Re-Problems With The Big Bang Theory

You don't have the first clue about radiocarbon (C14) dating. It appears you have obtained all of your information from creationist websites, and on this subject they spin a horrible number of absolute falsehoods designed to make the unwary accept their belief in a young earth.First, C14 starts decaying the minute it is formed; its half life is 5,730 years, so after that length of time half the C14 in a once-living organism has decayed. The upper limit of the method runs from about 35,000 to 60,000 years depending on the laboratory equipment. A couple of labs are experimenting with 80,000 years, but that is not yet perfected.Second, fossils are not dated using C14 dating! For fossils you need some of the other forms of radiometric dating. And they are not processed in the same laboratories that do C14 dating. I have read some of the studies you are (sort of) referring to. They are phonies. When you get to 50,000 years, at the upper limit of the radiocarbon method, the tiniest amount of contamination starts to overwhelm the real C14, and the real signal gets lost in the background. It is those effects that some creationists are using to find C14 in coal, diamonds, and other materials that are millions of years old. They then make a big deal of those materials being much younger than they are supposed to be. Its phony, and a misuse of the radiocarbon technique. If that's the best science the creationists can do they should just give up. (And don't even bother bringing up the RATE Project! What a joke!) You should do some research, and not on those silly creationist websites. You have swallowed a lot of falsehoods.If you have some real questions about radiometric dating, just ask them. There are a couple of folks here who are pretty familiar with the method and I (doing archaeology) have submitted nearly 600 samples myself, as well as lectured and written on the archaeological aspects of the method.But please don't try to pass of that creationist nonsense as factual because a number of us here know something about the radiocarbon technique, while you apparently do not.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Ok how are the fossils dated surely not by the sediment that buried them. what a joke, etc... Surely you see its a young earth bud! If they don't date the fossil directly then they did not date the fossil. Hovind one of the great scientific minds of our day said its circular dating when your not actually dating the fossil yet ascribe an age to the fossil, etc...If your saying the fossil is old because of indicator fossils you swallowed a whale, etc...P.S. No scientific evidence the earth is not only 6,000 to 13,000 years old. The sediments will all date old because their atomic clocks were wound up before the earth was created. Even if a moon rock dates a billion years old it means nothing as to when the moon itself was created the age of the rock too has no meaning as to the age of the rock though they will say its billions of years of age, etc...I mean really you wind your watch takes 10 seconds and it takes two days for it to unwind does not mean the watch is two days old 10 seconds after you wound the watch, etc...If you had evidence of cold fusion happening within the earth but sadly for the evolutionist no evidence the elements were created within the earth only elements unwinding (decaying).Is the big bang responsible for the creation of more complex elements, stars or cosmic rays however once the elements came together to form the earth they can only decay. The sediment particle prevents cold fusion within the earth from happening. So a young earth since the big bang just fits the facts. Why swallow a whale when its just not possible to date a fossil directly from the sediments unless your trying to spread falsehoods, etc...Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

Going to close this one down.Adminnemooseus