Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests a young Earth

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

If that was scientifically valid conclusion then it would be a scientific bombshell that would be sensationalised all over the news. But it isn't all over the news. So WHY is this not over the news? Most plausible answer:; because it isn't scientifically valid but rather just misinformation and lies.
Note the year of this: 2007 ! and, if this was valid then, despite all this time, it STILL hasn't ever reached the news headlines! Amazing! why hasn't it?

Originally posted by humy
If that was scientifically valid conclusion then it would be a scientific bombshell that would be sensationalised all over the news. But it isn't all over the news. So WHY is this not over the news? Most plausible answer:; because it isn't scientifically valid but rather just misinformation and lies.

The evolutionist don't want it to be true because it is another reason why evolution can not be true. NOT ENOUGH TIME.

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
The evolutionist don't want it to be true because it is another reason why evolution can not be true. NOT ENOUGH TIME.

Well since evolutionists apparently are in charge of all the media outlets, the science institutions etc, you course is a hopeless one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well since evolutionists apparently are in charge of all the media outlets, the science institutions etc, you course is a hopeless one.

It seems that way now. However, there is always a possibility they will wake up and start paying attention to the truth.

Originally posted by humy
If that was scientifically valid conclusion then it would be a scientific bombshell that would be sensationalised all over the news. But it isn't all over the news. So WHY is this not over the news? Most plausible answer:; because it isn't scientifically valid but rather just misinformation and lies.
Note the year of this: 2007 ! and, if this was valid then, d ...[text shortened]... pite all this time, it STILL hasn't ever reached the news headlines! Amazing! why hasn't it?

So why isn't this revelation from your first link all over the news years ago? -short answer, because it's full of crap.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It seems that way now. However, there is always a possibility they will wake up and start paying attention to the truth.

It is often amazing how far they are willing to go to protect their image, even when people know the truth


this is a vid of you post - exactly 6000 years old proof thats what he said

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/02/25/YEC_Andrew_Snelling_PhD_research_continues_to_verify_accurac/

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well since evolutionists apparently are in charge of all the media outlets, the science institutions etc, you course is a hopeless one.

Well since evolutionists apparently are in charge of all the media outlets,

lol. I wonder if he is so delusional as to actually believe that?

Originally posted by humy

Well since evolutionists apparently are in charge of all the media outlets,

lol. I wonder if he is so delusional as to actually believe that?

Creationists either have to believe in a grand conspiracy, or take a slightly weaker position in which they claim that all the scientists are interpreting data based on their 'world view', or going with the status quo.

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, there is always a possibility they will wake up and start paying attention to the truth.

Not until the 'truth' is presented in a credible fashion. As long as it is only people like you who's credibility is highly questionable that are promoting it, it will remain largely ignored.
The only reason creationism has any traction at all is because its a religious belief, not because of any scientific backing or evidential support.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

carbon dating is for living things which have absorbed carbon from the atmosphere (via their food in the case of animals). The amount of C14 decay indicates how long its been dead.

Diamonds are not dead creatures. (They didnt march onto the ark two by two)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not until the 'truth' is presented in a credible fashion. As long as it is only people like you who's credibility is highly questionable that are promoting it, it will remain largely ignored.
The only reason creationism has any traction at all is because its a religious belief, not because of any scientific backing or evidential support.

no this is not true, there is no Biblical evidence which states that the creative 'days',
were of a specified period of time, in fact, Paul states of Christians, thousands of years
later than they are still in Gods 'rest day', so it cannot even be stated that this
erroneous assertion that the earth is as young as 6000 years has as its basis a
religious teaching or at least one that can be substantiated in scripture, Creationism
uses exactly the same scientific data, it simply interprets it in a different way.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

I like that part that says - Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5,730 years


..............................................................................................................

has two stable, nonradioactive isotopes: carbon-12 (12C), and carbon-13 (13C). In addition, there are trace amounts of the unstable isotope carbon-14 (14C) on Earth. , meaning that the amount of carbon-14 in a sample is halved over the course of 5,730 years due to radioactive decay. Carbon-14 would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray flux interactions with the Earth's atmosphere, which create more of the isotope. The neutrons resulting from the cosmic ray interactions participate in the following nuclear reaction on the atoms of nitrogen molecules (N2) in the atmosphere:

.........................................................................................................

these were found underground!

Originally posted by tim88
I like that part that says - Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5,730 years


..............................................................................................................

has two stable, nonradioactive isotopes: carbon-12 (12C), and carbon-13 (13C). In addition, there are trace amounts of the unstable isotope carbon-14 (14C) ...[text shortened]... ..............................................................

these were found underground!

This should be proof enough that any thing with detectable Carbon-14 can not be very old. But the evolutionist want to cling to their hypothesis so they have an excuse to rationalize away the existence of a Creator that they must be accountable to in the end.