Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, part of reincarnation is forgetting about one's past life. You need to understand what you are arguing against to refute it. Hindu beliefs have just as much evidence as yours.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Not if it is very clear that the "C1-14" is from contamination. You keep forgetting how even one bone in the example that you sited had a 5,000 year range in age. I do not think that you can explain that, but it is explained quite easily by it being a contaminated sample. Unless one applies the contaminating material very evenly on purpose a sample will have different ages in it. If one was just careless some areas will have more contamination than others. Do you want me to pull up the link and show you which fossil had two different ages? It was Hadrosaur #1 if you are curious.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Actually the people that do the testing prepare the specimen and remove contamination and clean it.
They also calibrate with a material that has 0 C-14.
Variance will occur. Your own scientists say so.
They have calibration correction curves and they have a different one for north and south hemispheres.
They can count individual C-14 atoms.
Even diamonds that should be C-14 dead are not.
There hard surface prevents contamination.
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
The C-14 to C-12 ratio was changing rapidly in the years before the flood.
Life flourished then from all that C-14.
gnostic
The Lost One
excuse me, but a question.
the article you had linked to, this author talked of the Flood, mentioning fossils in “pre-Flood“ and in “post-Flood”.
The question is:
Just how many years ago did this Genesis FLOOD occur?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The flood happened about 4500 years age.
The flood buried many animals and many of them turned into fossils.
There is no mention of something fossilized before the flood.
There is mention of things that were buried and fossilized by the flood.
There is mention of conditions that existed pre-flood.
Esteban X
Active Member
Citation please.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Read the Bible for the date what was buried.
You mentioned the article.
I was commenting on the article.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry, but no. They cannot do that if they are unaware of possible contamination. You keep forgetting that your sources lied to the testing companies.
Sorry dude. You refuted yourself by now supplying any proper sources that support you.
More unsupported nonsense. You need real science and real math if you want to make those claims. Try again. If you cannot support your claims properly you defeat yourself. Wild handwaving is not how science is done.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Not diamond, it is too hard.
And these are not idiots.
Actually the people that do the testing prepare the specimen and remove contamination and clean it.
They also calibrate with a material that has 0 C-14.
Variance will occur. Your own scientists say so.
They have calibration correction curves and they have a different one for north and south hemispheres.
They can count individual C-14 atoms.
Even diamonds that should be C-14 dead are not.
There hard surface prevents contamination.
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.
For radioactive dating giving long ages.
It is a horror show as the results are all over the place.
A lava flow from the eruption of Mount Saint Helen’s was dated at 2.7 billion years tested only 10 years after the eruption.
The evidence indicates that you rely on circular reasoning, poor scholarship and sources that are in themselves, the product of circular reasoing.
That's too bad.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then the are blatant liars. You can't have it both ways.
Once again, those preparing samples cannot do so properly if they were lied to. And they were lied to.
No, you have no idea what a logical argument is. You have no idea what a scientific argument is. You are just handwaving again.
LOL!! No, it wasn't. You got that amazingly wrong. It was in the 2 hundred thousand year age. And we know how why it got those values. Once again, the testers were brain dead or liars. You can't have it both ways. You have to be very careful with volcanic rock. It can easily pick up older rock and minerals on its way out. This is something that you learn about in an undergrad class in radiometric dating . Steve Austin had to know about this, which is why he was lying. There are even terms for the older material. They are xenocrysts when you get individual crystals of foreign material and xenoliths when one gets actual chunks of rock mixed in. There can be detected under a microscope or seen even with a good hand lens. That lie was refuted so quickly it made their heads spin.
It seems like a win-win for creationists to use tests that are knowingly flawed and produce erroneous results. Since the target audience are people that don't understand the science to begin with and are going to reject criticism noting the inappropriate testing as merely propaganda by the what they consider by default to be the losing side.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
The C-14 results prove that long ages are false.
And the errroneous long age dating results show that they cannot be trusted.
Actually the people that do the testing prepare the specimen and remove contamination and clean it.
They also calibrate with a material that has 0 C-14.
Variance will occur. Your own scientists say so.
They have calibration correction curves and they have a different one for north and south hemispheres.
They can count individual C-14 atoms.
Even diamonds that should be C-14 dead are not.
There hard surface prevents contamination.
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.
For radioactive dating giving long ages.
It is a horror show as the results are all over the place.
A lava flow from the eruption of Mount Saint Helen’s was dated at 2.7 billion years tested only 10 years after the erup
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The age of the earth is not determined by Carbon 14. This sort of test only works for organic remains between 500 and 50,000 years old. If you want to date rocks, you use i.e. the Potassium–argon dating method. And when you do, you find that the earth is billions of years old.
Arnaud1221
Red-hood
I think the theory just changed name if it's true.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Another irrefutable proof that you don't understand science or logic.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
So, you can not refute my irrefutable proof.Another irrefutable proof that you don't understand science or logic.
C-14 test all things supposedly older than 6000 years.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You cannot refute my irrefutable proof that your 'irrefutable proof' is irrefutably proved wrong.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
That was pretty good getting 2 refutes and 2 irrefutable sin the same sentence.You cannot refute my irrefutable proof that your 'irrefutable proof' is irrefutably proved wrong.
It's hard to refute something that does not exist I suppose
and while C-14 can be used to test all things .. the test is not usefull for dating things older than ~ 25,000 years plus/minus OOO -- so what the point is I do not know. What is this irrefutable proof you are boasting about ?