re: Very interesting article on carbon dating

He'd have a better chance of finding answers in this genesis.

I actually get a little hard when they enter an evolution "debate" with AiG. Feels so good.

quote:

---

He'd have a better chance of finding answers in this genesis.

---

Phil Collins is the man.

Shhhhh

I'm wondering what his reaction would be when most fossils actually have zero original material within them, and the ones that do have undergone a geochemical reaction.

And this is why the Muslims and Jews are kicking our asses. They recognize science and use it instead of debunking it. We need to get rid of science.

quote:

---

Literally anyone who's taken a basic geology course knows that's not how carbon dating works.

---

You literally need to read the whole article.

quote:

---

I always wondered how this dating works.

what are the various forms and purposes? or what kind of objective website would present this information.

---

It's based on two isotopes of the carbon atom. (Google isotope if it's been too long since high school and you forgot how atoms work.) Carbon 14 has two more neutrons than Carbon 12. C-14 turns into C-12 over time. It takes about 5700 years for half of a given sample of 14 to turn into 12. This is known as a half-life.

Carbon is always cycling through our bodies. We consume food for energy and our bodies turn some of that into CO2 which we exhale.

Whenever an animal dies, the carbon cycle stops. So the C14 begins to decay into C12. By comparing the ratio of the two isotopes in the sample to a known baseline (living/freshly dead animals) we can determine the age of the sample.

Carbon dating is useless for samples more than 45000 years old, or for inorganic samples. It has limitations because we don't know the baseline at the time an organism died, and there are geologic events that can raise C14 levels, thus making a sample look younger than it is. But generally speaking, carbon dating gives us a good estimate.

Beatchya

quote:

---

You literally need to read the whole article. 

---

I read the whole article. It's dumb and false. Now what?

quote:

---

Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists

---

quote:

---

Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old

---

Only people with a religious agenda use these terms. I didn't even have to see the source to know it was biased bull shite.

It's amazing that in the year 2017 there are still people who don't know that fossils are made of stone.