Best evidence for Creation

Wow: I have a scar over my right eye caused by a screen door swinging open in ~1950-1955 ... ... (faint)(cue apocalypse music)Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Welcome to the fray JungEinstein, love the name. So it's a matter of interpretation. Reality does not play favorites for science or religion. What has occurred in the past is fact, it is our understanding that may be incomplete, and an open minded skeptic will consider any reasonable concept as a tentative model with reservations. Not necessarily. The sun rises, the sun sets. Not all religions are at odds with science, just some beliefs. Agreed, no matter what those beliefs involve. The question left then is how do you test for the truth of the truth? Do you use the scientific method? What do you do outside the realm of science? Is there another method? If you have an interest in pursuing this question see Perceptions of RealityWhat is a "theorized belief"? In science a theory is a much more defined concept than general usage. In science a theory is based on evidence and logic, and it is critically developed to achieve two goals: (1) explain all the evidence known, and (2) make testable predictions. The theory is then tested to see if it stands up, and it is quickly discarded if invalidated by new evidence discovered either through the outcome of the predictions of found through other means. In science these theories are always held as tentative explanations, works in progress, always challenged by reality. It may not happen for some people, but that does not rule out the possibility for others. There are many scientists that are religious, from Ken Miller (catholic, biologist) to Robert Bakker (evangelical, paleontologist) to many others. And what you are willing to test against reality, what you are willing to see falsified.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hey wardog25, There are a number of specific ways that the various dating methods are known to give wrong results because of special circumstances. Scientists know this and identify these ways to prevent misuse of the dating methods. These are also published for general reference.The way carbon-14 works, for instance, is that solar radiation interacts with the 14N (stable) in the atmosphere converting it to 14C, which is radioactive, with a half-life of ~5730 years. This solar process keeps making 14C in the atmosphere, which is then constantly decaying, so there is a rough equilibrium level (rough because the solar activity keeps varying over long term cycles).How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorksWhat this means is that any organism that takes in air or carbon from the atmosphere is taking in 14C in the same proportion to 12C (the "normal" stable version) that is in the atmosphere, and when that organism dies, this replenishment of 14C ceases, and the relative level of 14C to 12C then is related to the decay of 14C in the dead organic material left behind.This is basically how 14C dating works. But there are instances where it is not appropriate: one such is where you have marine organisms that acquire carbon from another source, such as the sea (which has a different level of rough equilibrium between 14C and 12C than the atmosphere). Scientists call this the reservoir effect, and publish locations where various different starting 14C/12C ratios are found:Corrections to radiocarbon dates.

quote:

---

One of the most commonly referenced reservoir effects concerns the ocean. The average difference between a radiocarbon date of a terrestrial sample such as a tree, and a shell from the marine environment is about 400 radiocarbon years (see Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993). This apparent age of oceanic water is caused both by the delay in exchange rates between atmospheric CO2 and ocean bicarbonate, and the dilution effect caused by the mixing of surface waters with upwelled deep waters which are very old (Mangerud 1972). A reservoir correction must therefore be made to any conventional shell dates to account for this difference. Reservoir corrections for the world oceans can be found at the Marine Reservoir Correction Database, a searchable database online at Queen's University, Belfast and the University of Washington. Human bone may be a problematic medium for dating in some instances due to human consumption of fish, whose C14 label will reflect the ocean reservoir. In such a case, it is very difficult to ascertain the precise reservoir difference and hence apply a correction to the measured radiocarbon age.

​

Spurious radiocarbon dates caused by volcanic emanations of radiocarbon-depleted CO2 probably also come under the category of reservoir corrections. Plants which grow in the vicinity of active volcanic fumeroles will yield a radiocarbon age which is too old. Bruns et al. (1980) measured the radioactivity of modern plants growing near hot springs heated by volcanic rocks in western Germany and demonstrated a deficiency in radiocarbon of up to 1500 years through comparison with modern atmospheric radiocarbon levels.

---

Link in the original.Now, when a creationist presents evidence of erroneous 14C dates, and when you look at the information you see (a) they are dating marine organisms and (b) the dates are off by the known correction factor, but the creationist somehow fails to mention this fact (especially when they claim to be scientists with sufficient credentials to know better), what do you think their evidence really shows? Certainly it would be easy for a dishonest person to go to one of the posted sites, gather samples that he knows beforehand will wrong when calculated based on atmospheric 14C/12C ratios with no reservoir correction, and such a dishonest person can publish this false information on websites designed to fool gullible and ignorant (don't know better) people eh?I hope your references are not like that.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •