Questions Creationists Never Answer-still waiting!

"I am disappointed that this topic that I posted was paid so little attention, so I'm going to try to revive it. this is a cut n paste:"
--Sorry Im trying to steer clear of getting involved in as many topics as I can, but since you want an answer so bad, here:"I have been involved in these on-line Creation/Evolution discussions for several years now, and there are some basic questions which I always ask of Creationists who claim that "Scientific Creationism" is scientific. I have yet to get any answers to them."
--Actually I explained some of them to you allready, and some numerous times, it seems you didn't see my explination as relevant, though without reason, or attempted to ignore."1)Define "kind".In other words, how do we tell one "kind" from another?"
--Baraminology I believe it is called is working on as accurate as we can get to 'exactly' what a kind would have been on the day of creation. We do have a very good Idea however what a kind is, as it is obvious in some, and not so obvious in others, for instance the cat kind, we know that lions and tigers can interbreed, and we know that wolves and domestic dogs can interbreed along with cyotes and dingo's, so they would be considered all kinds. We know that all those mosquito's are the same kind as there are about 5000 in that group, penguins are all the same kind, many birds can be related, the different verieties of parrots for instance, or all the bears, polar bears, brown bears, black bears, grizzly bears, panda bears etc, we know are one kind."2) If ALL of the various radiometric dating methods are wrong, then how is it that they are ALL wrong in such a way that they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another? (And we understand the conditions under which they give strange dates; i.e. they are predicted)"
--I would argue that the actual 'dates' are consistant, though the published dates, no doubt would be consistant, for one, who knows how many times they have to date the thing to get the date they want, and besides this is a quote I have from a debate with a university professor and a creationist from the AiG organisation, with no comment from the professor:

quote:

---

When you want a rock dated you have to 'Fill out a paper that says what strata you found it in, what fossils you found near it, and what age it should be. You send it into them and they date it, they get ranges all over the place.' Not consistent at all 'And then they go look it up in the little book about the information that you've given them and then they say, ok this information says that these dates in the book are the right ones and those are the dates they give you.'

---

Also from a peice of one of my earlier rebutal articles with many quotes:Here are some quotes from John Woodmorappe’s paper, Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised, Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(2)102-29, p. 147, September 1979, that indicate that radiometric dates are scattered, and that anomalies are often not reported: Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... (Waterhouse).In general, dates in the `correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained. (Mauger)... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous. (Curtis et al)... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age. (Armstrong and Besancon).In general, strong discordances can be expected among ages deduced by different methods. (Brown and Miller)A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as infinite.c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966)."3) Why do we never find flowering plants, including trees, grasses, etc., in the lower levels of the geologic column if all fossils were laid down in one Biblical Flood event?"
--Actually it is evident by pollen grains found in pre-cambrian strata that they were present before they even existed..

"This is pretty funny stuff, TC. Where did you get it? (Never mind just a rhetorical question, I think we all know) This is nonsense. "
--I found it funny too, laughed my head off . I would have expected a response such as 'this is nonsense' of course I would also postulate no reason for the assertion, as is infered every time."No one is "required" to give an estimated date. It is sometimes asked so that the proper method is used and that the instruments can be calibrated."
--But wait a second? I thought you said all the dates given are 'so consistant with each other', thus it should not make a difference if you use any method to date anything, because 'they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another' (your own words and your argument)."... (section snipped)"
--In other words 'No comment'."THis section is the best:"
--Its not too bad "And?"
--They are supposed to be the same age I believe."And? (Hey, do you think there might be a reason for this?)"
--Ofcourse...theres no detectable carbon left, which is what we should find in any dino bone or any of the such in early strata, but wait 'they are almost always remarkably consistent with one another' aren't they?"Some, sure. What is the problem with this?"
--It means the dates are drastically non-consistant, if another radiometric dating method gave a date of millions, carbon 14 levels should be undetectable."Hey, I've got some pretty primitive stuff living in my yard. This statement is completely meaningless."
--This means...the oceanic sediments and life they dated...isn't millions of years old according to C14 dating."C'mon, the Russkies are not that dumb. Anyone who uses radiocarbon methods to date Pennsylvanian coal needs to have his geology degree rescinded."
--So your agreeing that radiometric dating methods do not produce dates at all consistant with one another?"These have been debunked elsewhere."
--No you didn't this is what you have been saying all throughout my posts when I make reference, you discredit it automatically because of your pre-consieved idea, I have not seen a successful rebutal to them as of yet."You never did answer my question here as to if there is pollen, why do we have not branches, roots, leaves, flowers or bark in the Hakatai Shale. Why do they only show up in the end of the Phanerozoic (along with pollen)? Why is it that only one creationist study found these pollen grains? I thought you guys were big on repeatability...
"--Actualy much of your multi-million year old coal is composed of bark, and I beleive flowering plant vegetation. And there is multiple sources for these pollen grains, and I beleive some aren't even creationists.------------------

"Let me explain. If someone sends me a sample requesting a radiocarbon date, but they also think that the sample is in the area of 100 million years old, it means that they are misapplying a method."
--So you agree that all the dating methods are not consistant?"At the same time, if I am working with a sample that has a large amount of C14 in it, I might be able to treat it differently than if there is an extremely small amount to get more accurate or less expensive results."
--Is this about expenses or accuracy? If your argument revolves around consistant accurate dates claimed by the different radiometric dating methods, that means that if you date something with say the Potassium/Argon or Uranium232 (I'm not sure what the number was) and get ranges in the hundreds of millions or so, then that should easilly and is 'required' that Carbon14 should be near non-existant in your sample, is this not correct?"Actually, "I don't have time right now," but want to let people know that there is more in the original."
--I wish I could use this consistantly with my numerous posts that are directed towards me in areas! It sure would make revolving around the easier facts much easier, though I strive to present as thourough of an examination of all the relevant data (what isn't relevent is obvious whether you are a creationist or evoluitonist). But this is fine, its nice to keep things short (depending on the topic)."No. Some things are 50ky old others are 12 ky old. Some are less and some are more. I question your data, but that is immaterial. It is not necessary to have dates spread evenly across the possible range of carbon dates."
--It is necessary to give a relatively even date, instead of all over the chart, meaning if you find a fossil, and then find a fossil lying next to it, and they are 30,000 year diffence, that means that you have to preserve one of them for those 30,000 years without such decay, and a landslide is not acceptable for all these cases, as strata layering is consistant throughout both samples."If you have some conclusion, from your observation, then we could discuss it."
--What would you be making reference to, conclusion to what observation?"Usually we don't date dinosaur bones by radiocarbon methods."
--I can see why, they despise those young dates. If they didn't realise what kind of bone it was, and didn't know where its place of origin or strata it was found in (as you give them when you do want something dated) they would first assume that it would have been burried in the Quaternary Period. "There are more appropriate methods"
--You mean more 'accurate' methods? I thought they were all appropriate, as they would be if they all gave consistant dates wouldn't they."Do you understand what is going on here?"
--Its a conspiracy! (J/k) Just a severe missunderstanding."Radiocarbon methods are only used to maximum dates of about 35 to 50 thousand years. This has to do with the relatively short half-life of C14."
--This is exactly why when you date anything that is supposedly older than 50-70k years dated by another method or the fossil record/geologic column,(depending on who your talking to) then you should have an infinite date, ie, undetectable carbon or unmeasurable quantities of radioisotops of the nuclei in your sample."At some point we cannot measure the amount of C14 remaining in the material."
--Which is where it should be for something older than it is able to 'date'."So, indeed there would be lots of samples that date to infinity... if we didn't recognize them as greater than 50ky old."
--Yes there should be abundant samples of these quantities of radioisotopes of carbon 14, but as you saw only 3 of the 15,000 gave this 'date'."How do you know that oil and gas cannot be generated in less than 50ky?"
--I am very glad that you adhear to the problem of coal and gas being generated in these dates, as they should be many millions of years older, thus the strata above the coal/oil deposit, is younger..."Where do you get your information on this? (Never mind, I think I know)."
--This quote is one that, as I said when I gave it, was a quote I recorded from a debate with a Creationist I believe in the AiG organization and a university professor, Dr. Frankel.

quote:

---

When you want a rock dated you have to 'Fill out a paper that says what strata you found it in, what fossils you found near it, and what age it should be. You send it into them and they date it, they get ranges all over the place.' Not consistent at all 'And then they go look it up in the little book about the information that you've given them and then they say, ok this information says that these dates in the book are the right ones and those are the dates they give you.'

---

"How do you know that there is not some partitioning of the oil or gas by C14 content as it migrates? How do you know that C14 is not differentially partitioned into one or another phase of the crude oil?"
--For one, where is it going to migrate, espicially coal, as it is a solid material. So your argument is that, since these dates seem to be inaccurate, therefor they had to have been contaminated by partitioning of the rocks, interesting you bring this up as it is one of the assumptions involved in the various 'dating' methods."What do you mean by primitive?"
--Primitive as in early in the geologic column primitive."I'm sure there are primitive organisms being deposited on the ocean floor as we speak. This does little to refute radiometric dating or evolution."
--Key words 'deep ocean deposits', they werent just picked up off the ocean floor, technically I am not refuting evolution, I am refuting the mechenism that is given to support Evolution geologically speaking."Absolutely. Some rocks are old, some are young."
--Which means that the old rocks should get the old dates, and the young rocks should get the young dates."I wouldn't expect them to give the same radiometric date. If I used Carbon14 methods to date Carboniferous deposits I would be laughed out of the profession."
--You seem to be missing the point, if your going to date Carboniferous deposits and you get even the slightest ioda of measurable Carbon 14, you have a massive problem. If your statement is true, then it again should be taking a look at a little bit of bias found in anyone that would 'laugh you out of the profession' for getting a date as such."Radiocarbon dates CANNOT be done on material older than about 50,000 years."
--Then why can we get even measurable samples if they are eons older than 50,000 years?"It would be a gross misapplication of method. It would be like using a calendar to time the Kentucky Derby."
--Again, if your getting measurable quantities of RadioCarbon 14 in your sample, then obviously using logic, it is younger than 50,000 years. Using your analogy this is like getting yourself a date of 100 days for your Kentucky Derby, obviously histerically 'out of the ball park'."There have been rebuttals but they have been counter-rebutted with a dismayed denial."
--Makes no matter, I have still yet to see the rebutal itself, if it is 'counter rebutted' with an assetion that 'well its wrong' without reason, it doesnt' matter whether it is a creationist or evolutionist, it should be ignored unless an explination is presented."The real question is why has the experiment not been repeated by non-creationists (or possibly even by creationists for all I know)? If I was a creationist I would go right back out to the Grand Canyon and reproduce the work while having my protocols vetted by a third party."
--If I lived near the Grand canyon I would like to do this myself so that I could obtain it as an absolute in my mind that this is true, along with every other aspect of assertion as I obtain speculation on any source that claims anything drastically relevent. But the fact is that these have already been found, it would not be the smartest thing to go do the test all over again if a conclusion has already been met."That's an answer? I don't think anyone disputes this. Do you think maybe evolutionists didn't notice this?"
--Then why do they place the date of flowering plant Evolution at the Cretateous period when Coal formations are found in the Carboniferous? 230,000,000 years before they supposedly evolved."But all of those sources have bark, leaves, flowers, roots, etc. Where are the fossils of these in the Hakatai Shale? There must be an explanation why they show up in the late Mesozoic and Cenozoic (with pollen) but not in the Precambrian..."
--Being found in the same coal together, this would be expected from a Global Flood as thse formations were burried all at once, quicker than normal. Being burried in sedimental layers would be different however, as then factors of burrial would then be taken into consideration, from the time gymnosperms appear in sediments, to the time angiosperms appeard, could have consisted of days or less than weeks of time for burrial. By the way, I cannot find anything on a Hakatai Shale, where can I get information on this shale deposit."I really apologize for taking advantage of you on these issues."
--Really, you shouldn't talk this early in the discussion. "My point is that, scientists have thought of these things and accounted for them."
--So you agree that Dating methods are not consistant then, so far it seems to be the only conclusion that uses the slightest of logic."You cannot learn enough geology from reading a few websites to make sound points on a message board such as this."
--I would hold back the critisism untill conclusions are made, it would be unwize to do so."The application of radiocarbon methods to late Paleozoic coal is an example."
--Then you would agree, it is drastically flawed."Except by accident, no one but a creationist would do this. In fact, it expresses exactly why some labs will ask what the expected age of a sample is."
--You have it backwords, inaccurate conclusion on your part, as I have explained exactly why 'some labs will ask what the expected age of a sample is'.--Im glad we finally got that 'Kind' argument down untill further notice from Bariminological studies takes way.------------------

"And i dont believe that God would ever destroy the world to make a point and on that particular point,my position will remain as such unless God in person tells me otherwise."
--My point is that if there is measurable carbon still contained, it cannot be the assumed age, there is no way around this, and this is exactly his argument, that dating methods are consistant, when I have shown that they simply are not."Moose reply: Look - C14 dating is used for carbon bearing samples. The other dating methods are used for rock dating. TC, you're doing an apples and oranges comparison."
--This is not Apples and Oranges, his argument is that dating methods are consistant, the fact is they are not, and I have yet to receive an adiquate explination for this, and yes I am all ears, I am not ignorant of the truth and I am awaiting."Moose reply: If indeed in place, the fossils are of the same age."
--Then why are the dates so 'out of the ball park'?"Such a situation would call for a dating method other than C14, as the fossils contain no Carbon."
--This is the point, there is Still very measurable quantities of Carbon 14 radioisotopes in these samples. So is Carbon 14 dating inaccurate?"If you date volcanic ash beds below and above the fossils, it will give you a maximum and minimum age bracket for the fossils. (in saying this, I must admit I know nothing about the dating of the Carbon in Calcium Carbonate - maybe it can be done)."
--Fossils found in the same layering, especially with dating of Carbon 14, are these simply eroneous dates acceptable to be accurate. Because It dates to 50-70k years depending on who your talking to, you can't have even one or two half-life differnces here."Dinosaur bones don't contain carbon. And even if they did, the C14 would have been long decayed away."
--Exactly my point, they 'do' contain carbon 14 radioisotopes, and these measurable amounts are sometimes all over the place."Enough here - Bring your questions to the "Dating Methods Controversy Discussion" topic."
--Really, I don't have the questions, I am giving the answers. Also I don't know if that would be the best Idea currently, as we seem to be in the middle of a discussion on the GRF currently.------------------

"TC, you are apparently pulling these items out of the papers cited in message 6. Do you have online links to these? I would like to see those items in the context of the papers."The article was mine, more like a commentary of some sort, as I had little of my own text which I did not include with this quote from AiG which I cannot seem to be able to connect to right now, copy and past a peice of this quote into the AiG search and you should find the place I copied it from. Ofcourse this does not demean the relevance.

quote:

---

Here are some quotes from John Woodmorappe’s paper, Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised, Creation Research Society Quarterly 16(2)102-29, p. 147, September 1979, that indicate that radiometric dates are scattered, and that anomalies are often not reported: Improved laboratory techniques and improved constants have not reduced the scatter in recent years. Instead, the uncertainty grows as more and more data is accumulated ... (Waterhouse).

​

In general, dates in the `correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained. (Mauger)

​

... the thing to do is get a sequence of dates and throw out those that are vastly anomalous. (Curtis et al)

​

... it is usual to obtain a spectrum of discordant dates and to select the concentration of highest values as the correct age. (Armstrong and Besancon).

​

In general, strong discordances can be expected among ages deduced by different methods. (Brown and Miller)

​

A survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year 1969 in the publication, Radiocarbon, revealed the following significant facts:27 a. Of the dates of 9671 specimens of trees, animals, and man, only 1146 or about 12 percent have radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years.

​

b. Only three of the 15,000 reported ages are listed as infinite.

​

c. Some samples of coal, oil, and natural gas, all supposedly many millions of years old, have radiocarbon ages of less than 50,000 years.

​

d. Deep ocean deposits supposed to contain remains of the most primitive life forms are dated within 40,000 years.

​

Coal from Russia from the Pennsylvanian, supposedly 300 million years old, was dated at 1,680 years. (Radiocarbon, vol. 8, 1966).

---

"Also, please see this, if you havn't already:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html
--Ofcourse, Its probley one of only 2 papers that I get a link towards Radiometric dating in these forums.------------------

"(Sigh)No. I mean that I would use different methods to date different ages. Sort of like using a stopwatch or a calendar."
--My point is, that if your going to date something that is 100 million years old, and you happen to find measurable quantities of C14 radioisotopes still 'decaying' in your sample, then the calender is drastically and utterly flawed."Unless there has been contamination."
--I might understand contamination giving you less quantities of carbon, but not more, how will you contaminate with new radioactive C14?"Do you have a specific example that you'd like to discuss? This was not the point of the original post. You said that most C14 dates are less than some 12ky old as if that meant something."
--I already gave you one, 15,000 different samples."Never mind."
--Okedoky."Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with the half life of C14."
--What are you talking about? The Half life of radioactive elements,eg. C14, is the method of decay rate. They measured it in a laboratory for about 3 days and the Half life of C14 is about 5730 years, so dinosaur bones must contain an infinite age, unmeasurable quantities of radioisotopes, meaning there is a problem if you find this."No. I mean more appropriate."
--If you can sufficiently explain to me why there there are more appropriate dating methods that can't be falsified, I will drop my argument."For different ages and materials, yes."
--So the stuff we find that is millions of years old can't be any older than 50,000 years?"Infinite in the sense that the divisor is an unmeasurable number."
--Then why do we not find this?"As I said, "...if we didn't recognize them as being older than 50ky old." Then we use other methods to get a date. "
--So even though we find measurable quantities of C14 radioisotopes in your sample, this method of dating, is logially inaccurate, because the dates contredict greatly."For one, I only mentioned oil and gas, not coal."
--Please excuse me, but then you must also explain coals likewize outrageous dates."Second, we do know something about oil, gas and coal compared to biotite or pyroxene. Give us just a little bit of credit, okay?"
--I should hope anyone does, It would be hard to find coal bed deposits in igneous rock, being of magmatic origin."Good, then give us an example of a primitive organism being deposited on the ocean floor today. "
--Why should I if it makes no relevance to the discussion, I know that whether they lived millions or billions of years ago that there are organisms still living in the same state as they were in that time, whether deposited in the flood or the billions of years. Your problem is that we can get dates from radiocarbon in these samples."Good, then you realize that these deposits may not be related to modern depositon."
--Obviously, the problem is we can date these by Carbon14 analysis, as there should be none or unmeasurable quantities still existing there."Darn, caught in the act! Really we have no reason at all to assume that there are some old rocks and some young rocks! TC just exposed a centuries-old geology fraud."
--What are you talking about? The problem is that the Old rocks seem to be getting the young dates by C14 'dating'. I have yet to hear an explination.------Finish post later today, Don't give a response yet plz--------
------You werent suppost to reply yet! Oh Well ----Added By edit----"Again, do you have a specific example?"
--I gave you one, 15,000 dates that are suppost to be in the millions dated by C14."I really don't have much confindence that a sample of Pennsylvanian coal would have any original C14 left, though contamination is a very good possibility."
--For one, there is more than one coal deposit, so you must do this to all of them, second, how are you going to contaminate a deposit with new C14, I can see how you would get rid of it possibly, but adding C14? Mind you, this is also a radical assumption involved in every Radiometric dating technique, as you yourself admitted to just now."Perhaps this explains the preponderance of younger dates that you seem to think means something. Maybe the possibility of contamination gets higher as the ages get older. Couldn't be that, hunh?"
--If your going to rely on the thought of contamination for all of these samples, then it is logical to drop C14 dating, because it seems to happen, in deep sediments on the ocean floor, coal, natural gas, etc. How is it irrelevant that C14 is still present in 100+ million year old sediments? This is fundemental, and is evidence that either all the Dating methods are inaccurate, atleast C14 is totally and utterly wrong, and/or you must admit that the various radioisotope dating methods are consistant with one another."Contamination. In virtually every case I have seen creationists present here and elsewhere the chain of custody and preparation procedures were so suspect that they were laughable."
--Then rebuke the 15,000 dates, as you would need to do, they are extreamly unconsistant with the other dates proposed by even its own dating method."Do you know how easy it is to get C14 contamination?"
--How easy?"But your integrity has been questioned!"
--How so? I am simply admitting that science changes theories, If you can't accept this, you have no place in the discussion of theoretical applications in scientific inquireys, as is obvious."Don't you think that is reason enough to go out and reproduce the experiment?"
--No more than to go out and reproduce any other experiment ever done in the history of the scientific community."(Maybe this is a real differnce between creationists and scientists.)"
--You are eons from the point, and direct false implications of what I said towards creationists, as opposed to scientists. Whats to oppose, there is no difference from a creation scientist and a scientist, there is a difference from an evolutionist and a creationist."The only conclusion that the disinterested observer could make is that since the experiment is irreproducible it was erroneous."
--Who said it was irreducable? Evolutionist just grab their bellys, give a good chuckle and ignore it, as far as I have seen."And since the creationists have not attempted to reproduce it, they probably know."
--Just to let you know, there are multiple reproductions, it is just not going on as frequently as they would be looking elsewhere for other things to debunk or point towards their theory."Umm, TC? Those were not flowering plants...(sigh) Now, I am not a biologist, but to me the flowering plants are angiosperms. If I am wrong just substitute angiosperm for flowering..."
--...Flowering plants are angiosperms, you don't have to be a biological professor to know that, please forgive me if the use of 'flowering plant' was not up to your standard, I will use angiosperm as opposed to your gymnosperms, and yes there arent just gymnosperms in there."The Hakatai Shale is the alleged location of your bogus pollen grains. It is a Precambrian shale and the pollen grains found in it are identical to the local plant life of today. Think there's any difference in the ecological setting of the modern GC and the Hakatai Shale? Nah!"
--Excuse me? 'It is a Precambrian shale and the pollen grains found in it' You accept that there are pollen grains in there but do not think that it makes relevance?"Sure, that's exactly what I said. Try reading my posts again."
--I have, with the present information, I can't come to any other conclusion!"This is not criticism. It is a statement of fact. You are not the first and you will not be the last to try it."
--You attempted to make your assertion of my geologic resources were various internet sites, thus making me seem like I don't know what i am talking about, which is untrue, Earlier this year I had no more geologic knowledge than the average high schooler, though for a month or so, I have stuck my face in many books on geology and marine geology and various smaller books.
--Though the odd thing is, that even if those were my only resources, so far, I would be doing great in this topic, as I have not needed to stick my face in any information besides a geologic time line to know the dating of the carboniferous stratum!"Ah, good. Perhaps you will tell us how many radiometric dates you have conducted and we can compare notes on lab forms. Consider this a direct question."
--Im not sure if you have done lab work in radiometric dating techniques, but I havent, I freely admit, but why would I need to, as I have already presented valid information for you to comment on, and I have not yet received one that is substantially relevant to the discussion or of missunderstanding of the point.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]

"I don't quite know how to make this any simpler. Maybe this: When the C14 is gone, you need to use a different method. Like K-Ar."
--Your still missing or ignoring the point. You still have measurable C14 and the measurable quantity of radioisotopes, thus giving your date, contredicts K-Ar."So there is no C14 in the air? Skin? Smoke? Plastic? As the dates get older and older these tiny quantities become exceedingly important."
--This is not how you get C14 in your organism, C14 can only be present when it is contracted from the organism eating plant life, or eating something that ate plant life, when its dead, neither is it eating, or is it breathing."I asked for an example not a sample. I was talking about a specific analysis that you know of where you have a problem with the date."
--I have a problem with all 15,000 of those dates, why would they give such dates to multi million year old stratum and its consealents."Exaclty. That is why we do not use radiocarbon dates for dinosaur bones."
--Then why are we finding any C14 existing in them at all?"If we did we would have a bunch of "infinite" dates."
--Which is my point, your not getting your infinite dates."I'm sure its been done, perhaps by mistake, but never reported."
--Not just dinosaur bones, but I just gave you 15,000 and their results, not their direct results but their porportional summary."I just did this above. Beyond a certain age the C14 is immeasureable."
--Exactly your problem, it is measurable."Then we go to a different method. There are numerous techniques. It seems that you think radiocarbon is the only one."
--I am aware of many, C14 just being the most knowledgable, I believe 7 or so, they don't seem to be consistant with C14 do they?"If you measured it by radiocarbon. If you used other methods, you could get older dates."
--So they arent consistant."It would be the opposite problem of creationists measuring the age of historic volcanic eruptions using K-Ar techniques. It just doesn't make sense. I know you don't understand this so why don't you look up some references on radiometric dating?"
--You can't measure lava flows with K-Ar with my knowledge on the subject, I know you know why. I know enough about radiometric dating to make this argument feasable."Make that an unmeasureably LOW number."
--Unmeasurably low quantity of radioisotopes, yes."First, not many people make this mistake. Second the results are not reported because they make no sense and the researcher is emabarrased at using an inappropriate method."
--So then why do you continually say that the dating methods are consistant when they do not give consistant dates."But we don't, unless there has been contamination."
--Relying on the arument of contamination is greatly flawed, and no, not all 15,000 of those dates are flawed by contamination."Okay, the lighter C12 favors the more mobile components such as coal gas and escapes. But then why am I explaining something that you have not verified actually happens?"
--I think I know what your trying to say, but I think something I am not understanding from your grammer usage. "coal gas"?"Once again, you make an unsupported assertion. Please give us specifics on such samples."
--I just gave you an sample, or should I say example, 15,000 of them, with only 3 infinite dates, ie, unmeasurable)."I would be glad to address any particular study, but you have given me nothing but vague assertions that data exists."
--I just gave you 15,000 of them."Most likely it is contamination."
--Really, if you don't assume it was contamination, then your whole theory as a whole, or your various 'dating' methods are stuck in a rut."Sorry, done before I saw this. I have however, posted elsewhere a response to your assertions about pollen in the Hakatai Shale. Before you answer anything else, do you understand that there are numerous radiometric methods to obtain dates on rocks?"
--Yes I am well aware that there are many, as I have addressed through the forums numerous times before, I am showing you why C14 is either inconsistant with all the other dating methods, or they all are contredicting.------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]

"I'm not sure you're getting Edges point regarding usefulness of C14 dating as time goes on. The problem is, that unlike other radiometric dating methods, that have isotopes in the millions & billions of years. The amount of carbon 14 very quickly reaches amounts that are so small, that getting a reliable c14 count is not conducive to accurate results. SO THEY DON'T DO IT."
--Then we must maintain an explination why we find that these quickly decaying radioisotopes are still in measurable quantities when they should have 'decayed' millions of years ago."Lets assume 5730 years * 10 half lives = 57,300 years in total"
--I am well aware."Lets assume an arbitrary value of 1,000 to the starting c14 amount. Now half that 10 times. The figure you're looking at is 0.98 ! Less than 0.1% of the amount you started with. This is one reason why they don't go beyond 50,000 years for c14 dating."
--Then why does it still exist in rocks many times older than 50,000 years, and in measurable quantities?"Also, let's assume in the two samples, they are contaminated with 1 unit of c14. In the 1,000 scenario, it has become 1,001 units, ie an error of 0.1%. In the 0.98 scenario, the value is now 1.98, over 100% error. This is another reason why they don't go over 50,000 years. The potential for introduced errors compoud as the sample gets older."
--What is the mechenism for C14 contamination to a non-living organism?------------------

Origins are the only thing that Creationist use the supernatural, obviously because of our belief, creation-science does not deal with origins, as it already has its answer, we are just waiting for yours, the big bang for instance, we know next to nothing about it, the only thing we can do is assert and make conjectors or postulates, further reducing its validity is we can only postulate to the first 10 -43 seconds of the big bang, we are left with the problem of what happend before that, what were the initial conditions, ie the origin of the matter to, therefore bring about your reaction according to physical laws in the expance of space of zero.
--I for one see that the origin of life as even more eroneous than the origin of matter and the big bang, as we know even less than next to nothing on it happening out of any chance mechenism.-------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 01-30-2002]

"There is no potential reason why abiogenesis, big bang etc. are not natural, so please give reasons, given so much is unknown about abiogenesis & the big bang, why it is a reasonable inference to invoke the supernatural, above the highly observed natural mechanistic "framework"? What logic allows this?"
--Number one being because abiogenesis is simply eroneous in my logic, because there simply is no mechenism known to man that can bring about anything that would produce life that reproduces itself and carry's on natural processes to stablize it for further development. The Big Bang being eroneous to me, not as much as abiogenesis but in my opinion, i falt in logic when taken as an accepted theory. We are eons from contemplating a mechenism for both these concepts, second, I simply invoke the supernatural God as my accurrate book tells me, created the heavens and the earth, this is my creationist faith. Its not that I am fighting toward abiogenesis or the Big Bang being natural or not, its that you have to have alot more faith than I do to believe in either one in fully natural processes.-------------------

"Perhaps Truecreation is missing a fundamental point here. C14 is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of solar radiation with CO2. The C14 thus formed gets incorporated in the organic cycles just like normal C12. Therefore it will accumulate in living organisms up to an equilibrium concentration. However, if the living organism stops metabolising (dies) and is isolated from any source of C14 (say by burial) then the amount of C14(and proportion of C14 to C12) is fixed and C14 starts to undergo radioactive decay."
--I have always been aware of this as is evident if you were to read through my responses, there simply are 2 problems that I am obviously showing still await an explination in this forum."This is why contamination is such an important issue. The atmosphere and all organic material contain new C14. If this is absorbed by the material which is to be carbon dated then it will appear as though it has much more C14 than expected and will give a false young age. And if you are trying to date something which is 40,000 years old, the remaining C14 which you are measuring is in minute concentrations. Therefore even minor contamination make a proportionately large error."
--So what is the mechenism for this absorbtion of new C14 radioisotopes? This is the first problem."I understand that fossils of say 65 million years should have undergone complete mineralisation and all carbon should be replaced. Therefore any carbon, whether C12 or C14, would be expected to be contamination."
--Yes I understand this, so the second problem is, what are you going to do when you find something this old or even older with dates of 12,500 - 50,000 supposed years by C14 dating?------------------

"125 years ago,there was no mechanism known to man that could allow them to explore the depth of the ocean of walk on the moon and yet,Jules Verne had allready dreamed of these concepts. Just because we cant explain abiogenesis TODAY does not mean we wont be tomorrow..."
--If this is your argument, then it isn't to be argued against either way, I would be to point this out, and to believe in a natural process that is unconceivable requires a little more faith than I have. The thing is about abiogenesis atleast is that thousands have attempted to bring about life in a test tube, per se, I do believe that if the rapture doesn't happen before then, we will make life, but my speculation is that it will be eroneously complex and still inconceivable towards natural processes."As for your "accurate" book,thats a matter of opinion and i'm afraid that despite pretense to the contrary,yours is very much clouded on the subject."
--All attempts to discredit it have simply failed, even in your own various arguments requiring interperetation of the bible, as it is obvious, discussion on this subject is no problem if you desire it, i do not see it as an opinion because it isn't an opinionated assertion, it is factually based with my current knowledge, and if anyone would like to inform me otherwize, you can attempt.-------------------

"It has been falsified repeatadly but you just refuse to see it and try to twist the words into another meaning."
--If its falsification is depicted on your arguments, it is in extreamly good contition, and I do in no way twist words into another meaning, as is human nature to understand what it says, If I tell you something of the sort of 'Put your heart into it' say if you were a computer, you would say...hm... well I better pump faster or something, as taking it literally. But a human would obviously say, hey I need to be more simpthetic or more of an emotion or something. The way a computer would read it and a person is completely different, you seem to be a computer reading it."I have allready explained to you how it is easily falsified in another thread...you have yet to reply."
--Actually you have yet to give an explination out of logic and not opinion, if I have missed anything, show me what it is and I will get right on it ------------------

"Gladly....lust comming from the heart? well guess what? It neithers comes from the heart NOR from the soul. Lustfull thoughts and feelings are a direct result of hormonal secretion in the brain in reaction to either an outside stimuli (beautifull naked woman) or an inside stimuli (memory of a beautifull naked woman). It is a natural built in mechanism of the human body whose purpose is the facilitation of procreation."
--Tell me then, is your personality or character, part of your physical makeup? Ie, possibly a chemical secretion in the brain, triggering your physical feeling.------------------

"Precisely...and thats documented evidence...you dont need to look for a soul to understand feelings...its all a chemical reaction in the brain. Same as memories. And thats not my opinion...thats documented science."
--Great then we have no contrediction, This is what is the soul, as is depicted in the bible, I believe the soul isn't what is spiritual, its your spirit, the secretion of chemical serotonin in the brain, would trigger this emotion, thus your personality varies on this, thus your heart.------------------