The "101 evidences" includes the usual nonsense, refuted over and over but which keeps coming back.
#51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
This is a standard creationist claim supposedly supporting a young earth. It is found in many of the creationist essays purporting to refute radiocarbon dating. The full claim is generally seen as follows:
Coal from Russia from the “Pennsylvanian,” supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966) Source
This claim has been completely demolished here. It seems that Ken Ham, Andrew Snelling and Carl Weiland, in The Answers Book, got fooled by a radiocarbon date and a poor translation from the Russian where "coal" was used in place of "charcoal." The entire context of the date clearly describes a recent archaeological sample:
Mo-334. River Naryn, Kirgizia — 1680 ± 170. A.D. 270
Coal from the cultural layer on the left side of the r. Naryn (Kirgizian SSR), 3 km E of the mouth of the r. Alabuga (41° 25′ N Lat, 74° 40′ E Long). The sample was found at a depth of 7.6 m in the form of scattered coals in a loamy rock in deposits of a 26-m terrace. According to the archaeological estimations the sample dates from the 5 to 7th centuries A.D. The sample was found by K. V. Kurdyumov (Moscow State Univ.) in 1962. Comment: the find serves as a verification of archaeological data on the peopling of the Tien Shan (Radiocarbon, Vol. 8(1), p. 319).
What this shows is just shorthand or sloppy translation from the Russian! The "coal" is actually charcoal from an archaeological deposit. In the journal Radiocarbon, this sample is included in the section of the report dealing with archaeological samples, and the paragraph discusses archaeological data.
This odd use "coal" is also found in another archaeological date in the same article, Mo-353. It reads “Charcoal from cultural deposits of a fisher site. The coal was coll. from subturfic humified loam…” (p. 315).
But the term “coal” in place of “charcoal” was enough to fool Ham, Snelling and Wieland and other creationists who apparently are so eager to find 300 million year old coal radiocarbon dated to recent times and demolish radiocarbon dating that they just continually repeat this incorrect claim without bothering to check its accuracy. And the "300 million years" and "Pennsylvanian?" Those terms seem to have been made up from nothing, as they are used nowhere in the Radiocarbon article.
So much for one of the "101 evidences."
Anyone want to have fun with some of the others?
Edited by Coyote, : Revised
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
quote:The data for “mitochondrial Eve” are consistent with a common origin of all humans several thousand years ago.
In fact, mitochandrial eve lived 170.000 years ago. A bit longer then I think they want to say the earth is old.
quote:Living fossils—jellyfish, graptolites, coelacanth, stromatolites, Wollemi pine and hundreds more. That many hundreds of species could remain so unchanged, for even up to billions of years in the case of stromatolites, speaks against the millions and billions of years being real.
How so? Just because an organism is so well adopted to its environment that it doesn't change in appearance, doesn't mean the earth is young. Furthermore, today's species are VERY different from those found in the fossil record.
So it's been eons since I've checked back at this site. I just thought I'd make a little pit-stop and see what's up? I thought perhaps maybe there might be that rare possibility that some atheists/evolutionists on this site have graduated from their confusion and finally have come to a sense of realization that there is a God of creation? and that the earth was created in literal 6 days? That evolution is a fairy-tale, and that it never happened? That science proves creation and not evolution?
Hmm...just wondered. If so, that would be really, really nice. :D If none of you have woken up to reality, and are still left in the Dark Ages of Atheism that brought are the fruits of the French Revolution, that I honestly feel sorry for you people.
Blessings, and I hope to hear some good news someday that you atheists have come out of your little hole and have seen the light of day. :)
I thought perhaps maybe there might be that rare possibility that some atheists/evolutionists on this site have graduated from their confusion and finally have come to a sense of realization that there is a God of creation?
Actually, I for one have converted since last time. Before I was an atheist. But since then, I have been converted and believe in God. I am now filled with joy being a born again. I praise my Savior every day. I talk to Him everyday. And I tell people about my new found Faith every chance I get.
Now that my eyes are open, I pray everyday for my Savior to open the eyes of those who still reject Him. I often wonder how people could continue to go about their lives so blindly that they cannot see the wonders of creation. Even I turned my back to the sinful path of atheism and accepted Him as my savior, and we all know what a hard-core atheist I used to be. People need to realize that in order for them to be saved, they need to accept Prometheus into their lives and accept Him as their personal savior. It was Prometheus who gave man fire and brought him out of darkness. He paid dearly for this one act of pure love.
So, I say to you brothers and sisters, turn away from your sinful ways and accept Prometheus into your lives. Turn back now before it's too late. Stop worshipping false idols and relics like the cross. Only Prometheus could show you the one true path to enlightenment.
quote:Gibbons, A. 1998. Calibrating the mitochondrial clock. Science 279: 28-29.
Ingman, M., H. Kaessmann, S. Pääbo and U. Gyllensten. 2000. Mitochondrial genome variation and the origin of modern humans. Nature 408: 708-713.
Kaessmann, H., F. Heissig, A. von Haeseler and S. Pääbo. 1999. DNA sequence variation in a non-coding region of low recombination on the human X chromosome. Nature Genetics 22: 78-81.
Loewe, L. and S. Scherer. 1997. Mitochondrial Eve: the plot thickens. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 12(11): 422-423
You see, Parsons studied the control region of the mitochondria which comprises less than 7% of the total. When the entire mitochondria was taken into account, the age of the most recent common ancestor was placed at about 171,500 +/- 50,000 years ago.
Studies of the non-recombining portion of the X chromosome placed the ancestor at about 535,000 +/- 119,000 years ago. However, since the number of X chromosomes is effectively 3 times that of the mitochondria, the most recent common X chromosome ancestor should be about three times that of the mitochondrial eve. Surprise! Surprise! That turns out to be the case.
The reason I linked to the Parsons paper is that it's probably the origin of the myth that Hunter replied to. It happened to come up with that magic number "6,500". This caused a lot of creationists to have orgasms.
But even at that time there were other papers on the control region with much lower figures, as you can see here:
Actually, since you were last here, I have converted - from Christianity, to Atheism.
I just thought I'd make a little pit-stop and see what's up? I thought perhaps maybe there might be that rare possibility that some atheists/evolutionists on this site have graduated from their confusion and finally have come to a sense of realization that there is a God of creation? and that the earth was created in literal 6 days? That evolution is a fairy-tale, and that it never happened? That science proves creation and not evolution?
I am not confused. A lack of belief in god(s) does not imply confusion, simply a lack of credulity. There is no evidence of the existence of any deity, and so I have no reason to have confidence that one or more of them actually exist. If you consider such a state to be one of "confusion," then you must certainly classify yourself as "confused" as to the existence of Santa Claus, fairies, and the Smurfs.
The sum total of scientific evidence points very clearly to a very old Earth; a universe and planet that formed over billions of years, not a matter of days. Every fossil we find, every new extant species, upholds the predictions of the Theory of Evolution - that no feature on any living thing is completely unique, but is rather a slightly modified version of the same feature from a pre-existing living thing; that the order and distribution of fossils in the geological record clearly points to descent with modification rather than spontaneous Creation; and that living populations even now continue to change over generations in response to changes in their environment through the processes of mutation and natural selection (as well as genetic drift, etc).
Conversely, your Bible has proven to be rather indistinct from the mass of other mythological collections, representing an attempt to explain the world by people who had no way of investigating its mysteries. It is a poorly translated, self-contradictory collection of fairy tales whose extraordinary claims (6-day Creation, a global Flood, the existence of a deity, or of a "soul," etc) are supported by absolutely no objective evidence.
Your "light" consists of self-delusion and denial of reality. I feel sorry for you, trapped as you are in a prison of your own gullibility, forced by your inability to objectively examine reality and critically analyze the claims of others to cling to a stone-age myth and to hold up ignorance as knowledge. As a former Christian who was once in the same mental prison, I sincerely hope that eventually you will realize that faith, defined as a belief held without evidence, is no better at representing reality than random chance.