Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.

[SavedByTheLord]

But noöne is using C-14 dating on a fossil believed to be older than ~ 50,000 years. Do you not think researchers know the appropriate tool for a task, and how to use it?

They are assuming the age then.
C-14 test all things that are supposed to be over 6000 years old.
Are you afraid what the results will be?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But noöne is using C-14 dating on a fossil believed to be older than ~ 50,000 years. Do you not think researchers know the appropriate tool for a task, and how to use it?

Well creationists have done so, but they are not winning any awards for that. And once again, there is no record of their recovery method, which alone violates protocol. So the dates are highly suspect to start with. So, are their dates real or from contamination? If they all said 4,500 years that would be rather worrisome. If they were older ages, getting nearer to the point where C14 is highly subject to contamination and were all over the place that would indicate contamination. It should not be surprising that it was the latter. In fat they tested some specimens more than once for "accuracy". Surely at least those numbers were the same, and some were, at least somewhat. But one example had dates of 31,000 and 36,000 years. It looks like incompetent contamination to me:

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you looked at the dated fossils in the link, they are in pretty good agreement.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

Not even close! the range from 22,000 years to 38,000 years. That is a huge span of time. They should all be 4,500 years.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Well creationists have done so, but they are not winning any awards for that. And once again, there is no record of their recovery method, which alone violates protocol. So the dates are highly suspect to start with. So, are their dates real or from contamination? If they all said 4,500 years that would be rather worrisome. If they were older ages, getting nearer to the point where C14 is highly subject to contamination and were all over the place that would indicate contamination. It should not be surprising that it was the latter. In fat they tested some specimens more than once for "accuracy". Surely at least those numbers were the same, and some were, at least somewhat. But one example had dates of 31,000 and 36,000 years. It looks like incompetent contamination to me:

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

They should not be 4500 years old for the flood to be true but about 30,000 years.
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 this link is about 30,000 years.
Bingo.
They are from the flood.

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

 

[Subduction Zone]

They should not be 4500 years old for the flood to be true but about 30,000 years.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was at least 20 times 1960 levels.

Prove it. Where did you get that insane number from? Do you not realize that you just cooked Adam and Eve?

Also the amount of C-14 would have been less.

Again, prove it. By the way, we have continuous tree records that go back to almost 14,000 years ago:

As of 2020, securely dated tree-ring data for the Northern Hemisphere are available going back 13,910 years.[3]

Funny, there is no sign of a flood there.

Dendrochronology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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 this link is about 30,000 years.
Bingo.
They are from the flood.

You need a valid source that support that. Do you have one?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

Oh, you don't. Well there you go. You just refuted yourself again.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Prove it. Where did you get that insane number from? Do you not realize that you just cooked Adam and Eve?


Again, prove it. By the way, we have continuous tree records that go back to almost 14,000 years ago:

As of 2020, securely dated tree-ring data for the Northern Hemisphere are available going back 13,910 years.[3]

Funny, there is no sign of a flood there.

Dendrochronology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You need a valid source that support that. Do you have one?

Oh, you don't. Well there you go. You just refuted yourself again.

There are no trees 14,000 years old.
Why would it have cooked Adam and Eve,
It would have quite pleasant although warmer.
But nothing to cook Adam and Eve.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no trees 14,000 years old.

I didn't say that there were. You should read the article I provided.

Why would it have cooked Adam and Eve,

Things you should have learned in school. Carbon dioxide traps heat.

It would have quite pleasant although warmer.
But nothing to cook Adam and Eve.

You want 20 times our current level!!! Yes, that would have cooked them.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I didn't say that there were. You should read the article I provided.


Things you should have learned in school. Carbon dioxide traps heat.

You want 20 times our current level!!! Yes, that would have cooked them.

But then it is just assumptions.
Of course the carbon dioxide level was 20 times the level of 1960 and it would not have cooked,
Your own scientists say so, they just got the dating all wrong.
According to science the past had carbon dioxide levels that high but the temperature was only about 20 degrees Fahrenheit more,

 

[Valjean]

Dating something old they'd commonly use potassium-argon or uranium-lead. Carbon dating is only useful for recently dead things.
Scroll down a bit to see some of the other radiometric methods: Radiometric Age Dating - Geology (U.S. National Park Service)

 

[Subduction Zone]

But then it is just assumptions.
Of course the carbon dioxide level was 20 times the level of 1960 and it would not have cooked,
Your own scientists say so, they just got the dating all wrong.
According to science the past had carbon dioxide levels that high but the temperature was only about 20 degrees Fahrenheit more,

No, assumptions are what you do. It can be demonstrated that CO2 traps heat. There are formulas that tell us how much heat that it traps. You could not even support your outrageous claims which means for all practical purposes I do not need to refute you. You already refuted yourself.

And yes, in the far distant past there were very high levels of CO2. You know what else science tells us? When the Earth was first formed 4.5 billion years ago the Sun was far fainter. That won't work for you since once again how it brightened and why is understood. It would not take place in a mere 6,000 years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There was no response to my request of examples. Not surprising.

In no time at all, the same questions and comments will recirculate as if no one answered anything. I've grown weary of the game and I expect much, much better out of people claiming to be Christian. And they question me as if they are in some position to judge.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

All that has been refuted in many ways.
Even isochron dating, which is supposed to be the most accurate, is not accurate at all.
There are many "clocks" that show that the earth and the universe are not billions of years old or even millions of year old, but thousands of years old.

I've refuted you again with my many proofs.

That's all you think it takes right?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, assumptions are what you do. It can be demonstrated that CO2 traps heat. There are formulas that tell us how much heat that it traps. You could not even support your outrageous claims which means for all practical purposes I do not need to refute you. You already refuted yourself.

And yes, in the far distant past there were very high levels of CO2. You know what else science tells us? When the Earth was first formed 4.5 billion years ago the Sun was far fainter. That won't work for you since once again how it brightened and why is understood. It would not take place in a mere 6,000 years.

it is your own scientists that say that many millions of years ago, not billions of years ago.
The sun was not that faint at all when the carbon dioxide was 20x 1960 levels.
And the temp was only about 20 F more.
But in the creation model, who says that the sun was just as bright as today?
As the earth’s atmosphere also had a water canopy that shielded some of the sun’s rays.
Some of the flood water comes from above.

Yes the faint young sun paradox does also refute evolution so thanks for admitting that,

 

[ratiocinator]

it is your own scientists that say that many millions of years ago, not billions of years ago.
The sun was not that faint at all when the carbon dioxide was 20x 1960 levels.
And the temp was only about 20 F more.
But in the creation model, who says that the sun was just as bright as today?
As the earth’s atmosphere also had a water canopy that shielded some of the sun’s rays.
Some of the flood water comes from above.

Empty assertions.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Empty assertions.

Just facts,

 

[ratiocinator]

Just facts,

You provided no references, so empty assertions is all we are left with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

it is your own scientists that say that many millions of years ago, not billions of years ago.
The sun was not that faint at all when the carbon dioxide was 20x 1960 levels.
And the temp was only about 20 F more.
But in the creation model, who says that the sun was just as bright as today?
As the earth’s atmosphere also had a water canopy that shielded some of the sun’s rays.
Some of the flood water comes from above.

Yes the faint young sun paradox does also refute evolution so thanks for admitting that,

What are you nattering about now? Please support your claims with proper sources. It sounds as if you are just repeating snippets of science that you heard but did not understand.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

What are you nattering about now? Please support your claims with proper sources. It sounds as if you are just repeating snippets of science that you heard but did not understand.

Here is the carbon dioxide levels for the supposed last 500 millions years.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is the earth's temp for the supposed last 500 millions years.

Geologic temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the carbon dioxide levels for the supposed last 500 millions years.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is the earth's temp for the supposed last 500 millions years.

Geologic temperature record - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

No, that is only since 1960 in that graph. The second one is a history of temperature, but that doesn't help you either. And it is for a longer period than just 500 million years. How does that help you? How does any of it help you?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, that is only since 1960 in that graph. The second one is a history of temperature, but that doesn't help you either. And it is for a longer period than just 500 million years. How does that help you? How does any of it help you?

You have to scroll down quite a bit on the bottom right.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org