It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

DEBATE Evolution vs Creation. Come on in!

page: 13
5
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


Please provide source links or it didn't happen.

Thanks.




posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 

The firmament your uncited source -- again, please learn how to post links to your sources, or at least make reference to where you found them instead of posting screen shots -- describes bears no resemblance to the "ice canopy" you've been making claims about.

reply to post by supergravity
 

More claims, not evidence. Do you know the difference between making a claim and providing evidence for that claim yet?

reply to post by supergravity
 

Now you're trying to claim that quantum foam is the firmament is the "ice canopy"?

Further, you have science profoundly backwards -- it is not up to me to disprove your canopy hypothesis, it is up to you to provide evidence supporting your canopy hypothesis. Something you have utterly failed to do for any of your claims. Please remember that what is asserted without evidence may be rejected without evidence.

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?



posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

I was searching my organic computers mass of experiences and memory sets of science reports and remember the hyperbolic chamber .This is definitive EVEDENCE that the human body was designed for a higher pressure and more oxygen content,and it heals many diseases faster than our present atmosphere.
NOW WE MUST PAY FOR an artificial canopy . .info from wikipedia.
I think the evidence will show all other animals and plants would have benefited from said protective radiation absorbing, and refraction and would have grown much larger than today.
People on this post tried to say the pressure would raise the temp of earth to a boiling point, as you can see this is wrong.
Science is not absolute, they measured light speed and said that is a constant so we will use it to reference everything.Light can be slowed to 38 miles per hour in the lab ,so it most certainly is not a constant ,nor is any thing else. it is all relative and.......VARIABLE.








posted on Jun, 18 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


I was searching my organic computers mass of experiences and memory sets of science reports and remember the hyperbolic chamber .

Yes, your chamber is quite hyperbolic.


This is definitive EVEDENCE that the human body was designed for a higher pressure and more oxygen content,and it heals many diseases faster than our present atmosphere.
NOW WE MUST PAY FOR an artificial canopy . .info from wikipedia.
I think the evidence will show all other animals and plants would have benefited from said protective radiation absorbing, and refraction and would have grown much larger than today.
People on this post tried to say the pressure would raise the temp of earth to a boiling point, as you can see this is wrong.

Hyperbaric chambers operated for medical use operate at 2 - 3 atmospheres of pressure. Go back and calculate what the atmospheric pressure would have been under your canopy. Big difference. Further, hyperbaric treatments typically last two hours, not including the pressurization and depressurization times. Equating individual treatments over a short period of time at a relatively low pressure to living a lifetime under high pressures is hardly "definitive EVEDENCE". Keep trying.


Science is not absolute,

Who ever claimed it was?


they measured light speed and said that is a constant so we will use it to reference everything.Light can be slowed to 38 miles per hour in the lab ,so it most certainly is not a constant ,nor is any thing else. it is all relative and.......VARIABLE.

Common misconception -- no one is claiming that the speed of light is a constant. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. The scientific fact that the speed of light passing through a medium (e.g. air, glass, water, Bose-Einstein condensates, etc.) is slower than the speed of light in a vacuum and is related to refractive index of that medium. This is something that has only been know for a couple of hundred years now, so I'm glad that you're up on the most current of scientific research. The fact that speed of light in a medium isn't a constant isn't in violation of the laws of physics (unless you have some evidence that it is?), but rather part of the laws of physics.

You still don't seem to be able to answer any of these...

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


So you disagree with known science , the fact that under higher pressure and oxygen the human condition operates more efficiently and heals quicker and can reverse MANY diseases.
You should contact wikipedia and inform them that they should change the facts to fit your opinion.
So you agree with me that science is not absolute, good we are getting somewhere.
So you agree that light is not a constant and we don't live in a vacuum, good

The ice canopy could have been much thinner than 1 mile thick making the pressure around 3to 4 atmospheres of today's pressure.Plus remember earths rotating inertia would pull on the canopy outward and could have achieved equilibrium with gravity and if geosynchronous would be perfectly balanced.
Dont take me wrong, I do appreciate your constructive criticism , but you are wrong on the canopy.



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


So you disagree with known science ,

Please show me which "known science" I'm disagreeing with?


the fact that under higher pressure and oxygen the human condition operates more efficiently and heals quicker and can reverse MANY diseases.

Hyperbaric treatments are for relatively short periods of time and under much less pressure than you describe when elucidating your "ice canopy". If you had bothered to conduct more than a cursory glance of the sources you're attempting to cite in support of your argument, you'd see that there have been studies done evaluating the deleterious effects of hyperbaric therapy. Yes, it's a relatively safe treatment, but there are several side effects that have been shown to occur at much higher rates as a result. It's simply a matter of the side effects being relatively benign when compared to what hyperbaric therapy is used to treat.


You should contact wikipedia and inform them that they should change the facts to fit your opinion.

Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia that anyone can make changes to. That's why you should read the sources that are cited in Wikipedia articles you're going to use as support for your arguments. The sources that Wikipedia article cites say nothing about the effects of increased pressure of the magnitude and duration you're describing in your "ice canopy" hypothesis.


So you agree with me that science is not absolute, good we are getting somewhere.

I was already there. Can you provide examples of where someone has claimed that science is absolute? Or did you just assume that what's everyone else thought and you were the sole voice of reason?


So you agree that light is not a constant and we don't live in a vacuum, good

See above.


The ice canopy could have been much thinner than 1 mile thick making the pressure around 3to 4 atmospheres of today's pressure.Plus remember earths rotating inertia would pull on the canopy outward and could have achieved equilibrium with gravity and if geosynchronous would be perfectly balanced.
Dont take me wrong, I do appreciate your constructive criticism , but you are wrong on the canopy.

Sorry, but changing your claims to "could have been much thinner" still isn't providing evidence for the existence of an ice canopy. Keep trying...

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 

As you can see , I was right.
Insects preserved in amber have twice the atmosphere in them, blood takes on more oxygen, everything you tried to say was not true is true.
Why didn't you know all of this......or did you?
Is this really a debate or stifle contest?
What are your motives against proof of the canopy, do you hate god that much?
Its ok to ADMIT you were wrong.





posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by supergravity
reply to post by iterationzero
 

As you can see , I was right.
Insects preserved in amber have twice the atmosphere in them, blood takes on more oxygen, everything you tried to say was not true is true.
Why didn't you know all of this......or did you?
Is this really a debate or stifle contest?
What are your motives against proof of the canopy, do you hate god that much?
Its ok to ADMIT you were wrong.


You do realize that creatures EVOLVED to the conditions on earth at the time. If you tried to use cloning to create a dinosaur in today's atmosphere, it WOULD NOT survive. Likewise, if you put a human back in the dinosaur era he/she would not survive.

Why are you still not posting your source links? Pictures of websites ARE NOT sources nor are they valid forms of evidence. If you want them to be considered, you need to post the website address. You haven't proven a single thing yet or shown valid evidence of ANYTHING. Ice canopy is beyond debunked and a picture of somebody's post on a forum does NOT show otherwise.

Ice Canopy 'theory' holds no water


^Hovind ice canopy debunk on youtube, if you prefer to not read websites.


Creationist arguments that should never be used

^This is a creationist site, and it talks about all the disinfo and nonsense that is put out there to make creationists look bad. It covers ice canopy, thermodynamics, mammoths being "flash frozen", etc etc. Pretty much every claim you have made is no longer even supported by creationists. They have it split up between arguments that should never be used, and arguments that should rarely be used. Should I tell you to read that and weep as you have suggested to others in your arrogance?

www.icr.org...

Here's another known creationist site that allegedly experimented with the ice canopy hypothesis and determined that it was only plausible if it was 1 meter thick, which is only 10% of the water required for a global flood.

Besides if you believe in an all powerful god, why would you even need a ridiculous vapor canopy above the earth? Can't god just snap his fingers and make it rain really hard? For a creationist, you sure like to limit the power of your god. The canopy theory is absurd and has been debunked over and over. It's just you trying to justify your worldview as fact when it doesn't come close. Why the need to invent a crazy hypothesis about an ice canopy, when you can just say "god made it rain"?

And please drop the cocky attitude. For somebody that acts like they know for a fact that they are correct, you haven't posted any evidence whatsoever. You can't prove or disprove god. If you want to believe I have no problem with that, but by taking ancient scriptures as absolute literal truth you are placing your faith in MAN, not god. God works just fine without a silly ice canopy hypothesis.

Also guess what happened 12,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age? Massive flood and drastic weather patterns. Global flood is silly, it was clearly localized flooding, but to the people living there, it seems like the world because it was their world.
edit on 20-6-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


As you can see , I was right.

All I see are out of context screenshots of websites that you apparently don't know how to source.


Insects preserved in amber have twice the atmosphere in them, blood takes on more oxygen, everything you tried to say was not true is true.

Provide a source. All I see is a screenshot of a forum post with no citation. Do you still not understand how to present evidence?


Why didn't you know all of this......or did you?

Know what? That you cite claims as evidence for your claims? I did. You've been doing it since you started posting. I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence to support any of your claims, which I'll reiterate at the end of this post.


Is this really a debate or stifle contest?

If your definition of a debate is claiming things without evidence, then it obviously is a debate. If, like most people, you believe that you should present evidence for your claims, then you have utterly failed to do so and we haven't even reached the stage of this being a debate. You have presented nothing that I can stifle, because that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


What are your motives against proof of the canopy,

I have no motives against "proof" of your "ice canopy" hypothesis because you have presented zero evidence to support it. Even mainstream creationists say is an invalid argument. So you certainly haven't "proven" the existence of your "ice canopy". If you really understood science you'd understand what a meaningless word "proof" is in the context of scientific inquiry


do you hate god that much?

Typical retreat of a Biblical literalist who cannot provide evidence in support of their version of events. "You don't agree with my interpretation of the Bible, therefore you must hate God and your arguments are invalid."


Its ok to ADMIT you were wrong.

Heed your own advice. Or present evidence that you are right...

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


All earthly living systems operate better under higher pressure and more oxygen.
Preserved Samples of the atmosphere from thousands of years ago are 100% higher pressure than today.
In my opinion some type of canopy existed, no I dont have a photo of it, no I cant prove it.We can only put the pieces of information together the best we can.

After seeing a gun fired at a target, One could make the argument I did not see the bullet come out of the barrel so there was not one. But using the next best thing ,the hole in the target, and the percussion one can solve formulas even with missing evidence.

I did not want to come across as arrogant, I just strongly believe there are things that have happened to this earth and the scriptures have a lot of info about the past that seem unbelievable to us today because it was a very different place than today.
My home town was wiped off the map in the 80s by the chemicals known as dioxin , that was were I taught myself electroncs and many scientific expironments.
It was called TIMES BEACH .MO
It is in wicapedia as an acident but I found out later it was done intentional, The chemical poisioning has afected me in many diferent ways but sorry if I seem arogant.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


No... it's more like your painting a bulls eye around the bullet hole.

If you have no objective manner of differentiating fantasy from reality, why arbitrarily have faith in this particular magical fairy tale, but not any other magical fairy tale from other religions?

For instance the Greeks and Romans believed the sky was made of crystal. The Egyptians believed it to be made of iron and the Babylonians believed it was forged by Marduk from the hardest metal.

This is why the Hebrew's normally translated it as "firmament" means something that was beaten or hammered out, this concept shows up in Job and Isaiah as well.
It begs the question, what happened to the sky seeing how it's still around after the flood?

The bible is not a historical document, it simply reflects the current cosmological ideas and language of the time.
It's completely dishonest to take these ancient ignorant ideas, and pretend it somehow describes a magical floating ice layer that would have made earth something like venus.

Besides the obvious violations of physical laws, according to Wikipeda, CSC and Answers in Genesis do not support this idea anymore. It seems silly to discuss it. It's only supergravity who is raising this dead issue, the early indications suggest we are dealing with a loon.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I don't know why people constantly debate whether a hypothesis (creation) is more correct than a theory (evolution). That's the first inequality.

Secondly... evolution can explain how things are, but it can't explain what was the beginning, or what was before the beginning. It never will... it's an observation for diversity.. and it's still true, but it does not explain everything.

What creationism does is it gives the believer the knowledge one would need to accept the beginning, which there is no real physical evidence besides existing as part of it anyways.



I just think people need to stop debating between, and start linking the similarities and common knowledge.. THATS when we'll get somewhere!



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


All earthly living systems operate better under higher pressure and more oxygen.

Yeah, except for those pesky anaerobic bacteria. Do you have evidence that everything else does?


Preserved Samples of the atmosphere from thousands of years ago are 100% higher pressure than today.

The only evidence you've posted that even suggests anything like this was in one of your uncited sources, which stated that the partial pressure of oxygen found in insects trapped in amber was higher than in animals today. If you don't understand enough science to know that a higher partial pressure of oxygen isn't the same thing as atmospheric pressure and that a higher partial pressure of oxygen just means that there was more oxygen on a relative basis at that time, then you should educate yourself further on the evidence you're trying to present in support of your argument. I don't think you'll find any scientist that will argue that there was not more oxygen on a relative basis than there is today. This still isn't evidence of an ice canopy, just that our atmosphere has changed in composition over time.


In my opinion some type of canopy existed, no I dont have a photo of it, no I cant prove it.We can only put the pieces of information together the best we can.

So you admit that you have no evidence to support your canopy hypothesis?


After seeing a gun fired at a target, One could make the argument I did not see the bullet come out of the barrel so there was not one. But using the next best thing ,the hole in the target, and the percussion one can solve formulas even with missing evidence.

We've seen other guns fired. Have we seen another ice canopy to know what the effects of it would be?


I did not want to come across as arrogant, I just strongly believe there are things that have happened to this earth and the scriptures have a lot of info about the past that seem unbelievable to us today because it was a very different place than today.
My home town was wiped off the map in the 80s by the chemicals known as dioxin , that was were I taught myself electroncs and many scientific expironments.
It was called TIMES BEACH .MO
It is in wicapedia as an acident but I found out later it was done intentional, The chemical poisioning has afected me in many diferent ways but sorry if I seem arogant.

Your arrogance has nothing to do with you stating your beliefs. It has to do with you stating your beliefs as fact in the complete absence of evidence in support of them.

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?

Or am I just hatin' on teh Godz again?



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
www.essortment.com/...-flaws-carbon-dating-7009058.htmlreply to post by flyingfish
 


So Cristains are now loons........So I guess I am to respond and call you names to?


LOON ....People on this thread that think we come from the planet of the apes.

GOONS........Naive people that give each other STARS on this Thread that think carbon dating is infallible and repeat scientific lies to fit their belief system and falsely believe the earth is millions of years old.

This is from new york times
edit on 25-6-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)


edit on 25-6-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-6-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


You are using article from 1990. And from your article, that is comparing thorium-uranium dating vs. carbon dating they state:


but uranium-thorium dating may be possible for objects up to half a million years old, Dr. Zindler said.


Source

So your own source is going against your own beliefs. Nothing like using what you provide to prove you wrong eh?







Also, if you would like to join this decade for discussion, there have been a number of things which has helped carbon dating:


Bronk Ramsey’s team aimed to fill this gap by using sediment from bed of Lake Suigetsu, west of Tokyo. Two distinct sediment layers have formed in the lake every summer and winter over tens of thousands of years. The researchers collected roughly 70-metre core samples from the lake and painstakingly counted the layers to come up with a direct record stretching back 52,000 years. Preserved leaves in the cores — “they look fresh as if they’ve fallen very recently”, Bronk Ramsey says — yielded 651 carbon dates that could be compared to the calendar dates of the sediment they were found in.

The recalibrated clock won’t force archaeologists to abandon old measurements wholesale, says Bronk Ramsey, but it could help to narrow the window of key events in human history. “If you’re trying to look at archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago, the ages may shift by only a few hundred years but that may be significant in putting them before or after changes in climate,” he says.



www.scientificamerican.com...

The reason you know about problems with carbon dating, is because scientists themselves are the one's who hone their methods to get them as accurate as possible. In the previous article, they were not throwing CB dating to the wind, simply pointing out caveats with it which have since been addressed. They did that, while introducing a more accurate form of dating which you ignored entirely.

Nothing supports a young Earth of 6-9000 years. Sorry.
edit on 25-6-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 

Thanks, you finally came up with number seven:

1. Can you provide any evidence in support of of canopy theory?
2. Can you provide any evidence that Saturn's rings violate the law of gravity?
3. Can you provide any evidence that Jupiter's Great Red Spot is the result of rotational frame dragging?
4. Can you provide any evidence that "anomalies" occur with any regularity at 19.5° on Earth or any other body in our solar system?
5. Can you provide any evidence that modern evolutionary synthesis claims that "people turn into fish" or that "we once had wings"?
6. Can you provide any evidence that mammoths were "flash frozen" and preserved in a near-perfect state?
7. Can you provide any evidence that reputable scientists use radiocarbon dating to date anything that is considered to be millions of years old?



posted on Jun, 25 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by supergravity
 


I didn't call Christians loons, I said " the early indications suggest we are dealing with a loon." If your going to own it, so be it, it's up to you prove otherwise and show us you can actually learn something.

Naive people? Why should we consider proven to be false opinions of people who haven't even studied the evidence?
You are spectacularly uninformed, you don't know anything about carbon dating from your own research, and you are reading about it only on creationist websites.... They are lying to you.

I think your time would be better spent ignoring what creationist say and look into what real science says. I think Christians grasp onto these loony explanations because they see them as their only hope that science doesn't really contradict Christian beliefs about creation, and the flood.

In the end... all these religious fallacies will go the way of the Dodo.



posted on Jun, 26 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
I'm a Christian, a Lutheran if we're being specific. I believe in God. I got to church when I can. I see people spouting against evolution, and people against a higher power, or a god. Like that little taco girl, why not both? I'm not sure if this has been mentioned yet, I'm sure it has, I tried to read all the comments, but I didn't see it, the Clockwork God. I believe that Earth, and other planets holding intelligent life (that's a whole different discussion) were created. I don't think it happened two thousand years ago. That's ridiculous. Why couldn't a god create a world, a blue print, and then spark life, and see what happens? I do not see why Christians, or any religion, out right defies science, seeing as it is science. Fact. I cannot prove to you that my god exists. I can't do it. But I can show you an atom. I can show you your brain. I can show you clear lines from the Chicken in your fridge to the Archaeopteryx under your feet (please, correct me if I'm wrong with that). I see no reason that religion and science can't walk hand in hand. If you believe a god created the world, why denounce the laws that that god set forth?
edit on 26-6-2013 by TobinHatcher because: Still those stupid [font[ things....



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
carbon dating flawsreply to post by flyingfish
 

finally got link function working, have not had much time to explore the functions of this site.

No the article is not from the 90s it is from 2010 ,stanford university.

See the part about carbon dating MAY NOT BE A CONSTANT.... there are no constants ,many catastrophic events have occurred that can affect every process on earth, neutrinos , alpha waves, supernovae , and many more.







edit on 27-6-2013 by supergravity because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   


Me Radio metric dating. Okay.. What evidence proved that the "millions" and "billions" calculations were correct? 230 million. Where'd the extra 30 million come from? You could just as easily say 100 million and everyone would believe it because there is NO proof otherwise. You know it's over 'so many thousands' of years old so it must be in the millions, right? Just throw out a number and let's go with that.
www.answersingenesis.org...

Evolutionist 1 The evidence of radio carbon dating comes from the fact that we can empirically prove the rate of decay of radioactive carbon (C14). By comparing the amount of radioactive carbon with the amount of carbon that it decays to, we can estimate with an extremely high degree of accuracy how long the carbon matter has had to decay, because we can prove that every period of time, referred to as a half-life, exactly half the C14 has decayed.

Just because you don't understand it and seek a refuge of ignorance in a piece of parchment written thousands of years ago doesn't mean there isn't proven, known science at work. Good day.

Me When solar radiation strikes the earth's atmospher, it converts the stable carbon-12 (found in CO2) into radioactive Carbon-14. Now, Carbon-14 accumulates on all living organisms . So, when an animal dies, the Carbon-14 loses two subatomic particles and is released back into the atmosphere as normal, regular Carbon-12. The half-life of Carbon-14 is 5730 years, which means that, every 5730 years, half the remaining C-14 in the animal body is left. So, every 5730 years the amount of C-14 reduces from 1/2 to 1/4 to 1/8 etc. So, the scientists carbon-date a dead animal carcas by measuring how much C-14 is still in the animal and, therefore, how long it's been dead.
The problem is, the magnetic field is decaying around the earth. The earth is covered in a magnetic field, which is STEADILY losing its strength by 1/2 every 1400 years. There are no magnetic reversals--there are only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism. So, if there are no reversals, then we know that the magnetic field has been shrinking at a measurably-stable rate. So, by the half-life of the magnetic field, the magnetic field would have been 320% stronger around 4500 years ago. But the thing is, the magnetic field filters out a lot of radiation (radiation is needed to make C-14). So, if the magnetic field was 320% stronger 4500 years ago, then it would've reflected most of the radiation, and therefore there would have been less C-14 in the atmosphere in ancient times--thus the C-14 in the atmosphere was at an un-measurable increase. Therefore, we cannot accurately Carbon-date ANYTHING because that would be assuming that the magnetic field was ALWAYS at the same strength it is today. For an example of wacky carbon dating rates:
The vollosovich mammoth was carbon-dated at 29000 years old, and the the SAME mammoth was carbon-dated at 44000 years old! Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago! The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago! Trust me, if somebody comes up to you and says, "carbon dating proves the earth is millions of years old" they DO NOT know what they're talking about.

As the magnetic field shrinks, the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere increases, so C-14 dating doesnt work like scientists think...
I'd say your the ignorant one


I think the first evolutionist claim is either taken out of context or is purposefully used as a red herring in this thread.

Carbon dating is not the only Radiometric dating technique nor is it used in any way to determine the age of the earth by geologist. There are a couple different metrics used in certain situations but the primary method is Potassium-Argon dating. We know the decay rates, we know the Argon gas does not escape from minerals such as Potassium Feldspar, we can determine the ratios in the minerals. Hence we know approximately how old the earth is. We can corroborate the findings with other sources in our solar system such as moon rocks, asteroids, meteorites. We know the approximate age of our planet and solar system.

There are a number of other methods included in dating geological process. It's not just Radiometric dating.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join