1. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    28 May '12 06:56
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds
  2. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    28 May '12 07:132 edits
    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?
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    28 May '12 07:40
    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
  4. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 May '12 07:51
    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.
  5. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    28 May '12 07:59
    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.
  6. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    28 May '12 08:321 edit
    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.
  7. Joined
    28 Dec '11
    Moves
    16268
    28 May '12 08:321 edit
    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/
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    28 May '12 08:35
    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?
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 May '12 09:01
    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.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 May '12 09:03
    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.
  11. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    28 May '12 09:11
    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)
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    28 May '12 09:171 edit
    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.
  13. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    28 May '12 10:41
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating
  14. Joined
    28 Dec '11
    Moves
    16268
    28 May '12 10:541 edit
    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!
  15. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    28 May '12 14:57
    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.
Back to Top