The Big Bang Theory is dead.

[Bthoth]

If you look at pictures of cars from 1923 until 2023 you will see the evolution of the size, shapes, and other characteristics. Fossils of hominids over the last 6 millions years show a similar type of pattern. You don't see a 2023 car in 1940, and the same is there not being any homo sapiens before 200,000 years ago. The evolution of hominids is larger skulls, and larger frontal cortex areas as time progresses. The larger brains means better problem solving capacity, thus an advantage for survival.

The influence of a flawed interpretation of the Bible is a problem for many citizens in the USA. I see those indocrinated into a false religious framework as victims. Of course it is a burden for those who have learned false claims to adjust to valid knowledge about the universe.

What is cute, is the creationists will argue against evolution by using evolved models and methods.

 

[gnostic]

They are already unreliable.
And that is real science.
Failure to date specimens of know age and being off by unheard of amounts means totally unreliable.
Not agreeing on the same specimens and again by unheard of amounts also means they are totally unreliable.

If you are going to claim the dating method, then you have backup your claims with evidence that the dating is unreliable.

without evidence, you are just expressing personal opinion of the dating being wrong.

in most case, when dating anything older than 50,000 years, radiologists would either have to recalibrate the procedure, or not use radiocarbon (C-14), so switching to different radioactive isotope, such as lead, argon or uranium. The reason why you wouldn’t use carbon-14 for any specimen older than 50,000 years, is because C-14 would be considerably reduced, so it become harder to test without recalibration.

But it is not a problem for dating anything under 10,000 years, and you are the one who believe life were created about 6000 years ago.

You also believed that the Flood occurred 1600 years after creation (to be more precise, the Flood would occur 1656 years after creation of Adam (based on Genesis 5 & 7), hence about 4344 years ago or 2344 BCE). Again, that wouldn’t be problem for radiocarbon dating.

But the deepest layers of Tell es-Sultan (Jericho) and Uruk (Erech from Hebrew) and Nineveh are about respectively 11,600 years old, 7000 years old and 8000 years old. According to Genesis 10, Uruk and Nineveh didn’t exist until post-Flood Nimrod had them built, but archaeological evidence demo that these 2 cities are about a thousand years apart. About 4000 BCE, Uruk became a large and wealthy city throughout the 4th millennium BCE, while at the same time, Nineveh was still only a village, as Nineveh would not become important city until the 2nd millennium BCE.

And as to Jericho or Tell es-Sultan, about 1000 years after its foundation, Jericho was the largest city 10,600 years ago or 8600 BCE. it had population large enough that they were able to built 3.5 metres fortified stone wall, plus a tower. The fortification is the oldest of its kind.

As the oldest foundation of each each of these cities are under the C-14 limits (50,000 years), dating objects and remains are not a problem.

but these cities debunk the timeline of Bible and your claim that life have been around only 6000 years.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

If you are going to claim the dating method, then you have backup your claims with evidence that the dating is unreliable.

without evidence, you are just expressing personal opinion of the dating being wrong.

in most case, when dating anything older than 50,000 years, radiologists would either have to recalibrate the procedure, or not use radiocarbon (C-14), so switching to different radioactive isotope, such as lead, argon or uranium. The reason why you wouldn’t use carbon-14 for any specimen older than 50,000 years, is because C-14 would be considerably reduced, so it become harder to test without recalibration.

But it is not a problem for dating anything under 10,000 years, and you are the one who believe life were created about 6000 years ago.

You also believed that the Flood occurred 1600 years after creation (to be more precise, the Flood would occur 1656 years after creation of Adam (based on Genesis 5 & 7), hence about 4344 years ago or 2344 BCE). Again, that wouldn’t be problem for radiocarbon dating.

But the deepest layers of Tell es-Sultan (Jericho) and Uruk (Erech from Hebrew) and Nineveh are about respectively 11,600 years old, 7000 years old and 8000 years old. According to Genesis 10, Uruk and Nineveh didn’t exist until post-Flood Nimrod had them built, but archaeological evidence demo that these 2 cities are about a thousand years apart. About 4000 BCE, Uruk became a large and wealthy city throughout the 4th millennium BCE, while at the same time, Nineveh was still only a village, as Nineveh would not become important city until the 2nd millennium BCE.

And as to Jericho or Tell es-Sultan, about 1000 years after its foundation, Jericho was the largest city 10,600 years ago or 8600 BCE. it had population large enough that they were able to built 3.5 metres fortified stone wall, plus a tower. The fortification is the oldest of its kind.

As the oldest foundation of each each of these cities are under the C-14 limits (50,000 years), dating objects and remains are not a problem.

but these cities debunk the timeline of Bible and your claim that life have been around only 6000 years.

They are not that ancient .
Why not just test for C-14.?

 

[Polymath257]

They are not that ancient .

Provide evidence that shows this statement to be correct. Detail your dating methods and demonstrate their reliability for the situation.

Why not just test for C-14.?

For these recent dates, they do. They also use other methods (tree rings, uranium dating, etc) and get the same results, showing it isn't a one-off error.

And, once again, we can only detect C14 down to a certain level. That means that after about 8-9 half lives, our detection methods are not good enough to get reliable results. This is known and the reason why dates older than 50,000 years are not done via C14.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Provide evidence that shows this statement to be correct. Detail your dating methods and demonstrate their reliability for the situation.

For these recent dates, they do. They also use other methods (tree rings, uranium dating, etc) and get the same results, showing it isn't a one-off error.

And, once again, we can only detect C14 down to a certain level. That means that after about 8-9 half lives, our detection methods are not good enough to get reliable results. This is known and the reason why dates older than 50,000 years are not done via C14.

Wrong,
They are not C-14 dead.
So test all things supposedly over 6000 years old.
And the long dating of things has been proven false with the great errors in dating things that are known historical events.

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong,
They are not C-14 dead.

Give an example. If the amount of C14 is close to the smallest amount detectable by the instrument, then the age will be off.

So test all things supposedly over 6000 years old.

By some method, sure. But make sure the method is appropriate and interpreted correctly.

And the long dating of things has been proven false with the great errors in dating things that are known historical events.

Wrong. All that has been proven is that 'creation scientists' are either incompetent or lying.

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong,
They are not C-14 dead.
So test all things supposedly over 6000 years old.
And the long dating of things has been proven false with the great errors in dating things that are known historical events.

With *any* dating method, you need to understand how it works and why it works. That will mean you will also understand when it *doesn't* work.

With C14 dating, there are several things that need to be understood to use it correctly.

1. Living things usually get their carbon from the atmosphere, eventually. So, animals eat plants and those plants get their carbon from the atmosphere.

This means that for most living things, their concentration of C14 is the same as that of the atmosphere.

Are their exceptions? YES. Some deep sea shell fish get the carbon in their shells from carbonate rocks and not from the atmosphere.


2. When a living thing dies, it stops interchanging carbon with the atmosphere. After that, the C14 in their bodies decays.

This means that the date when that living thing died can be determined by the amount of C14 in their bodies compared to that in the atmosphere.

But this means that the C14 in those clams has *already decayed* and so will NOT give a correct date for those clams.


3. C14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when nitrogen atoms are hit by neutrons. This same basic process happens during atmospheric nuclear tests.

This is why anything younger than the 1950's won't give good dates via C14. The amount of C14 in the atmosphere has changed in a way that invalidates the method for such.

Are there other ways C14 can be made? YES. if there are nitrogen atoms in a radioactive rock that emits neutrons, there can be C14 made in that rock. This can give a larger amount of C14 than would be expected otherwise. NOTE: this would give an artificially *young* date. The real date would be older. This also means there is a very small amount of C14 that is present whenever a formerly living thing is near to radioactivity. This causes problems by giving a date that is too *young*.

4. The rate of production of C14 in the atmosphere changes over time.

This is a serious issue. it means that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere today is not the same as in the past, so things that died in the past started out with a different amount of C14 in their bodies. To get good dates means we have to take that into consideration.

This is why there are 'raw' C14 dates and 'calibrated' C14 dates. The calibrated dates have been cross referenced with items we know the ages of by some other method. This allows us to compute the amount of C14 in the atmosphere in the past and thereby use C14 for other things.

This is also why C14 dates can have fairly larger 'error bars', especially for certain time periods when the original C14 production was different.

Other dating methods do not have this issue, by the way.

5. Our instruments measuring the amount of C14 in a sample *today* are not perfectly accurate.

In essence, we try to determine the amount of C14 right now and the methods have some amount of (expected) error. The effect is that if the amount of C14 is high, the *percentage* error in the measurement is small. But if the actual amount is small enough, the *percentage* error can be high.

The effect of this is twofold:

A. the error bars for computed dates in younger samples will be smaller than for older one.

B. If the actual amount of C14 today is too small, we lose all ability to determine how much we really have (by the usual methods). This means that for small amounts of current C14, the method is useless.

in practice, this is why anything over about 50,000 years old cannot be dated by C14 with any reliability.

6. Contamination by modern C14 (in the atmosphere, on fingers, etc) is a real problem, especially for older samples.

An incompetent or a person that is not careful enough handling the samples can mean the dates produced are off (usually too young).

So, to use the method *correctly* means understanding these parameters.

So, if you want to claim the method is unreliable, you need to *first* give an example where it is used *correctly* (take into consideration all of the facts above) and *still* manages to give a date that is faulty.

And, by the way, other methods of radioactive dating do not have many of these issues. For example, uranium is NOT produced in the atmosphere, has a longer half life (meaning amounts today are easily measured), are not dependent on living things, etc.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

With *any* dating method, you need to understand how it works and why it works. That will mean you will also understand when it *doesn't* work.

With C14 dating, there are several things that need to be understood to use it correctly.

1. Living things usually get their carbon from the atmosphere, eventually. So, animals eat plants and those plants get their carbon from the atmosphere.

This means that for most living things, their concentration of C14 is the same as that of the atmosphere.

Are their exceptions? YES. Some deep sea shell fish get the carbon in their shells from carbonate rocks and not from the atmosphere.


2. When a living thing dies, it stops interchanging carbon with the atmosphere. After that, the C14 in their bodies decays.

This means that the date when that living thing died can be determined by the amount of C14 in their bodies compared to that in the atmosphere.

But this means that the C14 in those clams has *already decayed* and so will NOT give a correct date for those clams.


3. C14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when nitrogen atoms are hit by neutrons. This same basic process happens during atmospheric nuclear tests.

This is why anything younger than the 1950's won't give good dates via C14. The amount of C14 in the atmosphere has changed in a way that invalidates the method for such.

Are there other ways C14 can be made? YES. if there are nitrogen atoms in a radioactive rock that emits neutrons, there can be C14 made in that rock. This can give a larger amount of C14 than would be expected otherwise. NOTE: this would give an artificially *young* date. The real date would be older. This also means there is a very small amount of C14 that is present whenever a formerly living thing is near to radioactivity. This causes problems by giving a date that is too *young*.

4. The rate of production of C14 in the atmosphere changes over time.

This is a serious issue. it means that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere today is not the same as in the past, so things that died in the past started out with a different amount of C14 in their bodies. To get good dates means we have to take that into consideration.

This is why there are 'raw' C14 dates and 'calibrated' C14 dates. The calibrated dates have been cross referenced with items we know the ages of by some other method. This allows us to compute the amount of C14 in the atmosphere in the past and thereby use C14 for other things.

This is also why C14 dates can have fairly larger 'error bars', especially for certain time periods when the original C14 production was different.

Other dating methods do not have this issue, by the way.

5. Our instruments measuring the amount of C14 in a sample *today* are not perfectly accurate.

In essence, we try to determine the amount of C14 right now and the methods have some amount of (expected) error. The effect is that if the amount of C14 is high, the *percentage* error in the measurement is small. But if the actual amount is small enough, the *percentage* error can be high.

The effect of this is twofold:

A. the error bars for computed dates in younger samples will be smaller than for older one.

B. If the actual amount of C14 today is too small, we lose all ability to determine how much we really have (by the usual methods). This means that for small amounts of current C14, the method is useless.

in practice, this is why anything over about 50,000 years old cannot be dated by C14 with any reliability.

6. Contamination by modern C14 (in the atmosphere, on fingers, etc) is a real problem, especially for older samples.

An incompetent or a person that is not careful enough handling the samples can mean the dates produced are off (usually too young).

So, to use the method *correctly* means understanding these parameters.

So, if you want to claim the method is unreliable, you need to *first* give an example where it is used *correctly* (take into consideration all of the facts above) and *still* manages to give a date that is faulty.

And, by the way, other methods of radioactive dating do not have many of these issues. For example, uranium is NOT produced in the atmosphere, has a longer half life (meaning amounts today are easily measured), are not dependent on living things, etc.

But they prepared the samples correctly and the machines are calibrated with a standard no C-14 sample.
The counters are very good and can count individual C-14 atoms.
So the measurements are accurate.
All things that are supposedly over 6000 years old should be C-14 dated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But they prepared the samples correctly and the machines are calibrated with a standard no C-14 sample.
The counters are very good and can count individual C-14 atoms.
So the measurements are accurate.
All things that are supposedly over 6000 years old should be C-14 dated.

You have no way of knowing that since they did not follow proper protocol.

Here is what you do not seem to understand. Proper protocol includes providing all sorts of record showing exactly where they got their samples from. We do not have that. Second exactly how they harvested them and what steps were done to prevent contamination. We do not have a record of that. Next they had to properly inform the dating company of what they were dating. They did not do that. That is at least four major fails that I can think of. Each and every one of them makes the data worthless on its own. When you add all four together. What they claim has no more "oomph" behind it than if a five year old made those claims.

Show that they did all of those things (and you cannot do so because the testing company told us that when it came to alerting them that they never did so.

And even worse when we look at the evidence it does not match what we would see if all of those were "flood deposits". They should all be of the same date. They are not. And anyone one fossil should have all of its samples of the same date, and we do not see that either.

Your source is less than worthless.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

You have no way of knowing that since they did not follow proper protocol.

Here is what you do not seem to understand. Proper protocol includes providing all sorts of record showing exactly where they got their samples from. We do not have that. Second exactly how they harvested them and what steps were done to prevent contamination. We do not have a record of that. Next they had to properly inform the dating company of what they were dating. They did not do that. That is at least four major fails that I can think of. Each and every one of them makes the data worthless on its own. When you add all four together. What they claim has no more "oomph" behind it than if a five year old made those claims.

Show that they did all of those things (and you cannot do so because the testing company told us that when it came to alerting them that they never did so.

And even worse when we look at the evidence it does not match what we would see if all of those were "flood deposits". They should all be of the same date. They are not. And anyone one fossil should have all of its samples of the same date, and we do not see that either.

Your source is less than worthless.

No the flood stuff should not all be of the same date,
Marine vs terrestrial variations should occur as well as there are difference in southern vs northern hemisphere in the C-14 calibration curves used today.
And they did follow proper protocol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No the flood stuff should not all be of the same date,
Marine vs terrestrial variations should occur as well as there are difference in southern vs northern hemisphere in the C-14 calibration curves used today.
And they did follow proper protocol.

Waving your hands and spouting ignorant nonsense doesn't help you. You would have to show how and why that would make a difference. Even worse you would have to explain how the same dinosaur could have greatly different ages to their body.

As to following protocol, where are the links that show that they did that? You don't seem to understand peer review. Publishing everything one did to keep samples from being contaminated is part of protocol. If you can't provide the papers then you cannot honestly claim that they followed protocol. At best you can only say that you do not know.

Please post the links that tell exactly where each sample came from. Please provide papers showing how they prepared and shipped their samples. And please explain why the dating company claim that they were misled.

If you can't do this it is more than rational to conclude that they did not follow proper protocol.

 

[Polymath257]

B

Wrong,
They are not C-14 dead.
So test all things supposedly over 6000 years old.

What, precisely, would be the point of doing this if we *know* it cannot give reliable results for ages over 50,000 years?

And the long dating of things has been proven false with the great errors in dating things that are known historical events.

References with details, please.

 

[Polymath257]

No the flood stuff should not all be of the same date,

They should be the same age to within about a year according to the Biblical story.

Marine vs terrestrial variations should occur as well as there are difference in southern vs northern hemisphere in the C-14 calibration curves used today.
And they did follow proper protocol.

References, please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They should be the same age to within about a year according to the Biblical story.

Not only that, but when the samples from the same animal are dated at different facilities they should definitely be dated to within the margins of error of the other facilities. But we do not see that. Hadrosaur #1 has two dates differing by almost five and a half thousand years with a worst case margin of error of less than 600 years. All of their dinosaurs that were tested at more than one facility have ages that differ by amounts significantly greater than the possible error in dating. He does not appear to have an explanation for that at all.

Contamination does explain everything. contamination is not going to be uniform. Even within one fossil it is unlikely to be uniform. The dates are wrong for the biblical myth as well.

Here is the source that he has used for these dates:

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

 

[SavedByTheLord]

Not only that, but when the samples from the same animal are dated at different facilities they should definitely be dated to within the margins of error of the other facilities. But we do not see that. Hadrosaur #1 has two dates differing by almost five and a half thousand years with a worst case margin of error of less than 600 years. All of their dinosaurs that were tested at more than one facility have ages that differ by amounts significantly greater than the possible error in dating. He does not appear to have an explanation for that at all.

Contamination does explain everything. contamination is not going to be uniform. Even within one fossil it is unlikely to be uniform. The dates are wrong for the biblical myth as well.

Here is the source that he has used for these dates:

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

newgeology.us

Wrong.
There is going to be differences in the C-14 measured ages,
So, you do not understand that basic science that even your own guys accept.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wrong.
There is going to be differences in the C-14 measured ages,
So, you do not understand that basic science that even your own guys accept.

It would be nice if someone here who claims to agree with the accuracy of the dating techniques used by scientists could explain exactly and precisely how they are used. Instead of just saying, well they're the experts so they should know. Otherwise there really is no reasonable discussion as I see it. And then when someone provides what they think is evidence along with dates, they say exactly how the material was dated. I doubt that will happen though.

 

[Polymath257]

Wrong.
There is going to be differences in the C-14 measured ages,

Why would you expect that based on your model? How do you explain the results of other dating methods? Why are they so consistent with each other?

So, you do not understand that basic science that even your own guys accept.

Irony exists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong.
There is going to be differences in the C-14 measured ages,
So, you do not understand that basic science that even your own guys accept.

Prove it. Provide evidence for your claims using valid sources.

 

[Polymath257]

It would be nice if someone here who claims to agree with the accuracy of the dating techniques used by scientists could explain exactly and precisely how they are used. Instead of just saying, well they're the experts so they should know. Otherwise there really is no reasonable discussion as I see it. And then when someone provides what they think is evidence along with dates, they say exactly how the material was dated. I doubt that will happen though.

Well, there are many different dating methods. For example, the details of fission tracking dating will be different than the details of C14 dating. Also, different labs will have slightly different procedures, but will give results based on the processes they use.

All are limited to some extent by our technology and the cost. In general, more precision is more costly.

So, for example, it is impossible to count each atom of C14 in a macroscopic sample individually. That is simply beyond what we can do at this point. But we *can* do a chemical analysis and find that the amount of C14 in our atmosphere today is about one C14 atom for every 754 billion carbon atoms. For older samples, the number of C14 atoms left is even smaller. So we are looking at levels of parts per trillion or less.

In fact, for each 5700 years, the amount of C14 is cut in half. After 11400 years, it is cut into a quarter of the original, etc. The sheer difficulty of determining the number of C14 atoms is part of why dates over 50,000 years are unreliable.

The fact that the number of C14 atoms is so small in samples to be dated is one reason why contamination is so important to avoid: even a small amount of modern C14 can overwhelm the amount in a sample, giving a falsely young result.

Different labs will use slightly different procedures: use different cleaning techniques, different extraction techniques, etc. Each lab will then give results based on the methods they used along with error bars: how much uncertainty is there in the results. Recall that ALL measurements have some sort of error bars along with them.

Usually, a sample is sent to a lab. The collection of the sample is the responsibility of the researcher. After the sample is sent to the lab, it is the responsibility of the lab. The research papers will usually say which methods were used in sampling and often say which lab was used to get the results. You can then go to the lab to learn their specific procedures.

The reason there is not much discussion *today* is that this was all debated out long ago. So, for C14 dating, most of the work to learn the necessary processes was done in the 1950's. The discovery that concentrations in the atmosphere can vary was a bit later, with the standard calibration results done by the mid 1980's.

Frankly, I find is somewhat disingenuous for you to ask for details like this given that you aren't going to put the time and energy into learning what needs to be learned in order to understand them. If you consider the *basics* that all things are made of atoms and that radioactivity is a change in the nucleus,

 

[Subduction Zone]

It would be nice if someone here who claims to agree with the accuracy of the dating techniques used by scientists could explain exactly and precisely how they are used. Instead of just saying, well they're the experts so they should know. Otherwise there really is no reasonable discussion as I see it. And then when someone provides what they think is evidence along with dates, they say exactly how the material was dated. I doubt that will happen though.

There are rather strict protocols to follow for dating very old (at least in C-14 terms) objects. Since C14 is at it's highest levels in the air that we breathe right now one has to be very careful of contamination. Just a little C-14 from modern air will give fossil rocks an artificially young age.

As a result, especially if one is getting ages that totally contradict known results elsewhere one has to carefully document all of one's steps and show why the results are not from contamination. In the sciences one is often "Guilty until proven innocent". If one wants to make claims that are history changing one has to be able to show that every precaution was taken. And yet with the examples that @SavedByTheLord has given he cannot show that any of the precautions were followed. His inability to demonstrate that protocol was followed proves that protocol was not followed since a kay part of the protocol is to publish how one followed the rules.

If he cannot show that the rules were followed then he refutes his own claim.

Meanwhile if one looks at the results it looks exactly like what dates would be from contamination. There is no evidence of it being from his flood from only 5,000 years ago, at date that is well within the time frame of objects that have been dated in the past as shown by tree rings. By using overlapping tree ring dating we can date back over 13,000 years in the past:

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

Dendrochronology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So his claims about different amounts of C-14 are without merit as well.

Anyway back to his samples. If you follow the earlier links you will see a wide range of ages using C-14 dating. If they were from the flood they should all have the same date. And there definitely should not be different dates for single samples that we see again and again. But if the samples were in reality very very old, and the C-14 was from contamination those sorts of dates are exactly what we would expect to see. Especially if one dates the same specimen at three different labs, which apparently happened by their own records. Contamination by C-14 is unlikely to be uniform. His data does not match that of a flood that occurred a mere 5,000 years ago, it does match what one would expect to see if the results were from contamination.