting geological and astronomical ages of millions or billions of years?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Nothing can be absolutely trusted, because there is always the possibility that new observations will give different results. However, if, for example, radiometric dating of the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary by different methods and in different continents consistently yields ages of about 65 million years, it is more reasonable to accept those ages, at least provisionally, than to reject them and say that the true age is less than 10,000 years.

Are you able to accept that the Earth's average distance from the Sun (one astronomical unit) is 149.6 million kilometres and that the distance of the Sun from the Pleiades star cluster is about 28 million astronomical units? If you are, why do you have difficulty is accepting geological and astronomical ages of millions or billions of years?

The radioactive dating has great inconsistencies then it is not to be trusted.
Even isochron dating has great inconsistencies.
all “clocks” that can used to date tings also have great inconsistencies.
then how does one explain that using just natural laws?
it cannot.
That would then indicate some events outside of natural laws, aka, miracles.
Those miraculous events are 6 day creation, the fall and the flood.

 

[Esteban X]

Before the flood, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was 1/30th or less than today.
Most of this is from the fact that carbon dioxide levels were over 20x that of 1960.
That would add up to 5 x 5730 years or 28,000 years.

If you are going to talk about conditions before the Flood you have to remember that the Flood never happened.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If you are going to talk about conditions before the Flood you have to remember that the Flood never happened.

There evidence shows it did as the C-14 data from this sire refutes long ages but it consistent with the flood.
here is just one example of that evidence

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at least 20 times 1960 levels.
Also the amount of C-14 would have been less.
So the c-14 to c -12 would have been about 1/30th of 1960 level.
That is about 2^5 times less which is 5 half lives.
The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years
5x that is 28,650 years of extra age,
4500 + 28,650 = 33,150 years
The average of the dates in the link above is about 30,000 years.
Bingo.
They are from the flood.

 

[Kenny]

Before the flood, the ratio of C-14 to C-12 was 1/30th or less than today.
Most of this is from the fact that carbon dioxide levels were over 20x that of 1960.
That would add up to 5 x 5730 years or 28,000 years.

Very interesting!

 

[Eddi]

Before the flood

 

[SavedByTheLord]

and all the evidence shows that the world wide flood occurred.

 

[Eddi]

and all the evidence shows that the world wide flood occurred.

LOL yeah right

Is that why no serious person whose opinion counts for anything believes so?

I too can make baseless and ignorant claims:

The Moon is made of cheese!

It has to be made of cheese because it looks big and round and is a similar colour to cheese

And you can't prove that it's not made of cheese

I am convinced it is made of cheese and I want it to be made of cheese therefore it is made of cheese!

 

[Esteban X]

and all the evidence shows that the world wide flood occurred.A

and yet, it does not.

 

[YoursTrue]

I'm betting that the fact that you have been informed that proof is not a standard of science is well into the hundreds of times by now.

The fact that this has been repeated goes to the evidence for your complaint about not receiving deeper explanations when this evidence says that providing them is a wasted effort.

Again, a double standard seems to be emerging. Positions based on no evidence or proof, existing inviolate to outside information held as the standard to dismiss systems based on evidence, testing and conditional and contextual revision upon new information. One is static and closed and the other is dynamic and grows.

What I notice is you reprimand someone without giving the so-called correct information.

 

[Eddi]

If the moon isn't made of cheese then how come Wallace and Gromit ate some of it on crackers when they went there in their home made rocket ship??????

I saw them do it on BBC2 so they obviously did

 

[YoursTrue]

Of C-14? They would have been rather similar. Why even ask? It seems like an odd question to me.

Why? Why does it seem like an odd question to you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is it impossible, and why does God make it possible? I believe these are baseless claims.

Then we always have that chaotic soup some talk about... right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? Why does it seem like an odd question to you?

Keep reading and you will see why. C14 is like other radioactive materials. it can be used for dating of objects but only over a specific time span. There are limitations both for periods of time that are too far distant in the past and those too recent from now for it to be of any use. For example a 50 year old piece of wood may not have undergone enough decay for the method to be of any value. And as the thought experiment that I wrote out for him if the entire Earth was C14 at one point the Earth would be all N14 in just a short million years. Which is why when we deal with real concentrations even 100,000 years is out of the question.

 

[YoursTrue]

Anybody could be wrong about anything. Including you.
The question however is: IF one is wrong, how do you propose to find out?

And please, let's not pretend as if scientists just pull dates out of their behind.

Of course I can be and am wrong about some things. If I am corrected and accept the correction then I can possibly benefit from the correction. If ever I have a question about something I hear or read, I would like to be able to learn from someone who really knows...I have found very few people like that. If I have to learn something, like if I were to learn about evolution as part of a science course and then take a test, even if I answer correctly according to the information being presented, it doesn't mean (1) that the current information is correct and accurate, and (2) that the answer is correct according to the truth of the matter.

 

[Valjean]

There evidence shows it did as the C-14 data from this sire refutes long ages but it consistent with the flood.
here is just one example of that evidence

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at least 20 times 1960 levels.
Also the amount of C-14 would have been less.
So the c-14 to c -12 would have been about 1/30th of 1960 level.
That is about 2^5 times less which is 5 half lives.
The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years
5x that is 28,650 years of extra age,
4500 + 28,650 = 33,150 years
The average of the dates in the link above is about 30,000 years.
Bingo.
They are from the flood.

There was no worldwide flood. Floods leave distinctive evidence. There is none. The evidence often cited by creationists is very flawed. I could link you to some explanatory sites, but I don't think you'd watch or read them.

Do you not think scientists know the limitations of their dating systems? Do you not think they know how to prepare specimens? Sloppy work and inappropriate methods tend to be thrown out.

 

[YoursTrue]

There was no worldwide flood. Floods leave distinctive evidence. There is none. The evidence often cited by creationists is very flawed. I could link you to some explanatory sites, but I don't think you'd watch or read them.

Do you not think scientists know the limitations of their dating systems? Do you not think they know how to prepare specimens? Sloppy work and inappropriate methods tend to be thrown out.

While there are limitations to dating systems, it's not the process that I particularly hold in question. It's the material used to substantiate the scientists' viewpoint and conclusion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While there are limitations to dating systems, it's not the process that I particularly hold in question. It's the material used to substantiate the scientists' viewpoint and conclusion.

Can you be clearer? What do you have problems with?