|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
quote: False. Ridiculous. It is only because C14 exists today in a relationship with other things, that you offered it in the first place. How it is produced, where it comes from, how it interacts with other elements..etc etc. All of it depends on the forces and laws that exist..obviously. Since C14 is used for dating because it is radioactive in this case we need not look for parent daughter material. You still claim it exists as a result of...certain things. "The carbon-14 atoms that cosmic rays create combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which plants absorb naturally and incorporate into plant fibers by photosynthesis. Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon-14 as well. The ratio of normal carbon (carbon-12) to carbon-14 in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant. Maybe one in a trillion carbon atoms are carbon-14. The carbon-14 atoms are always decaying, but they are being replaced by new carbon-14 atoms at a constant rate. At this moment, your body has a certain percentage of carbon-14 atoms in it, and all living plants and animals have the same percentage. As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely." How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks As we can see, decay is assumed for the C14, and in fact is how the so called dates are derived. Same old one trick pony/religion. Now all you have to do is prove that the current nature existed along with decay in the unknown past! We tire of you merely assuming a present state/nature. What are you missing here?? As for solar cycles, forget about it. Yes we have cycles now. Whether they were identical in the unknown past is not known. You merely attribute the currently seen cycles to the unknown nature of the past also. Religion. Religion. Religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Your first point involves artifacts from Egypt having some C14 that has the same pattern of C14 as trees from the era. This is no surprise. Whatever caused patterns in trees ought to also show up in stuff made from trees! Ha.
This issue is what nature existed, which would determine what the C14 was doing at the time, how it came to exist...etc etc. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
?? If the forces and laws the govern atoms changed, praytell, how would some halo in a rock be exempt from changing also?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Of course decay is observed. That does not mean it was observed in Noah's day.
C14 is not good for dates except in this nature where we know it is a radioactive product behaving/relating to other elements a certain way. You may not simply assume nature was the same and date accordingly all based on what we now see happening. That is religion. Simply having some C14 present in tree rings does not tell us that the C14 was doing what it now does or radioactive etc etc. That would only be true as long as the nature we now observe was in place. By the way we do not need to nor would we be able to look at mechanisms of this current nature and try to use one /some of these to explain the different former nature. Edited by creation, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I would tend to agree that most likely furniture used by folks in very ancient Egypt not too long after the flood period would have been from that time. Even if the furniture was a few hundred years old, basically it was close enough so that we could think of it as from that time.
Now I also would assume that trees and furniture even would exist from the time around any change in nature. After all Noah and others lived right through it! The nature change would not affect how furniture looked. What would change is the forces and laws, so that after the change some things maybe became radioactive, and the ways atoms behaved and interacted would have been different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
You have no clue how things worked.
What would be done is not change what we now have. In any nature God deems to be in place there is order.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Many people place the flood somewhere around 4500 years ago. Noah observed no trees, so he stayed in the ark. Then a week later birds returned with evidence of a fresh tree. So he knew he could give the order to vacate the ark.
Noah observed men living a lot less years, because he lived centuries after the flood. If your dates are correct, he was alive when the furniture was made. We would not see any change in nature, because the nature we see is not what changed!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
This is getting to the point of ridiculous repetition. Please present something to support your fantasy of a same state past, otherwise there is no point in your argument worth considering. This is a scientific forum, so you need to provide evidence not religious belief. Really.
What the bible says about Noah, is a record of His life. It goes to evidence of what things were like in those days. Science doesn't know. In any discussion of creation, one must look not only at what science does not know, and cannot deal with, but also at what evidences mankind does have. As much as origin fable false science folks want to wave everything away to defend their empty religion, a science forum cannot just be about such willful religious ignorance. Your correlations are all belief based. As I said all dating always has to get down to radioactive decay dates. Your king lists and tree rings simply have no meaning for the far past unless nature was the same. You have shown you do not know or care and that you will blunder on, using your beliefs to model the past regardless. You wave off any possible change in nature because it does not fit with your naturedunnit dogma. That is not honest and open minded, that is actually insanity. All history and bible records must be waved away in your religion. No creator can be considered. 'There could never have been any change because...there is no God'. That is not science. All your correlations are explained easily as religious drivel. All are based on only one belief. No science, just belief. The jig is up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
I am one asking for evidence. Unless it is forthcoming we will have to admit that there is no proof for the basis of modeling the past used by science.
I do not know about the nature in the past, so I have no burden of proof either way. Those who claim it was the same do have a heavy burden of proof. I have pointed out that it is only a belief, and not known. Since I have my own beliefs, why would I exchange those for beliefs in some same nature in the past that contradicts the record of antiquity we have of that time in Scripture? You must show any claimed nature in the past to be true and totally bear the burden of proof. To try and avoid the issue by lamely insisting that anyone questioning your belief bears responsibility to prove they are wrong is dishonest and weak. The part of science that is belief based is the parts involving origin claims. So don't try to hide behind science as a whole.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Since what is described is impossible in this nature and a big change occurred, you are wrong. We have many details from before and after and they contrast starkly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
My observation is that your correlation claims are all based on one belief. I need no counter hypothesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Nothing to ignore so far except belief based claims. It is not evidence to claim something based on the belief something existed.
So we know radioactive decay existed because...? (hint: not because it now exists)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Tree rings. You try to use the present nature as the basis for how long trees took to grow. If you talk C14, again you use the present nature as the basis for what C14 is all about and it's function and place in nature. Etc etc. Nothing you say varies from this one belief. Ever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
Who said the flood was a change in nature?? No one. The changes came in the days of Peleg, well after the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
creation Member (Idle past 1942 days) Posts: 654 Joined: |
If you look at the life span changes, it is in the days of Peleg that we see the graph change.
If we look at Noah after the flood, trees still grew fast. If we look at science, we see that a migration from anywhere near the mountains of Ararat for animals doesn't seem to work...etc etc etc.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024