Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
You have made a number of claims that contradict modern physics. A few which come to mind:
1. You disputed the dating of fossils that have been dated using methods from physics.
2. You stated that space was infinite - contradicting the big bang theory.
[b]However, biology hasn't quite got there yet. The biologist
need to discard this evolution crap ...[text shortened]... in agreement with the
Holy Bible.
But for now, you are preaching anti-science rhetoric.[/b]
The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).
So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!
Even if, the big bang "theory" is true why would that make space finite since
space would need to be available for any expansion to take place?
Some astronomers believe that starlight was created as part of each star
and was present throughout space from the beginning of time. This is
consistent with the biblical account.
Biologist now know that DNA contains information for the reprodution of
life in much the same manner a computer program would inform a computer
to perform a task. This is more evidence for the existence of a intelligent
designer and creator of this program information for the DNA.
We are getting there, slow but sure.
Originally posted by RJHindsA truly beautiful post.
Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1) ...[text shortened]... and creator of this program information for the DNA.
We are getting there, slow but sure.
Originally posted by RJHindsGive the link next time please.
Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1) ...[text shortened]... and creator of this program information for the DNA.
We are getting there, slow but sure.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n1/carbon-14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI am curious, what does any of that have to do with what I posted?
Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils? ...[lots of copied and pasted text that the poster didn't understand]...
Even if, the big bang "theory" is true why would that make space finite since
space would need to be available for any expansion to take place?
Because it is space itself that expands. It doesn't expand 'into' anything.
Infinite space is in direct contradiction to the Big Bang theory.
Some astronomers believe that starlight was created as part of each star
and was present throughout space from the beginning of time. This is
consistent with the biblical account.
Such astronomers would be in a very small minority - essentially creationist astronomers who hold those views purely for religious reasons.
I have discussed that concept at length with Kelly and he eventually got so frustrated by the implications he accused me of misrepresenting him but refused to explain what I got wrong.
4 edits
Originally posted by RJHinds“....Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1) and creator of this program information for the DNA.
We are getting there, slow but sure.
The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. ...”
Well derr, what about dating fossils using isotopes with a longer half-life? 😛
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080814193219AAidKVx
“...When dating rocks that are millions and millions of years old, you can't use C-14, but you can use other radioactive isotopes like uranium-235 or potassium-40. Both of these have extremely long half-lives, in the hundreds of millions or billions of years, so they can be used to get an accurate impression of the ages of these ancient rocks. ...”
and this is not even mentioning the point that you can use carbon-14 for dating fossils that are less than about 20000 years.
“...Even if, the big bang "theory" is true why would that make space finite since
space would need to be available for any expansion to take place? ...”
No, the universe does NOT expand THROUGH nor IN space but rather all of space is contained WITHIN this closed universe.
“...Some astronomers believe that starlight was created as part of each star
and was present throughout space from the beginning of time. ...”
you are talking about some rare deranged astronomers who are totally oblivious to all of modern science. There was no stars to produce star light in the beginning -stars came later.
“...Biologist now know that DNA contains information for the reprodution of
life in much the same manner a computer program would inform a computer
to perform a task. This is more evidence for the existence of a intelligent
designer and creator of this PROGRAM information for the DNA. ...” (my emphasis)
The “ PROGRAM information for the DNA” is just merely the order of the DNA bases and isn't 'electronic software' that requires an intelligence to create that order.
“...We are getting there, slow but sure. ...”
...to nowhere.
This is a bad post EVEN for you!
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsTip: if you're tring to hack someone elses writings (or otherwise) off the internet and then pass it off as your own be sure to remove any (now) redundant references to figures that might be hiding in there...dickhead! 😞
Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1) and creator of this program information for the DNA.
We are getting there, slow but sure.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonRegardless, in these dating methods there are things that you must
“....Why Isn’t Radiocarbon Used to Date Fossils?
The answer is a matter of basic physics. Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. ...”
Well derr, what about dating fossils using isotop ...[text shortened]... are getting there, slow but sure. ...”
...to nowhere.
This is a bad post EVEN for you!
assume - to assume makes as ass out of u and me.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindswtf??? 😕 Andrew Hamilton comes up with a detailed response to someone else's `idea' (which you pass off as your own) and the best you have is the same old sales manager's catchprase about assuming?
Regardless, in these dating methods there are things that you must
assume - to assume makes as ass out of u and me.
Are you a RBHILL sockpuppet RJHinds?
Originally posted by RJHindsThe dating methods depend on physics and chemistry. By disputing the dating methods you are essentially pushing anti-physics propaganda for religious reasons. More importantly, you don't know the first thing about how the dating methods work - you only assume that assumptions are involved and that they are wrong in some way. The only ass here is you.
Regardless, in these dating methods there are things that you must
assume - to assume makes as ass out of u and me.
Originally posted by RJHindsWell it's for sure mankind's problem, since mankind and note the MAN part here, mankind INVENTED god's to try to come to terms with a wildly unhealthy planet with its hurricanes, tornado's, volcano's, earthquakes, predators, parasites and the like.
It is man that is the problem, not God.
But he will fix things once we have had the time
to prove to ourselves that our way is not good.
Until then, do the best you can without blaming God.
If a hurricane hits, it's because god got peeved with some stupid thing some man did and is divine retribution, thus transferring human qualities to a god, thinking it must think like we do.
Why don't you think hard about why your supposed god started all that crap 2000 years ago. What was so bad about those times that wasn't say 5000 years ago or 10,000 years ago or 50,000 years ago. I can guarantee people were just as violent back then and had fully modern brains 50,000 years ago as they do now. If a neandertal was to be brought up to our time as a 3 year old, he or she could be trained to do just about as well as any other human, maybe they couldn't talk right but there are people now who can't speak and they manage to have good lives.
So why do it at THAT particular time? And why would your god let the Muslims take over half the planet and start religious wars specifically spelled out in their bible?
You always (and I by YOU I mean all christians) intentionally gloss over the fact that your god is capricious and most likely insane if it actually exists. It is my stance that any infinite god seeing the religious strife in the world as it is now and has been for thousands of years, an infinite god would come down and tell everyone 'this is how it is', stop your fighting using me as an excuse or I will show you just what catastrophe is, you want catastrophe, I'll give you catastrophe".
But that never happens, only words written in a lot of so-called religious documents, all written by men, men who haven't the foggiest idea of what a real god would be like, only able to transfer what they think like to project that to what a god SHOULD like. That actually has a name. It's called Anthropomorphising, ascribing human traits to something else like when someone says their dog thinks it's a human, thinking it actually has human traits. That is EXACTLY what you and ALL religious people of ALL religions do.
NOBODY and I mean no human on earth has the SLIGHTEST insight into what a god really would be and the totally ridiculous tale told by christians, jesus was born of a virgin, died for our sins, got offed, magically came back three days later, that is the biggest scam of the last 2000 years.
It isn't even original. It's taken from much earlier religions. And you fell for it hook line and sinker.
Hey, it makes you fell better about your life, great for you. But don't go attacking things you know nothing about and spout religious reasons why, for instance, evolution is bogus because, because, because (Pick the religious dogmatic argument of your choice) without actually learning about evolution, actually reading a few books on the subject, instead, just believing what was spoon fed to you all your deluded life.
It's time for the human race to grow up and shuck off the shackles of religion and see it for what it is, a regional organization whose real goal has nothing to do with salvation or anything to do with helping humanity, the real goal is to increase the organization. That it has done splendidly.
Think for a moment how many people have died directly in religious wars over the last thousand years or so. Think Inquisition, think Knights Templar, Crusades, tortures, and all that, done in the name of Jesus or Mary or whatever saint of the month was popular at the time. The pope is Infallible. My grandmother tells me at the age of 8 if I just get the Lutheran baptism I got because I went to Lutheran school for 8 years, if I didn't get the PENTACOSTAL baptism, total body dunking, I would be utterly damned to hell.
I realized right then and there religion and in my case christianity, was more screwed up then I could imagine, telling us we were BORN into sin, utterly damned if we didn't offer ourselves up to whatever religion we were closest to, what are there, 1000 christian denominations? You are supposed to believe in the bible but take a read of Leviticus, where it says a man is worth 50 sheckles but a woman is only worth 35. Or if your son talks back to you, kill him. Nice one.
So you as a Protestant, say, oh, we don't follow that stuff. We get to pick and choose which books of our bible we follow.
So you have a bible but you diss the parts you don't like. What do you think your god would say about that? Do you believe in your bible or not? If so, why don't you kill your son every time he badmouths you?
Do you see a pattern here? You pick and choose what you want to believe out of your own book. Why would the same god that supposedly made the old and new testament change things to such an extent that you don't have to follow those nasty first 5 books?
I don't see your god coming down and blasting us for not following all the books of the bible.
That of course would be because no god was involved in writing the bible, every word written out by men and codified in the council of Nicocea in the 3rd century. There are books now know to have been written that, for instance, tells a completely different tale of Judas, where he wasn't a universal figure of hatred but ordained by jesus to out him. He never took silver, he was a bookkeeper and had money, held onto it and was the accountant of the disciples. He would never had needed a paltry 30 pieces of silver, he took care of a lot more than that every day. I'll bet you never thought that one out did you?
That book never made it because they WANTED a universally hated scapegoat. That's how the bible happened, hundreds of books were written in the christian era and only the ones we see today made it past the wholly human judges. They are the ones who chose the books we read today, not some god.
It's time you realized all that and shuck the religious monkey on your back and really start to grow up. Till then you can only spout what other religious dogmatists write and say in their insane radio and tv shows.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf infinite space contradicts "the big bang theory" then something
I am curious, what does any of that have to do with what I posted?
[b]Even if, the big bang "theory" is true why would that make space finite since
space would need to be available for any expansion to take place?
Because it is space itself that expands. It doesn't expand 'into' anything.
Infinite space is in direct contradiction to the Big Bang ...[text shortened]... implications he accused me of misrepresenting him but refused to explain what I got wrong.[/b]
is wrong with "the big bang theory". Perhaps it needs revision.
An astronomer is still a astronomer regardless of his religion.
Atheist astronomers could also hold their views purely for their
non-religious reasons, if you don't consider atheism a religion.
Originally posted by RJHindsWhy? The whole 'infinite space' concept seems to be something you dreamed up out of the Blue. It is not Biblical, it is not scientific, it is just something you asserted. Did you get that directly from the Holy Spirit?
If infinite space contradicts "the big bang theory" then something
is wrong with "the big bang theory". Perhaps it needs revision.
An astronomer is still a astronomer regardless of his religion.
Atheist astronomers could also hold their views purely for their
non-religious reasons, if you don't consider atheism a religion.
Until an astronomer can provide good reasons for his views, and hopefully evidential support, his status as an astronomer does not make his beliefs on the matter any more reasonable than anybody elses regardless of their education or field of specialization.
So when you said "Some astronomers believe..." you were implying that their beliefs were part of astronomy - which they aren't. It is merely the case that some astronomers hold wacky beliefs.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes,I said before, I got the idea that space always exixted with God
Why? The whole 'infinite space' concept seems to be something you dreamed up out of the Blue. It is not Biblical, it is not scientific, it is just something you asserted. Did you get that directly from the Holy Spirit?
[b]An astronomer is still a astronomer regardless of his religion.
Atheist astronomers could also hold their views purely for their
n ...[text shortened]... onomy - which they aren't. It is merely the case that some astronomers hold wacky beliefs.
from the Holy Spirit.
Astronomers are people too. All people are influenced by their
beliefs, even the wacky atheists.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindswacky atheists, lol, reminds me of Dick Dastardly and the wacky races! I wonder who
Yes,I said before, I got the idea that space always exixted with God
from the Holy Spirit.
Astronomers are people too. All people are influenced by their
beliefs, even the wacky atheists.
Agers would be, maybe Muttley, and Noobster as Dick Dastardly himself. Hameelton,
would be Professor Pat Pending and twithead, lets see, air ace Red Max!