Carbon dating doesn't work; Evolution is an EVIL lie

[eOXevious]

[ QUOTE ]
Radiocarbon dating, especially using the Carbon 14 method, takes advantage of the radioactive decay of the isotope, which is seen as a constant. Every living thing takes in and expels Carbon 14 while it is alive, and a static level of the element is maintained. When the organism dies, the infusion is suspended, and the level is reduced according to the rate of decay, known as the “half-life.” The amount of Carbon 14 in the artifact is measured and then compared to the presumed static level the organism maintained while alive; the comparison then yields the relative age of the specimen. Though this sounds very straightforward and scientific, there are several serious problems.

The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.

The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists.

Not only does the requisite level of assumption and presumption all but invalidate the accuracy of the claims of very old dating, but were there for example, an environmental phenomenon that affected the level of ambient Carbon 14, the results could be skewed exponentially. In fact, several such phenomena did indeed exist, proven by the same science that supports old-age radiocarbon dating! It would seem quite clear that some predisposition or predilection for particular findings in terms of dating artifacts is at work in this case. For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; this would have acted to either negate or at least significantly reduce the effect of cosmic, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Carbon 14 production would have been negligible, and therefore would not have been absorbed by living things; any organism living before the reduction of the canopy would in turn be dated exponentially older than it actually is. Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs—levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data. Isn’t it funny how the same scientists who purport constant catastrophic changes in earth’s history depend upon the inherent necessity that it was completely without any changes?

Moreover, it is established fact that the earth’s magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength2, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living things. Yet these two facts are virtually unknown in modern society, and it seems never associated with radiometric dating, apparently since it would put such method (and indeed its findings) in doubt as to its reliability.

[/ QUOTE ]

As listed on www.drdino.com by Dr. Kent Hovind.

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water

[/ QUOTE ]
2 Peter 3:3 - 2 Peter 3:5

Athiests, don't be willingly ignorant of the righteous truth.

[slickpoppa]

I am assuming that this guy also believes that the universe is only several thousand years old. How would he explain the fact that we see light from stars that are millions of light years away from us? The fact that those stars are millions of light years away from us can be proven with simple geometry.

[BluffTHIS!]

You are just another intellectually barren evangelical who denies evolution because of your selectively literal interpretations of scripture and your molding God into YOUR image. If you read these forums regularly you will note that this is a fellow Christian saying this. You need to get a grounding in science so that you can recognize that scientific theories of evolution do not revolve around Carbon-14 dating. Go look into potassium-argon-40 dating which is used for time periods much further back. There can be no conflict between true doctrine and true science and if you see such a conflict, then most likely it is because your particular brand of christianity possesses many faults in doctrine.

If you refuse to acknowledge the possibility that God brought humans about through evolution of the species because you don't like the idea that we and monkeys descend from a common ape-like primate, then you just lack the christian virtue of humility. In fact by assuming that God could only create our species directly, you are molding Him to an idol of your own understanding rather than seeing Him for the unlimited God that He is who could have brought about humans in many different ways, and God's creation which includes science shows clearly it was through evolution of the species.

And if it is because you take such a literalist interpretation of the Book of Genesis to mean that the earth really isn't all that old, then you are a hypocrite since I guarantee that I can show other passages of NT scripture that you refuse to take literally once I know your specific denomination and its doctrine.

Of course I am assuming in my response that you are serious in your post and not just trolling.

[Aytumious]

You've convinced me. Where do I sign up and how much are the dues?

[Jeff V]

LOL [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[KeysrSoze]

Yes, his ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to sign up for his newsletter.

Carbon dating doesn't work --> Evolution is an evil lie

My calculator doesn't work --> Math is an evil lie

[Jacob_Gilliam]

Hey, they finally killed the famous "test" thread over in the poker theory forum. We could make this thread the new "test" thread for this forum.

Just a thought.

I miss the test thread...... [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Jim T]

But they'll never disprove the pattern mapper!

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, his ideas intrigue me, and I'd like to sign up for his newsletter.

[/ QUOTE ]

This never gets old.

Oh wait, yes it does. It got old after the first 900 times it was said on the internet in the 3 weeks after that Simpsons episode aired.