Comments
1 - 20 of 70 Comments Last updated Oct 31, 2012
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jun 2, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

You'll get no argument from me on that one.

Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.

But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.

What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?- At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.

This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other!- how’s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.

A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 2, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

Doctor Who Two wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.ne t/q-aig/aig-c007.html
In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.
Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.
The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.
However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.
Yes, so? All working scientists know the limitations of C14 dating. It is only the creationists that seem to want to date dinosaur bones using it rather than using the other dating methods available.

You do know there are many other radioactive dating methods avialable, right? And that these give consistent results when correctly applied?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
You'll get no argument from me on that one.
Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?- At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
Well, duh. A carbonc dating for dinosaur bones (any carbon left after fossilization?) would give only background levels of C14 for exactly the reasons explained above. Hardly useful for accurate dating.

When used *corretly*, it gives accurate results. When not, it doesn't.

Simple.
Phil

Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 2, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

1

The 'experts' who claim dinosaurs/earth are billions of years old are the same PC quacks claiming global warming
Anything for a dollar

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jun 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
You'll get no argument from me on that one.
Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?- At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.
This is common practice.
They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other!- how’s that for an "exact" science?
They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.
Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.
So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.
A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim
Once again, a non-scientist, trying to convince atheists that science is flawed. Try this: You would have picked it up if you bothered to do your research:

1. "Of course carbon dating isn't going to work on your Allosaurus bone. That method is only accurate to 40,000 years. So I would expect to get some weird number like 16,000 years if you carbon date a millions of years old fossil. 16.000 years by the way is still 10,000 years before your God supposedly created the Earth."

2. Secondly, I would like you to show me where the "Criticism" section is under Wikipedia's entry for RadioCarbon dating?

The guy who discovered it was awarded Nobel Prize, so step up with your science if you think you're man enough.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jun 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Phil wrote:
The 'experts' who claim dinosaurs/earth are billions of years old are the same PC quacks claiming global warming
Anything for a dollar
Actually, retard, scientists do stuff because they are curious about the world.

You should try being curious / intellectually honest for a second. It might help your mental illness called faith.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jun 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Doctor Who Two wrote:
http://www.christiananswers.ne t/q-aig/aig-c007.html
....
Maybe they should call that site "US Extremist Christian Answers"? I don't think most Christians are so stupid.

(Creationists are freaks of nature :-)
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/bio...

From:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechrist...
"If the Church were truly the source of All Truth, then it would have been on the cutting edge of science, not the persecutors of it."

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jun 3, 2012
 

Judged:

3

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, retard, scientists do stuff because they are curious about the world.

You should try being curious / intellectually honest for a second. It might help your mental illness called faith.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jun 3, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Once again, a non-scientist, trying to convince atheists that science is flawed. Try this: You would have picked it up if you bothered to do your research:

1. "Of course carbon dating isn't going to work on your Allosaurus bone. That method is only accurate to 40,000 years. So I would expect to get some weird number like 16,000 years if you carbon date a millions of years old fossil. 16.000 years by the way is still 10,000 years before your God supposedly created the Earth."

2. Secondly, I would like you to show me where the "Criticism" section is under Wikipedia's entry for RadioCarbon dating?

The guy who discovered it was awarded Nobel Prize, so step up with your science if you think you're man enough.
Science can't seem to get dating right
That's why the age of everything keeps getting older and older. Gives them more room to work and when you start talking billions of year people tend not to pay to close attention to be off by only a few million year. Keep pushing it out giving more and more room for all their theory's to work better in

Science date bones by the pottery they find with it. And date pottery by the types of bones they find with it.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jun 3, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Maybe they should call that site "US Extremist Christian Answers"? I don't think most Christians are so stupid.

(Creationists are freaks of nature :-)
http://www.christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/bio...

From:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-sciencechrist...
"If the Church were truly the source of All Truth, then it would have been on the cutting edge of science, not the persecutors of it."
Or not.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jun 4, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Science date bones by the pottery they find with it. And date pottery by the types of bones they find with it.
Archeomagnetic dating is sometimes used with other dating methhods of pottery and other heated materials.

http://www.geochronometria.pl/pdf/geo_25/Geo2...

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jun 4, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
You'll get no argument from me on that one.
Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated?- At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.
This is common practice.
They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.
They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other!- how’s that for an "exact" science?
They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).
So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.
Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.
So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?
Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.
A Dinosaur carbon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 years old NOT millions of years old like evolutionists claim
I'm curious as to where you studied paleotology?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jun 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Science can't seem to get dating right
That's why the age of everything keeps getting older and older. Gives them more room to work and when you start talking billions of year people tend not to pay to close attention to be off by only a few million year. Keep pushing it out giving more and more room for all their theory's to work better in
Science date bones by the pottery they find with it. And date pottery by the types of bones they find with it.
Um, you have to be talking about stuff recent enough for there to *be* pottery. Then, once you get enough experience with which pottery goes together, you *can* date things based on the pottery. It's similar to being able to date a sit-com to the 1950's based on the clothes worn. Generally, it is accurate, but can have some anomalies when you have people that are nostalgic for a past. Even then there will be subtle differences of style that can separate the early and late phases.

But that is all for very recent things: say the last 10,000 years or so I'd have to check when the first pottery was). Anything before that won't have pottery. But you can date with other methods.

“Reason's Greetings!”

Since: Feb 11

Pale Blue Dot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jun 4, 2012
 
^^^^^Oops should be Paleontology^^^^

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jun 5, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Science can't seem to get dating right
That's why the age of everything keeps getting older and older. Gives them more room to work and when you start talking billions of year people tend not to pay to close attention to be off by only a few million year. Keep pushing it out giving more and more room for all their theory's to work better in
Science date bones by the pottery they find with it. And date pottery by the types of bones they find with it.
Try correcting your rag bible before you start questioning science, something that is clearly beyond your comprehension.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jun 5, 2012
 
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
Skippy, Skippy, Skippy!
Did you get out?
Oh do they now allow computers and Internet in where your at?
Yeah, they allow modern technology created by scientists. Do they give you time in the sand pit in your cult?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jun 5, 2012
 
Doctor Who Two wrote:
<quoted text>
You have to "well you don't have to" cut Skippy some slack he's kind of incarcerated you know.
Do they have intelligence in your part of the world? Having just you as evidence isn't really doing much for the case if any...

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jun 5, 2012
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good theory.
Creationist don't let facts get in the way of a *bad* non-theory.
KJV

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jun 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>Try correcting your rag bible before you start questioning science, something that is clearly beyond your comprehension.
Hmmm my bible is in good shape.
The collector versions are kind of old
But mostly in good shape.

Oh that's right you're Skippy I heard about you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jun 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm my bible is in good shape.
The collector versions are kind of old
But mostly in good shape.
Oh that's right you're Skippy I heard about you.
Tell us all if you've corrected the part about keeping slaves, beating women, hating gays and punishing children?

Have you corrected your book yet? Then keep that rag out of our faces.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••