Why do people deny or have various doubts about God?

[Sonofason]

Living beings exchange carbon with the environment while they are alive, and therefore their ratio of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon is pretty much identical to that of the open environment.

Dead bodies, however, have no metabolism and end up trapping their carbon without exchanging it any more. Their C14 begins to decay without being substituted with random molecules from the outside, and therefore measuring its rate gives a good estimate of how long it was since the body died.



If by "young" you mean "with typical ration of radioactive to non-radioactive carbon", it is because it is taken from the general environment.

Carbon-14 has a half-life of over 5700 years, so its decay is only significative when it is trapped inside an organism (due to its death) for at least a century or so.




Sorry, what do you mean?





It is indeed because it was contained in the bones and therefore not flowing and mixing with random carbon.

Once trapped in the body, it will decay like any other, halving the amount of radioactive carbon molecules every 5730 years or so. The more ancient the body, the less radioactive carbon remains in proportion to the non-radioactive carbon.

The carbon does decay when the body was alive as well, but the cells and their carbon are constantly replaced, thereby limiting the overall decay. Even if the organism for some reason has little cell renewal, it is still built and grown out of environmental food that will have typical ratios of C14, and a half life of 5730 years means that there is little decay during the lifetime of any organism.




It would take a miracle for random carbon molecules to simply happen to have an unusually low amount of C14 while they are taken to form bones of any given organism (I assume that by "old" C14 you mean decayed C14, which is just less C14 and more non-radioactive carbon).

But Atmospheric carbon isotope ratios are not constant throughout time. Over the past 100 years, atmospheric carbon isotope ratios have become depleted by about 1.5‰. Various environmental changes can affect this ratio. And I am quite certain diet affect this ratio as well. How are we determining what these individuals were eating? How do these archaeologists know they are adjusting their findings accordingly?
Bone Chemistry

 

[LuisDantas]

You would have to seek an specialist to know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure they thought of those questions already.

 

[McBell]

The only thing that I deny is having seen any convincing evidence. Just produce some convincing evidence.

I have no interest in providing you with even more to deny, ignore, and or arbitrarily dismiss.

Which is exactly what you have done this whole thread.

 

[McBell]

Liars will say that I have dismissed evidence. The truth may be that I don't understand it. But you are clearly not patient enough to explain it. That's quite all right. It's utterly unimportant anyhow.

Personal attacks?

The fact is you have dismissed every bit of evidence presented to you.

I agree it is unimportant to provide you with evidence.
You will flat out deny it is even evidence.
Just as you have this whole thread.


One wonders what your god thinks of such dishonesty?

 

[McBell]

I don't care if you think I have double standards. It's been quite some time since I've thought that you had anything intelligent to offer in this debate. Come to think of it, you never have. So I'm not going to start worrying about whether or not you think I have a double standard. You are among the least of my concerns.

You have thoroughly demonstrated your double standards.
So it is not a matter of what I think, it is a matter of what you have put out there for the world to see.

Your arbitrary dismissal of that which you dislike has already been duly noted.

Since it is your credibility that is taking the hits...

 

[Ouroboros]

Dead bodies, however, have no metabolism and end up trapping their carbon without exchanging it any more. Their C14 begins to decay without being substituted with random molecules from the outside, and therefore measuring its rate gives a good estimate of how long it was since the body died.

Also, we can tell from the amount of stable C12, since the starting ration is something like 1.5 to C14 (if I understand it right). And then we can also see the amount of N14 from the C14 decay. All of them put together can give a fairly decent estimate of the starting amount. (If I remember it right.)

 

[Ouroboros]

You would have to seek an specialist to know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure they thought of those questions already.

See my other post. If I remember right, amount of N14 and ratio to C12 helps to establish the starting mole.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

How do we know the carbon deposited with the bones is young when it is deposited with the bones? Or is it carbon that was in the bones already when it was deposited? And how do we know the age of the carbon if it was contained within the bones when it was deposited?

Because the decay rate doesn't begin until death of the animal. We can test this right now by looking at live tissue. There is no carbon decay. We can look at it shortly after death. Carbon decay begins. Then we can look at an even older specimen that has been dead far far longer and find that its decay is even further along. And the great thing is that the clock ticks at a constant rate despite its surroundings. There are different methods in which we can use to measure them and that is why you need independent verification.

The great thing is that every time we have ever used the method correctly to date an object of known origin....we get the correct answer.

 

[metis]

But Atmospheric carbon isotope ratios are not constant throughout time. Over the past 100 years, atmospheric carbon isotope ratios have become depleted by about 1.5‰. Various environmental changes can affect this ratio. And I am quite certain diet affect this ratio as well. How are we determining what these individuals were eating? How do these archaeologists know they are adjusting their findings accordingly?
Bone Chemistry

Because C-14 levels somewhat vary from year to year and location to location, tree rings are used to make the necessary adjustments. This is "old information" that I learned way back when doing my undergraduate work, and I'm fairly confident that there's been adjustments and maybe even new ways to determine these levels. As anthropologists, this isn't our area of expertise, so we farm it out to bio-chemists and others that specialize in this area.

 

[Sapiens]

Because C-14 levels somewhat vary from year to year and location to location, tree rings are used to make the necessary adjustments. This is "old information" that I learned way back when doing my undergraduate work, and I'm fairly confident that there's been adjustments and maybe even new ways to determine these levels. As anthropologists, this isn't our area of expertise, so we farm it out to bio-chemists and others that specialize in this area.

The creationists farm it out to quacks and liars who willful misunderstand the process to protect their mythologies.

 

[Ouroboros]

The creationists farm it out to quacks and liars who willful misunderstand the process to protect their mythologies.

LOL! I was going to make the same comment.

Those lying evil-utionists conspiring all over, in all sciences and government. They've even infiltrated the lines of the True Believers(tm) and converted the holy people away from dogmatic literalism. How sad that finally rationality, reason, and truth is overtaking blind obedience to ancient literature.



If I remember right, there are some 50 different methods to date the samples. And in most cases, they 3 or more of these methods to double up on the accuracy and support of the date. And the funny thing is that they tend to agree quite well. C14 matches tree rings, which matches chemical methods, and so on. It's like the whole universe is trying to fool us into believing that C14 is accurate!

 

[metis]

The creationists farm it out to quacks and liars who willful misunderstand the process to protect their mythologies.

I wish you were wrong but I've seen enough evidence over the many years to believe that you are correct.

 

[Sonofason]

You would have to seek an specialist to know the specifics, but I'm pretty sure they thought of those questions already.

And you see, that is where the trouble lies. You say that someone knows the truth, yet you yourself don't know the truth. You believe the claim of someone you think should know the truth. But you don't know if in fact they do know the truth. Yet you want me to believe you, that the sun predates the earth, because you think, due to some claims that you saw, that someone knows the truth.

I personally prefer evidence.

It means nothing to me, whether or not the sun predates the earth or not. I really don't care if it does. But I'm not going to believe it does, until I am convinced that it does. And I'm not going to be convinced that it does until I see convincing evidence that it does. And that I have not seen. And because it is so meaningless to me, as to whether or not I see such convincing evidence, I'm not about to go wasting my time researching this. If you have the evidence, and you want me to know this supposed truth, then you have to show me the evidence that will convince me. Otherwise, I'm content not knowing.

 

[Sonofason]

I have no interest in providing you with even more to deny, ignore, and or arbitrarily dismiss.

Which is exactly what you have done this whole thread.

That is a perfect and expected response from you.

 

[Sonofason]

Personal attacks?

The fact is you have dismissed every bit of evidence presented to you.

I agree it is unimportant to provide you with evidence.
You will flat out deny it is even evidence.
Just as you have this whole thread.


One wonders what your god thinks of such dishonesty?

What exactly do you consider evidence to be?

 

[Sonofason]

You have thoroughly demonstrated your double standards.
So it is not a matter of what I think, it is a matter of what you have put out there for the world to see.

Your arbitrary dismissal of that which you dislike has already been duly noted.

Since it is your credibility that is taking the hits...

I believe it's only fair, that when you direct accusations towards someone, that you back them up. At least present the double standard which you claim I have demonstrated, and I will prove to you and "the world" that you are once again wrong.

Any reasonable person will see that my credibility has been maintained.

 

[Sonofason]

Also, we can tell from the amount of stable C12, since the starting ration is something like 1.5 to C14 (if I understand it right). And then we can also see the amount of N14 from the C14 decay. All of them put together can give a fairly decent estimate of the starting amount. (If I remember it right.)

"Radiocarbon samples which obtain their carbon from a different source (or reservoir) than atmospheric carbon may yield what is termed apparent ages. A shellfish alive today in a lake within a limestone catchment, for instance, will yield a radiocarbon date which is excessively old. The reason for this anomaly is that the limestone, which is weathered and dissolved into bicarbonate, has no radioactive carbon. Thus, it dilutes the activity of the lake meaning that the radioactivity is depleted in comparison to 14C activity elsewhere. The lake, in this case, has a different radiocarbon reservoir than that of the majority of the radiocarbon in the biosphere and therefore an accurate radiocarbon age requires that a correction be made to account for it."
Corrections to radiocarbon dates.

Corrections need to be made or fabricated to get appropriate results. The question is, what are the desired results?

 

[Sonofason]

Because C-14 levels somewhat vary from year to year and location to location, tree rings are used to make the necessary adjustments. This is "old information" that I learned way back when doing my undergraduate work, and I'm fairly confident that there's been adjustments and maybe even new ways to determine these levels. As anthropologists, this isn't our area of expertise, so we farm it out to bio-chemists and others that specialize in this area.

At least you have faith in someone.

 

[LuisDantas]

And you see, that is where the trouble lies. You say that someone knows the truth, yet you yourself don't know the truth. You believe the claim of someone you think should know the truth. But you don't know if in fact they do know the truth. Yet you want me to believe you, that the sun predates the earth, because you think, due to some claims that you saw, that someone knows the truth.

I personally prefer evidence.

It means nothing to me, whether or not the sun predates the earth or not. I really don't care if it does. But I'm not going to believe it does, until I am convinced that it does. And I'm not going to be convinced that it does until I see convincing evidence that it does. And that I have not seen. And because it is so meaningless to me, as to whether or not I see such convincing evidence, I'm not about to go wasting my time researching this. If you have the evidence, and you want me to know this supposed truth, then you have to show me the evidence that will convince me. Otherwise, I'm content not knowing.

You may get a degree in biology if you want. But presenting your lack of one as even passive evidence that "evolution isn't true" just won't cut it.

At the end of the day, stubborn denial is just stubborn denial.

 

[metis]

At least you have faith in someone.

Yes, and some use their religion as a set of blinders, but some others use it as a source of enlightenment.