The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[SavedByTheLord]

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 ?

But that assumes that what they claim to be very old is actually very old.
The radioactive dating for very old things has been shown to be false.

Radio-Dating in Rubble

Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. But is the method all it’s cracked up to be?

answersingenesis.org

And the C-14 dating confirms this.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=icc_proceedings

C-14 test all things supposedly older than 6000 years.

 

[Sargonski]

But that assumes that what they claim to be very old is actually very old.
The radioactive dating for very old things has been shown to be false.

Radio-Dating in Rubble

Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. But is the method all it’s cracked up to be?

answersingenesis.org

And the C-14 dating confirms this.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=icc_proceedings

C-14 test all things supposedly older than 6000 years.

No .. C14 does not show that dating for old things is false... we were through this previously .. you do not understand the dating method.

C-14 can not show dating for things older than its limit false. The Test does not work for that dating range .. so if the test reads its limit ... say 30,000 years .. you do not know that the artifact is only 30,000 years ... just that it is at least that old.

You don't understand how the test method works friend. you can't use C-14 to test anything older than the range accurately. Completely useless for a rock that is 1 million years old.

What C-14 does do though .. - by dating things within the range of the test - things that are 22,000 years old - is show that your 6000 year old claim is false.

 

[Sargonski]

But that assumes that what they claim to be very old is actually very old.
The radioactive dating for very old things has been shown to be false.

Radio-Dating in Rubble

Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. But is the method all it’s cracked up to be?

answersingenesis.org

And the C-14 dating confirms this.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=icc_proceedings

C-14 test all things supposedly older than 6000 years.

Just to be clear - the paper from the international conference of Flat Earth Creationists .. was riddled with errors.. the claim completely ridiculous .. exclaiming Carbon should not be there .. the fact that it was there obviously contamination .. but then to suggests this shows some support for the global flood 4000 years ago .. fallacious sillyness .. false conclusion .. sorry .. but really now .. finding a paper from a Flat Earth Conference .. confirming the earth is Flat .. should not surprise you .. and if alarm bells did not go up .. that 3 of the 4 authors were PHDs of the ICC .. one having a real job at Los Alamos .. hoping this Ad Hom Fallacy might outweigh the obvious question marks in relation to the other three .. but, not even going there .. Its just wrong .. myself being far more of an SME .. by credentials .. than our friend from Los Alamos .. suspect even the title but . "Los Alamos" those Nuclear Physisists working on the bomb should know a thing or two about radio carbon dating right ?

Sorry friend .. but I am more SME than he ..but one needs no measuring contest to show the article false .. just a basic knowledge of the test method .. that any layman can obtain through reading .. Me on the other used this dating method "Hands On" in both my radiochemistry class - (and Lab -- where do all the common methods) .. and my rocks class (Geology) .. but no need for such to have assessed the errors in logic obvious in the opening statement - Abstract .. can't make claims about something older than the test range .. "We found Carbon" .. Great .. now figure out what the contaminant came from - but even if you can't .. doesn't mean anything about the age of that which was tested .. beyond 30,000 years.

It is a spankingly obvious error / flaw in logic .. (to those who understand the test method ) one which you can google and watch Youtube video's on if so inclined to disprove your claim further.

and one more thing reading further .. Parts Per "kwaTrillion" active carbon in the sample .. allows us to conclude nothing about the age of the sample beyond the limit of the test method. That active carbon is there.. at PPT levels .. does not mean the sample is younger than what other dating methods suggest. .. this is a "False Conclusion" .. it does not mean the sample is only the test limit of the machine ~ 30,000 years old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

No, no need to reply in detail. Once again the data show that it was almost certainly contamination. You were not even able to touch that argument. You only had more unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No .. C14 does not show that dating for old things is false... we were through this previously .. you do not understand the dating method.

C-14 can not show dating for things older than its limit false. The Test does not work for that dating range .. so if the test reads its limit ... say 30,000 years .. you do not know that the artifact is only 30,000 years ... just that it is at least that old.

You don't understand how the test method works friend. you can't use C-14 to test anything older than the range accurately. Completely useless for a rock that is 1 million years old.

What C-14 does do though .. - by dating things within the range of the test - things that are 22,000 years old - is show that your 6000 year old claim is false.

One can get a false young age when using the method. And one can also get a false old age by doing so too.

A false young age will usually be of terrestrial deposits. And that would occur from incompetence. You know that creationists are more likely to be incompetent and not follow proper protocols than experts. The protocols that are used exist because contamination is a risk. And his sources clearly broke protocol because one clear part of protocol is to accurately record all aspects of sample collecting so that others can see that protocol was followed. @SavedByTheLord cannot even demonstrate that a proper record was kept. That alone makes the dates worthless from a scientific viewpoint. For land based samples there are all sorts of ways that just a little C14 can be added to the sample. The first time that creationists tried to date materials that was done so by the source of their fossils. The source was not told what they were going to do with the samples so they were properly treated for shipping. Part of that is painting with shellac. This is not done so that a nice patina develops and that it looks all shiny and fossilly. No, it is done because it increases the odds that one will receive a fossil and not a box of sand. It protects the sample from the rigors of shipping. Shellac is a substance made from the excretions of lac bugs and has modern C14 in it. So of course that gives it a false young date. That with the calcite in the fossil (CaCO3) will give it a mix of new carbon and old carbon. The old carbon would have no C14 the new would have some and a date of younger than 50,000 years will arise.

For marine deposits the problem is contamination with old carbon. For example the sea water itself may be hundreds of years old if one is at a place of upwelling. Sea life tends to recycle carbon from several sources, existing shells on the sea floor. Incoming dissolved CaCO3 from limestone. There are all sorts of sources of old carbon that generally makes sea life incompatible with carbon dating. It is called "the reservoir effect". When Kent Hovind tried to claim that C14 didn't work he used an article that explained how and why it cannot be used on sea life. He ignored that it does work when done properly elsewhere. The article that he used was merely saying "don't use it for this sort of material and here is why". The stupid of Kent, it burns!

At any rate C14 dating is not as easy as some would think. Caution has to be used in acquiring material and the source that dates it needs to be informed of necessary details. It does not look as if the creationists did this at all.

 

[McBell]

So, you can not refute my irrefutable proof.
C-14 test all things supposedly older than 6000 years.

You will need to present an irrefutable proof...
Thus far all you have presented is bold empty claims.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

One can get a false young age when using the method. And one can also get a false old age by doing so too.

A false young age will usually be of terrestrial deposits. And that would occur from incompetence. You know that creationists are more likely to be incompetent and not follow proper protocols than experts. The protocols that are used exist because contamination is a risk. And his sources clearly broke protocol because one clear part of protocol is to accurately record all aspects of sample collecting so that others can see that protocol was followed. @SavedByTheLord cannot even demonstrate that a proper record was kept. That alone makes the dates worthless from a scientific viewpoint. For land based samples there are all sorts of ways that just a little C14 can be added to the sample. The first time that creationists tried to date materials that was done so by the source of their fossils. The source was not told what they were going to do with the samples so they were properly treated for shipping. Part of that is painting with shellac. This is not done so that a nice patina develops and that it looks all shiny and fossilly. No, it is done because it increases the odds that one will receive a fossil and not a box of sand. It protects the sample from the rigors of shipping. Shellac is a substance made from the excretions of lac bugs and has modern C14 in it. So of course that gives it a false young date. That with the calcite in the fossil (CaCO3) will give it a mix of new carbon and old carbon. The old carbon would have no C14 the new would have some and a date of younger than 50,000 years will arise.

For marine deposits the problem is contamination with old carbon. For example the sea water itself may be hundreds of years old if one is at a place of upwelling. Sea life tends to recycle carbon from several sources, existing shells on the sea floor. Incoming dissolved CaCO3 from limestone. There are all sorts of sources of old carbon that generally makes sea life incompatible with carbon dating. It is called "the reservoir effect". When Kent Hovind tried to claim that C14 didn't work he used an article that explained how and why it cannot be used on sea life. He ignored that it does work when done properly elsewhere. The article that he used was merely saying "don't use it for this sort of material and here is why". The stupid of Kent, it burns!

At any rate C14 dating is not as easy as some would think. Caution has to be used in acquiring material and the source that dates it needs to be informed of necessary details. It does not look as if the creationists did this at all.

Again why do you think that those that do the dating are incompetent?
And why do things like diamond, which have hard enough surfaces which should prevent contamination, also dated as not C-14 dead.
See the Discussion at this link.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=icc_proceedings

 

[IndigoChild5559]

But that assumes that what they claim to be very old is actually very old.
The radioactive dating for very old things has been shown to be false.

Radio-Dating in Rubble

Radioisotope dating conveys an aura of reliability both to the general public and professional scientists. But is the method all it’s cracked up to be?

answersingenesis.org

And the C-14 dating confirms this.

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1162&context=icc_proceedings

C-14 test all things supposedly older than 6000 years.

No, radio dating has NOT been shown to be false.

Quoting from a religious site does nothing to make your point. You need to quote from valid science sites. For example, do you have a study from a peer reviewed journal that concludes that radio metric dating is false?

 

[McBell]

No, radio dating has NOT been shown to be false.

Quoting from a religious site does nothing to make your point. You need to quote from valid science sites. For example, do you have a study from a peer reviewed journal that concludes that radio metric dating is false?

You do know that SavedByTheLord thinks they are a peer review all by themselves, right?

 

[Sargonski]

One can get a false young age when using the method. And one can also get a false old age by doing so too.

A false young age will usually be of terrestrial deposits. And that would occur from incompetence. You know that creationists are more likely to be incompetent and not follow proper protocols than experts. The protocols that are used exist because contamination is a risk. And his sources clearly broke protocol because one clear part of protocol is to accurately record all aspects of sample collecting so that others can see that protocol was followed. @SavedByTheLord cannot even demonstrate that a proper record was kept. That alone makes the dates worthless from a scientific viewpoint. For land based samples there are all sorts of ways that just a little C14 can be added to the sample. The first time that creationists tried to date materials that was done so by the source of their fossils. The source was not told what they were going to do with the samples so they were properly treated for shipping. Part of that is painting with shellac. This is not done so that a nice patina develops and that it looks all shiny and fossilly. No, it is done because it increases the odds that one will receive a fossil and not a box of sand. It protects the sample from the rigors of shipping. Shellac is a substance made from the excretions of lac bugs and has modern C14 in it. So of course that gives it a false young date. That with the calcite in the fossil (CaCO3) will give it a mix of new carbon and old carbon. The old carbon would have no C14 the new would have some and a date of younger than 50,000 years will arise.

For marine deposits the problem is contamination with old carbon. For example the sea water itself may be hundreds of years old if one is at a place of upwelling. Sea life tends to recycle carbon from several sources, existing shells on the sea floor. Incoming dissolved CaCO3 from limestone. There are all sorts of sources of old carbon that generally makes sea life incompatible with carbon dating. It is called "the reservoir effect". When Kent Hovind tried to claim that C14 didn't work he used an article that explained how and why it cannot be used on sea life. He ignored that it does work when done properly elsewhere. The article that he used was merely saying "don't use it for this sort of material and here is why". The stupid of Kent, it burns!

At any rate C14 dating is not as easy as some would think. Caution has to be used in acquiring material and the source that dates it needs to be informed of necessary details. It does not look as if the creationists did this at all.

Can't get a false old age beyond the limit of the test. for example if the C-14 test you are using is to 50,000 years .. you can not get an age of 100,000 years. .. you could date something that is 1000 years old .. 50,000 years old .. which would be a false old age .. but nothing beyond that.

Correct that organic carbon contamination is the most common source of error .. interesting that marine deposits will be dated not only by layers .. which you can count like tree rings .. sometimes back hundreds of thousands of years.. can tell you what the temperature was during the period via geochemical analysis of the layer .. also can carbon date. .. the conjunction of the two on any date beyond say 10,000 years showing the 6000 year old theory very false .. specially corral that is 200,000 years old +/- 2000 years

 

[SavedByTheLord]

No, radio dating has NOT been shown to be false.

Quoting from a religious site does nothing to make your point. You need to quote from valid science sites. For example, do you have a study from a peer reviewed journal that concludes that radio metric dating is false?

The radioactive decay dating is a real mess.
Things that are known to be young are dated old.
Some things have dates that vary widely, even billions of years in range.
Some things that are supposed to be very old are dated young.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The radioactive decay dating is a real mess.
Things that are known to be young are dated old.
Some things have dates that vary widely, even billions of years in range.
Some things that are supposed to be very old are dated young.

You simply making these proclamations does not mean it is true. You have to actually supply evidence of your point.

 

[Eddi]

You have to actually supply evidence of your point.

And if it is ever supplied it is always in the form of links to trashy websites

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And if it is ever supplied it is always in the form of links to trashy websites

Well, yeah. That was my original comment to him. Quoting a religious site about science doesn't cut the mustard. It needs to be a valid science site, preferably a link to a peer reviewed journal article.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't get a false old age beyond the limit of the test. for example if the C-14 test you are using is to 50,000 years .. you can not get an age of 100,000 years. .. you could date something that is 1000 years old .. 50,000 years old .. which would be a false old age .. but nothing beyond that.

That is true. But I did not claim that. You are describing the sort of false young age that one would get using C14 improperly. That is what @SavedByTheLord has been nattering about recently. A false young age is when one gets a date of 30,000 years or so in a material that is say 65 million years old.

Correct that organic carbon contamination is the most common source of error .. interesting that marine deposits will be dated not only by layers .. which you can count like tree rings .. sometimes back hundreds of thousands of years.. can tell you what the temperature was during the period via geochemical analysis of the layer .. also can carbon date. .. the conjunction of the two on any date beyond say 10,000 years showing the 6000 year old theory very false .. specially corral that is 200,000 years old +/- 2000 years

Again, we are not talking about marine layers with the reservoir effect. That occurs in very young material and it gets a false old date. Often it is applied organisms that died very recently and they still get an age of hundreds of years. Here is an article that make explain the effect better than I did:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017RG000588

 

[Subduction Zone]

The radioactive decay dating is a real mess.
Things that are known to be young are dated old.
Some things have dates that vary widely, even billions of years in range.
Some things that are supposed to be very old are dated young.

Yes, that can happen quite easily when people that are either dishonest or incompetent do the testing. What you have not been able to show is that this happens when honest and competent people are doing the testing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Make up your mind.
Either nothing can come from nothing, meaning your favorite deity could not have made anything from nothing or your favorite deity made everything from nothing.
You can't have it both ways.

Yeah but Dr. Hawking said something can come out of nothing, didn't he?

 

[McBell]

Yeah but Dr. Hawking said something can come out of nothing, didn't he?

Unless it is your claim that SavedByTheLord is Dr. Hawking, I fail to see any relevance in SavedByTheLords double standard of something being impossible but in the next breath saying it was done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah but Dr. Hawking said something can come out of nothing, didn't he?

He could show how that does not break any of the laws of physics.

By the way, scientists have measured all of the energy in the universe. There is a way to do it. It has rather surprising implications. Do you know what the total energy of the universe is? And that would include all matter, dark matter, and dark energy. Matter after all is just another form of energy. I will provide links once you answer.

 

[Esteban X]

Yeah but Dr. Hawking said something can come out of nothing, didn't he?

Actually, No.

Stephen Hawking says nothing was around before origin of universe - Xinhua | English.news.cn

www.xinhuanet.com

If you read the whole article, and I quote, It says "There was never a Big Bang that produced something from nothing. It just seemed that way from mankind's perspective," Hawking said.