Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential Evidence for a Global Flood
Boof
Member (Idle past 246 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010


(3)
Message 196 of 320 (632147)
09-05-2011 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Just being real
08-31-2011 9:02 PM


Fossilisation
Just being real writes:
First I would point out how interesting I find it that most who reject a global flood, overlook the fact that fossils require an anoxic environment in which to even form.
Incorrect, although preservation can be enhanced in certain anoxic systems.
And that this type of environment usually only occurs in nature, in rapid sedimentary deposit situations
Incorrect again, anoxic environments occur in many depositional settings including some with very low rates of sedimentation.
...rapid sedimentary deposit situations. Which of course only occur in "flood" conditions
Incorrect again, there are many instances of high rates of sedimentary depostition which are unrelated to 'flooding'.
First three sentences of a 1000+ word post, each factually incorrect or at the very least highly misleading. Perhaps we should get the basics sorted out before we bother with the rest of your tome?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Just being real, posted 08-31-2011 9:02 PM Just being real has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 197 of 320 (632150)
09-06-2011 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Just being real
09-05-2011 11:00 PM


I would say that since coal beds and oil deposits have been shown not to require the millions of years of time originally thought needed to form, and that since the plant and animal debris needed to form them had to have been buried quickly, this in itself is a good indicator. Also as I said earlier, the polystrate fossils found in them are another good clue to the fact that they did not form slowly.
How many times do you need this explaining to you?
There is a difference between saying that something happened millions of years ago, and that it took millions of years to happen. These are two different claims.
For example, look at the rock in the image below. We know exactly how it formed, because people were there to watch. It formed over a hundred years ago. And each doublet (pair of black and white layers) took a day to form. Do you see the difference? Each layer was formed in one day and was formed a hundred years ago. These are different claims about the chronology of the rock.
When you say the layers in which "polystrate" fossils are embedded did not take millions of years to form, you are in complete agreement with geologists, who say exactly the same thing. How do you get from complete, utter, unreserved agreement that geologists are right to your belief in the global flood they all say didn't happen?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Just being real, posted 09-05-2011 11:00 PM Just being real has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(2)
Message 198 of 320 (632152)
09-06-2011 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by RAZD
09-05-2011 9:35 AM


Re: polystrate fossils
Thanks RAZD. That was interesting!
This "polystrate fossil evidence" for a "global flood" is a perfect example of how creationists go about to do their "science". It also is an excellent example of why the scientific community sees creationism as nothing but pseudo-science.
They tell lay people first that "geologists say that layers are deposited over millions of years". Their first step in deception on this subject. Geologists don't. Strata are deposited at different rates according to circumstances.
Then they even make up their own word, "polystrate", and pretend that it is a scientific word. Their second piece of deception. Make up sciency-sounding words to pretend that they do science.
Then they show pictures of "polystrate" fossils, and pretend that geologists can't explain this without a global flood. Their third piece of deception. It's already been successfully explained explained in the 1800's.
They then go on and tell people that "geologists ignore" these fossils. Their fourth piece of deception. Already been published in the 1800's.
Then go go and and tell people that it occurs wordwide and are such a threat to miners. Deception number 5. They aren't. They don't occur in the coal seams in my country.
An excellent example of how they go about: deception. Nothing else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 09-05-2011 9:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 199 of 320 (632154)
09-06-2011 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Just being real
09-05-2011 11:00 PM


Just being real writes:
I would say that since coal beds and oil deposits have been shown not to require the millions of years of time originally thought needed to form,....
It was originally thought that coal beds and oil deposits formed very quickly in a global flood. As we were able to study the evidence and found no evidence for such a flood, we realized that we were completely wrong. So, no, originally we thought coal beds and oil deposits formed quickly. We were wrong.
We've never been able to produce coal beds or oil deposits.
If you are referring to processes like the Fischer —Tropsch process, used in my country to produce, amongst others, a petroleum substitute, they are not oil deposits.
Never heard of a process in a lab to produce coal, though.
Those products we produce are neither coal beds nor oil deposits. They are substitutes for oil. Even the chemistry differs widely from naturally forming oil.
Just being real writes:
.. and that since the plant and animal debris needed to form them had to have been buried quickly,..
Why? We even have peat (the first stage of the coal forming process) accumulating now all over the world. We can see them forming right in front of our own very eyes. Those in my country are certainly are not buried quickly. They’re not buried at all. They just experience anaerobic conditions. All in nature. No global flood needed.
Just being real writes:
this in itself is a good indicator. Also as I said earlier, the polystrate fossils found in them are another good clue to the fact that they did not form slowly.
Ignoring the photos, what has already been said and references about "polystrate fossils", are you?
The polystrate trees forming today are not forming quickly, as in a global flood quickly. They do take from a few days to a few weeks to a year to lots of years, depending on the circumstances. Right in front of our very own eyes. No global flood involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Just being real, posted 09-05-2011 11:00 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 7:05 AM Pressie has replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 200 of 320 (632167)
09-06-2011 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Pressie
09-06-2011 1:23 AM


He didn’t even mention the word layers (I might be mistaken, could you direct me to the word layer in that article?)
Or you can go back to the article, press ctrl - F and find it yourself. My reference to the article was meant only to provide a basic understanding for Percy in the thinking of creationists as to how coal beds suggest a global flood. If you were expecting it to be a highly scientific peer reviewed composition then scratch and sniff here >>----> . <----<< because that's about how much I care about your expectations.
If you are referring to processes like the Fischer —Tropsch process, used in my country to produce, amongst others, a petroleum substitute, they are not oil deposits.
No actually I was referring to something much simpler. The carbon 14 testing of things that should not possess any carbon 14 (like coal), and finding very significant amounts. Which make it impossible for them to be more than 50 k years old. And regarding oil, yes I was referring to the artificial production of petroleum, not sure if mine is the process you mentioned or not (I'll have to look it up and get back with you), but a side note, I find it interesting that you so easily wave away the fact that artificially produced petroleum does in fact demonstrate that it does not require large amounts of time.
Look at it this way, a man is found covered in blood, holding a knife over the female body of a stabbing victim. Investigators discover the man has a substantial monetary motivation, as the dead woman was his estranged wife who was in the process of a nasty divorce with him. Witnesses heard the man threaten to kill the victim on numerous occasions. The man also has an arrest history for assaulting the victim on three occasions. The man claims he arrived to find her already stabbed and got the blood on him while trying to perform CPR. He also says he pulled the knife out of her and didn't stab her. However He is right handed and there is no blood in the palm of his right hand. Likewise there is no blood on the handle of the knife where his right hand palm print is found (the only prints found). The accumulation of the evidence points to the man as the murderer. However a defense attorney can dissect each and every one of those pieces of evidence presented, and find legitimate separate reasons for their existence. That's what he gets paid for. He is not at all motivated to find the truth. Only to defend his position.
Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart. Your welcome to explain away all of that like a good defense attorney, or you can at least be open minded enough to admit that it seems to implicates a very obvious culprit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 1:23 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-06-2011 7:19 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 204 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 7:36 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 205 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 7:43 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 210 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 9:20 AM Just being real has not replied

Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 201 of 320 (632168)
09-06-2011 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by Butterflytyrant
09-05-2011 11:51 PM


So the Wiki page itself is not a Creationist page. It just parrots Creationist statements and advises the readers that the information is typically only found in creationist publications.
No the Wikipedia article does not say that the fossils information are "only found in creationist publications" but just that the "term" polystrate is normally only found there. It was in fact a term coined in the late 60's by a Dutch geologist (a creationist-so what) named N.A. Rupke. There is nothing mystical or scary about the term. He coined the term by taking the word poly (meaning more than one) and joined it with the word strata, to form the word poly-strata (crossing through many strata) fossils. Nothing here to get your panties in a wad over. The fact of the matter the article clearly says the fossils are very common when you seemed to imply to the contrary.
quote:
Entire "fossil forests" of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata
I refuted that these fossils are "so common that they are often a real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines.".
Well perhaps the source that I got the information from is older and refers to mining practices long since improved upon. Yipee... your friends and family are safe. Let's move on past the trivia to something relevant okay.
I refute your claim that they are common.
Hey don't refute me refute Wikipedia when they say: "Entire fossil forests of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata."
I agree that Wikipedia is not reliable to use as scientific peer reviewed evidence, but in general definitions and explanations of terms, I have no problems with them at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-05-2011 11:51 PM Butterflytyrant has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Butterflytyrant, posted 09-06-2011 8:44 AM Just being real has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 202 of 320 (632171)
09-06-2011 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Just being real
09-06-2011 7:05 AM


Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart.
No they haven't. Stop making stuff up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 7:05 AM Just being real has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 203 of 320 (632173)
09-06-2011 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Just being real
09-05-2011 11:00 PM


Just being real writes:
I make no secret that I am riding on the shoulders of much greater men than I who have much more knowledge than I in those fields.
This is fine.
We all stand on the shoulders of someone.
But I would have expected these great men to have shown their working.
Where is their evidence?
Just being real writes:
Again Panda, it is a negative statement, and if you know it is false, all it would take is one example to demonstrate so.
If I was to claim that there is no life on Mars, then that would not be evidence.
Someone would have to go search for life on Mars before I could claim to have evidence of there being no life on Mars.
So, do you have any links to any research?
Or is it just a bare assertion?
Because so far you have not supplied any evidence.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Just being real, posted 09-05-2011 11:00 PM Just being real has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3712 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 204 of 320 (632174)
09-06-2011 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Just being real
09-06-2011 7:05 AM


JBR writes:
...but a side note, I find it interesting that you so easily wave away the fact that artificially produced petroleum does in fact demonstrate that it does not require large amounts of time.
Pressie writes:
Those products we produce are neither coal beds nor oil deposits. They are substitutes for oil. Even the chemistry differs widely from naturally forming oil.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 7:05 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 8:58 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(4)
Message 205 of 320 (632175)
09-06-2011 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Just being real
09-06-2011 7:05 AM


Just being real writes:
Or you can go back to the article, press ctrl - F and find it yourself.... and sniff here >>----> . <----<< because that's about how much I care about your expectations.
My, we're getting snarky, aren't we?
In message 181, you replied to Percy’s question in message 180 (RE-so coal beds are flood deposits?) as Yes, I believe most of the strata layers are. There’s absolutely no relation between the question you were asked and the answer you gave.
Just being real writes:
No actually I was referring to something much simpler. The carbon 14 testing of things that should not possess any carbon 14 (like coal), and finding very significant amounts. Which make it impossible for them to be more than 50 k years old.
Oh, were you? Why didn’t you mention it earlier, then? Nothing to do with strata layers at all.
Which scientist on earth would try to do carbon dating on coal beds? In the first place, rainwater percolates through coal beds which ensures that significant amounts of carbon 14 would always be present in any coal bed. Just go down any mine in my country, the coal beds are the most permeable strata in the sequence and look like rivers. it absorbes moisture like spunges. That’s why real scientists know not to even try to measure the carbon 14 in coal beds.
A second reason is that the C 14 method only works on organic material less than around 50 000 years old. No real scientist would be as unscientific as even attempt to determine the age of coal beds using the Carbon dating. You’ll never get an accurate answer.
(Hold press-apparently some creationist did. Another attempt at deception, I guess. We know that they don’t do science, anyway, so it’s another very good reason to just laugh at them!)
Just being real writes:
And regarding oil, yes I was referring to the artificial production of petroleum, not sure if mine is the process you mentioned or not (I'll have to look it up and get back with you), but a side note, I find it interesting that you so easily wave away the fact that artificially produced petroleum does in fact demonstrate that it does not require large amounts of time.
Artificially producing oil is not an oil deposit, as you claimed in message 194. It is oil made in labs or industrially. Not a deposit. Even the chemical composition varies considerably from natural-formed oil deposits. Do you actually know what a deposit is?
Just being real writes:
Look at it this way, a man is found covered in blood,. Only to defend his position.
Long story about a court case.. I don’t know what this has to do with a global flood.
Just being real writes:
Our clues are coal that we know formed from vegetation being covered "by something", and requiring a lot of pressure, and contains significant amounts of C14, and pulverized by hundreds of forests of pollystrate tree fossils that pierce through "strata" that have previously been identified by uniformitarian geologists as being millions of years apart.
You see, this is where your story falls apart. Nobody’s ever claimed that those strata are millions of years apart. That statement of yours is not the truth. Telling porkies about those strata won’t help your case at all. You continually repeating it also won’t turn that statement into the truth.
Just being real writes:
Your welcome to explain away all of that like a good defense attorney, or you can at least be open minded enough to admit that it seems to implicates a very obvious culprit.
If somebody is caught telling porkies in a court case, he is dismissed. Ecspecially if he keeps on repeating the same porkie over and over again.
Edited by Pressie, : Spelling!
Edited by Pressie, : Another spelling mistake
Edited by Pressie, : I had an extra not in there. It changed the sentence completely. Hopefully this was the last edit!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 7:05 AM Just being real has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by JonF, posted 09-06-2011 8:45 AM Pressie has replied

Butterflytyrant
Member (Idle past 4421 days)
Posts: 415
From: Australia
Joined: 06-28-2011


Message 206 of 320 (632183)
09-06-2011 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Just being real
09-06-2011 7:06 AM


What is your point?
JBR,
Ok, lets just forget about my comment regarding where the creationist term polystrate comes from. It makes no difference to the arguement. What you do need to do is provide some sources for your claims. So far, you have provided a wiki article that refutes your arguement by providing the standard scientific explanation for their existence. So you have provided no support for your claim that polystrate fossils are evidence for a global flood. So far, from your posts alone, this is the score -
Global flood - 0
no global flood - 1
Well perhaps the source that I got the information from is older and refers to mining practices long since improved upon. Yipee... your friends and family are safe. Let's move on past the trivia to something relevant okay.
I agree, I provided a large response to your claims and you have so far only been able to deal with the trivial. If you want to deal with something relevant, how about dealing with the issues I brought up in Message 186
my comment - I refute your claim that they are common.
your reply - Hey don't refute me refute Wikipedia when they say: "Entire fossil forests of such upright fossil tree trunks and stumps have been found worldwide, i.e. in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia, typically associated with coal-bearing strata."
I did refute wiki. And I explained why. Here it is again from Message 195
Also, be careful using wikipedia as your primary source of information. The quote you have provided is sourced. The title of the source claiming the fossils are found "in the Eastern United States, Eastern Canada, England, France, Germany, and Australia" is "Pennsylvanian fossil forests' in growth position" (http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/handle/10088/15971). The word Australia does not appear in the body of the document at all. There is no verification of this claim at all.
How about you check out the original reply and deal with the issues discussed there.
How about you discuss the global flood?

I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong
Butterfly, AKA, mallethead - Dawn Bertot
"Superstitions and nonsense from the past should not prevent us from making progress. If we hold ourselves back, we admit that our fears are more powerful than our abilities." Hunters of Dune Herbert & Anderson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 7:06 AM Just being real has not replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 207 of 320 (632184)
09-06-2011 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Pressie
09-06-2011 7:43 AM


Which scientist on earth would try to do carbon dating on coal beds? ...
(Hold press-apparently some creationist did. Another attempt at deception, I guess. We know that they don’t do science, anyway, so it’s another very good reason to just laugh at them!)
Yeah, the RATE (Radioisotopes And The Age of the Earth) group. They tested coal and diamond. The amounts they found were "above instrument background" but minuscule. They ignored the fact that 14C can be produced in situ (although we don't know if it was), and they played fast and loose with the meaning of "background". Bottom line: there's no good reason to believe that any coal or diamonds are young enough for their 14C "dates" to indicate their age.
See RATE’s Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination? (published by a Christian organization and written by a Christian, FWIW).
(Dr. Baumgardner tried to defend his results at another discussion board a few years ago. After a day or two of pointed questions he couldn't or wouldn't answer, he disappeared in a puff of Pascal's wager).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 7:43 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Pressie, posted 09-06-2011 9:06 AM JonF has not replied
 Message 211 by Coyote, posted 09-06-2011 9:21 AM JonF has not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 208 of 320 (632188)
09-06-2011 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by Panda
09-06-2011 7:36 AM


Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Panda, posted 09-06-2011 7:36 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Pressie
Member
Posts: 2103
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 209 of 320 (632190)
09-06-2011 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by JonF
09-06-2011 8:45 AM


Hey Panda, if they don't even attempt to publish their findings in scientific publications, how on earth is a scientist to know about that "research"?
Oh, don't mind. I know why. Trying to do an C14 age determination on a coal seam is so absolutely ridiculously stupid, they could only be published in cartoons, anyway. The pseudo sciences; all of them always the same. Clowns who don't tell the truth to to the ignorant. Deceive the lay people. That's it.
Sorry, it was JonF, not Panda I replied to.
Edited by Pressie, : Wrong name

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by JonF, posted 09-06-2011 8:45 AM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by RAZD, posted 09-06-2011 9:31 AM Pressie has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 210 of 320 (632192)
09-06-2011 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Just being real
09-06-2011 7:05 AM


carbon-14 dating issues
Hi Just being real, just a single point at a time eh?
No actually I was referring to something much simpler. The carbon 14 testing of things that should not possess any carbon 14 (like coal), and finding very significant amounts. Which make it impossible for them to be more than 50 k years old.
You need to provide your sources again. I think you will find that the levels are just above the measurable threshold, which is not a "very significant amount" IMHO (of course this being a subjective statement it could be to you -- more likely the author of the site you got this from used those words to impress you).
Do you understand how carbon-14 dating works?
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
quote:
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
How Carbon-14 is Made
Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.
Carbon-14 in Living 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.
How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
Dating a Fossil
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.
(see article for formula and sample calculation)
Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old.
(see article for more information if you are interested)
So the limit of detecting carbon-14 consumed by plants and animals that originally came from the atmosphere has a practical limit of 50 to 60 thousand years.
This is not the only source of carbon-14 however.
Carbon-14 is also found the graphite (carbon) rods used to control nuclear reactors, and can be formed from carbon-13 in natural nuclear reactions where they are near deposits of uranium.
There is a HIGH correlation of coal containing carbon-14 with deposits of uranium, while other deposits of coal with NO uranium do not have any measurable levels of carbon-14 -- meaning they must be older than 50-60k years and contradict the YEC earth age concepts.
Now if you want to discuss the validity of carbon-14 dating, that is off topic here, but there are several sites in this forum where you can go, read the current information there, and then provide your opinions:
Forum on Dates and Dating
Also see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for a general overview of the correlations of many dating methods that show the earth is older than any YEC concept.
I'll be happy to discuss carbon-14 and other dating mechanisms with you on any of these threads.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Just being real, posted 09-06-2011 7:05 AM Just being real has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024