Started By
Message

Very interesting article on carbon dating

Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:06 pm
Posted by tigersbh
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
10246 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:06 pm
Very interesting article on carbon dating. The Earth may be much, much younger than scientists think.

You really need to read the whole article to understand it but if I have to summarize...

quote:

The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. For example, a series of fossilized wood samples that conventionally have been dated according to their host strata to be from Tertiary to Permian (40-250 million years old) all yielded significant, detectable levels of carbon-14 that would conventionally equate to only 30,000-45,000 years “ages” for the original trees.8 Similarly, a survey of the conventional radiocarbon journals resulted in more than forty examples of supposedly ancient organic materials, including limestones, that contained carbon-14, as reported by leading laboratories.9 Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States. The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.

Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere11. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.

The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently.12 Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.




https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/
Posted by Muice
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2013
1268 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:08 pm to
Look I believe in God and am a Christian but I still realize that a website called answering genesis is not the greatest place for me to get scientific opinions from.
This post was edited on 7/4/17 at 6:09 pm
Posted by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
140462 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:09 pm to
quote:

evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.


Posted by TheIndulger
Member since Sep 2011
19239 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:10 pm to
quote:

answersingenesis.com


Checkmate, atheists
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
51903 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:10 pm to
I didn't even read the article past a few lines to lose interest, scroll to the bottom, and suspicions confirmed by the source.



Carbon dating isn't used for dating rocks and fossils. Author obviously doesn't know the premise of carbon dating.

And carbon dating typically isn't used for geologic time frames.
This post was edited on 7/4/17 at 6:14 pm
Posted by TheIndulger
Member since Sep 2011
19239 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:11 pm to
Posted by 12
Redneck part of Florida
Member since Nov 2010
18755 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:11 pm to
Posted by tigersbh
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
10246 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:11 pm to
quote:

Look I believe in God and am a Christian but I still realize that a website called answering genesis is not the greatest place for me to get scientific opinions from


Read the article. You might just change your mind.
Posted by GeorgeTheGreek
Sparta, Greece
Member since Mar 2008
66428 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:12 pm to
No shite.
Posted by tigersbh
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
10246 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:12 pm to
Great argument, SuperSaint!
Posted by GeorgeTheGreek
Sparta, Greece
Member since Mar 2008
66428 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:13 pm to
No point in reading an entire article if the article is from a bias source.

I too am Christian but this article has no legs.
Posted by Muice
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2013
1268 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:14 pm to
Regardless of the context of the article, you're not going to change people's mind with a clearly skewed source.

Posted by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
140462 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:14 pm to
quote:

Read the article. You might just change your mind.
Posted by 12
Redneck part of Florida
Member since Nov 2010
18755 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:14 pm to
Picture of the OP

Posted by someoldhussy
Candyland
Member since Jun 2007
2439 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:15 pm to
quote:

Section 1: Priorities
The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer, and Judge.


Well then
Posted by Fun Bunch
New Orleans
Member since May 2008
115737 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:15 pm to
Answers in Genesis
Posted by Fun Bunch
New Orleans
Member since May 2008
115737 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:17 pm to
Answers in Genesis is complete horseshite.

They put out science-y sounding articles and cherry pick quotes from peer reviewed articles to essentially lie to idiots.

Literally every article on their site has been debunked.
Posted by DustyDinkleman
Here
Member since Feb 2012
18176 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:17 pm to
carbon dating =/= Very interesting
Posted by Volvagia
Fort Worth
Member since Mar 2006
51903 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:19 pm to
quote:

Great argument, SuperSaint!


You want an actual argument?

Okay.

Your quoted article talks about carbon dating tree fossils.

It keeps using the term fossils over and over again.


Pop quiz hot shot: do you even know what the term fossilization means?
Posted by ksayetiger
Centenary Gents
Member since Jul 2007
68299 posts
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:19 pm to
Since when do we use carbon dating on rocks with no organics?
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram