Do You Believe We Came From Monkeys?

[Syriusly]

At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here. Science backs up the Bible.

"Peak Formation and Fossils
As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.


Marine Limestone
The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:


When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."

The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain

And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly? Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off. OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.

I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.

You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes. You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there. If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.

What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.

You are asking for ice cubes in a furnace.

 

[james bond]

At least, I know some basic geology of Mt. Everest unlike a couple posters here. Science backs up the Bible.

"Peak Formation and Fossils
As two crustal plates collide, heavier rock is pushed back down into the earth's mantle at the point of contact. Meanwhile, lighter rock such as limestone and sandstone is pushed upward to form the towering mountains. At the tops of the highest peaks, like that of Mount Everest, it is possible to find 400-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures and shells that were deposited at the bottom of shallow tropical seas. Now the fossils are exposed at the roof of the world, over 25,000 feet above sea level.


Marine Limestone
The peak of Mount Everest is made up of rock that was once submerged beneath the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian subcontinent and Asia over 400 million years ago. For the great nature writer John McPhee, this is the most significant fact about the mountain:


When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had turned into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone."

The History of Mount Everest, the World's Tallest Mountain

And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly? Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off. OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.

I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.

You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes. You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there. If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.

What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.

How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert? Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.

Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada? There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.

Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska? There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.

How old and how did they get there?

Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years. All contained radiocarbon.

Show everyone how smart you are. You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood and others who claim superiority here.

 

[james bond]

And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly? Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off. OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.

I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.

You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes. You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there. If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.

What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.

You are asking for ice cubes in a furnace.

You can have ice cubes in a furnace that isn't lit. Or put enough ice in it to lower the oxidation temperature ha ha. Why don't you answer my questions in post #1322, Mr. Smarty Pants?

 

[Syriusly]

And the limestone has nothing to do with a global flood 6000 years ago. As the post states, the fossils are 400 million years old and were elevated to their lofty position by the activity of plate tectonics.

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly? Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off. OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.

I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.

You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes. You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there. If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.

What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.

How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert? Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.

Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada? There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.

Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska? There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.

How old and how did they get there?

Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years. All contained radiocarbon.

Show everyone how smart you are. You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood and others who claim superiority here.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.

 

[james bond]

Didn't we agree that one can't do radiometric dating on wet items and marine fossils or was that Syriusly? Anyway, your 400 millions years old calculation is off. OTOH, radiocarbon dating is okay if it passes the time criteria.

I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.

You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes. You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there. If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.

What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.

How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert? Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.

Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada? There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.

Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska? There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.

How old and how did they get there?

Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years. All contained radiocarbon.

Show everyone how smart you are. You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood and others who claim superiority here.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

>>@Syriusly: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<

The answers are NOT on the net. As usual, atheists are wrong. It is circular reasoning. This is wrong because you are using uniformitarianism as the basis for your answer which is what we are trying to find out if true.. Had you actually used observational science instead of making assumptions that fit evolution, then you'd know all of these objects were measured to have significant amounts of C-14. Go to hell immediately. Trap door opens and we hear loud screaming doppler effect.

Man, that was very satisfactory and gave me a woodie

 

[james bond]

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.

I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.

Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof. Bond wins again. What's the score now, Fort Fun Indiana? 1,000,000 to zero?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.

I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.

Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.

I don't think you know what ad hominem means. First of all, I did not make an argument. Second, I did not make an argument that rested in any way on pointing out that you are a lazy dummy. By the way, you are also ignorant.

Furthermore, you get an "F" for plagiarizing talkorigins.com.

 

[james bond]

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.

I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.

Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.

I don't think you know what ad hominem means. First of all, I did not make an argument. Second, I did not make an argument that rested in any way on pointing out that you are a lazy dummy. By the way, you are also ignorant.

Furthermore, you get an "F" for plagiarizing talkorigins.com.

Fallacy of argument from repetition.

Ad Hominem - Definition & Examples | Logical Fallacies

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.

I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.

Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.

I don't think you know what ad hominem means. First of all, I did not make an argument. Second, I did not make an argument that rested in any way on pointing out that you are a lazy dummy. By the way, you are also ignorant.

Furthermore, you get an "F" for plagiarizing talkorigins.com.

Fallacy of argument from repetition.

Ad Hominem - Definition & Examples | Logical Fallacies

But i did not make an argument...you should really stop using terms you don't understand...

 

[james bond]

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.

I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.

Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.

I don't think you know what ad hominem means. First of all, I did not make an argument. Second, I did not make an argument that rested in any way on pointing out that you are a lazy dummy. By the way, you are also ignorant.

Furthermore, you get an "F" for plagiarizing talkorigins.com.

Fallacy of argument from repetition.

Ad Hominem - Definition & Examples | Logical Fallacies

But i did not make an argument...you should really stop using terms you don't understand...

That's the point. You are too stupid to make an argument, so you continue to make assertions.

An assertion is what asshats say and then give no evidence to back it up. An argument presents some kind of evidence, fact or logical reasoning to present a pov.

ETA: You really should watch more attorney TV shows (LCD), read books about logical argument and attorney cases (better) and actually go watch a jury trieal (best). I followed Making of a Murderer on Netflix and now am rewarded with a season 2 coming up.

 

[Muhammed]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

They also both have weak eyes.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't believe I ever agreed to that. All I will say is, to get good results, the dating has to be done professionally by people that know what they are doing, and samples must be uncontaminated. And there are a number of dating techniques other than carbon.

You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes. You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there. If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.

What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.

How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert? Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.

Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada? There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.

Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska? There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.

How old and how did they get there?

Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years. All contained radiocarbon.

Show everyone how smart you are. You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood and others who claim superiority here.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

>>@Syriusly: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<

The answers are NOT on the net. As usual, atheists are wrong. It is circular reasoning.

We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.

You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years

 

[Syriusly]

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.

I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.

Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof. Bond wins again. What's the score now, Fort Fun Indiana? 1,000,000 to zero?

LOL how hilarious- since I did provide the answer- and you rejected it.

Bond fails again- oh right- all christo-creationists- still with a perfect score of zero.

 

[Syriusly]

Look it up yourself, you lazy dummy. Scientists have several explanations.

I knew you couldn't do it when the pressure is on.

Anyway, you've committed the fallacy of ad hominem, but also of burden of proof.

I don't think you know what ad hominem means. First of all, I did not make an argument. Second, I did not make an argument that rested in any way on pointing out that you are a lazy dummy. By the way, you are also ignorant.

Furthermore, you get an "F" for plagiarizing talkorigins.com.

Fallacy of argument from repetition.

Ad Hominem - Definition & Examples | Logical Fallacies

But i did not make an argument...you should really stop using terms you don't understand...

That's the point. You are too stupid to make an argument, so you continue to make assertions..

And so you resort to ad hominem......I do enjoy your display of christo-creation cultist hypocrisy.

 

[abu afak]

You see, the carbon still remains in these objects contaminating the object, so there's something wrong when you test with radioisotopes. You assume that it's not there due to long-time, but it's still there. If it's there, then one should not think radiometric dating would produce good results.

What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.

How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert? Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.

Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada? There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.

Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska? There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.

How old and how did they get there?

Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years. All contained radiocarbon.

Show everyone how smart you are. You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood and others who claim superiority here.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

>>@Syriusly: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<

The answers are NOT on the net. As usual, atheists are wrong. It is circular reasoning.

We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.

You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years

And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

• 2Modern dating methods
  • 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
  • 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
  • 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
  • 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
  • 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
  • 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
  • 2.7 Fission track dating method
  • 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
  • 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
  • 2.10 Other methods
  • .......
• 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
  • 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
  • 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
  • `

 

[Syriusly]

What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.

How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert? Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.

Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada? There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.

Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska? There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.

How old and how did they get there?

Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years. All contained radiocarbon.

Show everyone how smart you are. You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood and others who claim superiority here.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

>>@Syriusly: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<

The answers are NOT on the net. As usual, atheists are wrong. It is circular reasoning.

We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.

You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years

And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

• 2Modern dating methods
  • 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
  • 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
  • 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
  • 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
  • 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
  • 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
  • 2.7 Fission track dating method
  • 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
  • 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
  • 2.10 Other methods
  • .......
• 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
  • 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
  • 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
  • `

Of course but the christo-creationists will always whine 'but carbon 14!'

 

[james bond]

What are you testing for? What time range? What is the estimated age of the sample you are testing? What method are you using?

Be specific and stop babbling nonsense.

How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert? Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.

Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada? There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.

Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska? There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.

How old and how did they get there?

Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years. All contained radiocarbon.

Show everyone how smart you are. You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood and others who claim superiority here.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

>>@Syriusly: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<

The answers are NOT on the net. As usual, atheists are wrong. It is circular reasoning.

We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.

You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years

And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

• 2Modern dating methods
  • 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
  • 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
  • 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
  • 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
  • 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
  • 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
  • 2.7 Fission track dating method
  • 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
  • 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
  • 2.10 Other methods
  • .......
• 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
  • 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
  • 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
  • `

Yes, there are but you neglected to ack that one has to make assumption of parent to daughter isotope ratios, and that decay is CONSTANT. The different isotopes are for different conditions. Even then, one can't do it directly on a fossil. AFAIK, it's done on samples from sandwiching layers. And once they get their measurement, then what do they do? They compare it to a known sample based on charts wihci they have drawn up. If you KNEW what the parent daughter ratio was when the object was formed and that decay is constant, then I would have to agree with the method. Yet, we find carbon-14 left in coal and diamonds. We find carbon-14 left in dinosaur fossils. We find it left in rock samples so old that it should have decayed away. The secular scientists do no adhere to the foundations of scientific methodology when they have to refer to a chart they made up based on "assumptions."

 

[james bond]

How old are the dinosaur bones found in the Gobi Desert? Twenty-five theropod dinosaurs have been discovered along with 200 skulls of mammals.

Or how about the dinosaur bones found in Alberta, Canada? There is a huge graveyard that stretches for hundreds of miles and holds innumerable dinosaurs bones.

Or in Agate Springs, Nebraska? There is a fossil graveyard of around 9,000 animals found buried in alluvial deposits.

How old and how did they get there?

Please explain how carbon-14 remains in dinosaur bones?

Carbon-14 dating dinosaur bones

And explain why carbon-14 remains in coal?

Between 1984 and 1998, the atheist science literature reported carbon-14 in 70 samples that came from fossils, coal, oil, natural gas and marble representing the fossil-bearing portion of the geologic record of more than 500 years. All contained radiocarbon.

Show everyone how smart you are. You can help from Fort Fun Indiana, BreezeWood and others who claim superiority here.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

>>@Syriusly: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14.<<

The answers are NOT on the net. As usual, atheists are wrong. It is circular reasoning.

We can lead a christo-creation cultist to the facts- but I can't make you read the facts.

You will instead of course embrace cristo-creation cultist falsehoods- because it is all a matter of faith to you.

Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating

Answers are on the net

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years

And there are many other Decaying Isotopes to use for various age samples.

Radiometric dating - Wikipedia

• 2Modern dating methods
  • 2.1Uranium–lead dating method
  • 2.2 Samarium–neodymium dating method
  • 2.3 Potassium–argon dating method
  • 2.4 Rubidium–strontium dating method
  • 2.5 Uranium–thorium dating method
  • 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method
  • 2.7 Fission track dating method
  • 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method
  • 2.9 Luminescence dating methods
  • 2.10 Other methods
  • .......
• 3Dating with decay products of short-lived extinct radionuclides
  • 3.1 The 129I – 129Xe chronometer
  • 3.2 The 26Al – 26Mg chronometer
  • `

Of course but the christo-creationists will always whine 'but carbon 14!'

Why do you accept what he posted? He just discussed different techniques for dating. It doesn't mean they're true nor the methodology based on their assumptions is correct. It could be wildly incorrect. Which method can one use to date rocks that have been underwater for years? What method does one use to date objects/fossils in sedimentary layers?

YOU HAVE NO ANSWERS!!!

 

[sealybobo]

I know there are similarities but I think they are coincidental, like cats and seals both have whiskers. But cats didn't come from seals or vice a versa.

Actually seals are more closely related to dogs than they are cats