C14 dating of fossils

A forum for discussion and criticism of specialized topics relevant (pro and con) to Creation Science - fossil dating, flood geology, C14, K/Ar, radio metric dating, diffusion dating, racemization dating, DNA dating, stellar and planetary evolution, erosion dating, fast stratification, interpretations of the geological column, baraminology, distant starlight problem, Y-chromosomal Adam/Noah/Aaron/Abraham, mitochondrial Eve, Tower of Babel, Proton-21 laboratory, Sodom and Gomorrah, OEC,YEC, Progressive creation, white hole cosmology, Carmeli cosmology, VSL theories, alternate electrodynamics, mantle plume theories, folding rock theories, RATE work, planetary magnetism, faint young sun paradox, moon recession, ocean mineral saturation, astrometry and proper motion surveys, very long baseline interferometry, CMBR, moon evolution, cosmological vs. non-cosmological red shifts, polonium halos, Hydro Plates and Castastrophic Plates, varves, tree rings, noah's ark, over thrusts, lithification, hydrologic sorting, canopy theory, crater theory, planetary heating, ancient civilizations, Atlantis, trophical trees in the arctic, woolly mammoths and tropical trees in Siberia, UFOs and creationism, comets and orbital mechanics, planet satellite capture problems, planetary rings, origin of folded rocks, the Grand Canyon, the Green River valley, the Three Sisters, mountain formation, seafloor formation, tectonics, etc.

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby stcordova » Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:37 pm

Thorn Troll AWOL!


Please help poor Thornton
Last edited by stcordova on Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby tjguy » Mon Mar 24, 2014 7:12 pm

Thanks rwalk for that link and thanks Dr. Grim for your excellent research!

This is a sink or swim issue for evolutionists. They can't afford to lose this. And they really do think they have to be right because of "tens of thousands of peer reviewed papers supporting evolution." So any contrary evidence is quickly dismissed, assumed to be a fluke or simply wrong, or simply ignored. It really is an example of how one's worldview blinds you to the truth and effects how you interpret the data.

Ridicule is an invaluable tool for Thornton. It probably is effective against those on the fence and I'm sure for those already convinced of the fact of molecules to man evolution. However, ridicule and accusations of lying and his attitude of complete disrespect for those who disagree with him doesn't win him any points here. In fact it has the opposite effect. He is shooting himself in the feet and doesn't even know it.

I honestly think though that he is genuine in his ridicule. I think he really does think these Christian scientists are purposefully lying and seeking to deceive. He really can't fathom that a genuine scientist could honestly hold to a YEC position. His faith and confidence in the interpretations of evolutionists are that strong!

I noticed that, but for his typical ridicule, he didn't even interact with Dr. Geim's responds to his judmental accusations. This is an example of when ridicule is used to hide either the fact that he is wrong or that he has no answer.

Anyway, I'm proud of the YECers here who do not respond back with ridicule. That is a powerful witness to the power of the gospel of Jesus that really does change hearts and lives. This is something that science cannot explain.
tjguy
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 3:22 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby brotheroflogan » Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:03 pm

Thorton wrote:
brotheroflogan wrote:It is so easy to mock. So hard to do one's own research.


Hate to break the news to you BoL but Giem didn’t do any research. He read through the hard work of others and cherry-picked the snippets he could spin and misrepresent to push his own YEC fairy tale. He’s effectively spitting in the face of all those researchers who did do the work, basically telling everyone in the radiocarbon community that they’re incompetent or worse. Real scientists have nothing but distain for such YEC charlatans.

Do you think it’s a coincidence that he’s never submitted this amazing scientific discovery of his to any real technical journals for review and publication? After all, if his young Earth claims are correct it would overturn virtually everything we know about physics and geology and biology and genetics and paleontology and a few dozen other sciences. But no, Mr. Pretend Scientist only displays his work on Creationist web sites, YouTube videos, and the occasional talk to the rubes in the church basement.

If I seem harsh it’s because as a member of the professional science community I'm sick and tired of having to deal with the lies of these Creationist bottom feeders. They drag down the scientific literacy level of the country every time they open their mouths in public. I for one plan to keep confronting their brand of willful ignorance wherever and whenever I can.



No, Thorton, if you were sick and tired of it, you wouldn't be here. You love belittling others and you rarely respond to a legitimate challenge.
brotheroflogan
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 10:08 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Snoppen » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:45 am

Thorton wrote:
No. The real problem is that science has hundreds if not thousands of independent lines of evidence that show the Earth couldn't possibly be younger than the 50,000 year limit set by radiocarbon dating. Things like ice core samples that date hundreds of thousands of years. Geologic formations like Gooseneck State Park in Utah that took milllions of years to erode. In Yellowstone Park there is a place called Specimen Ridge that has over 60 mature forests buried sequentially, one on top of another. Each forest was buried by volcanic lahars then another grew on top. We know the forests were buried in place and not transported because of the layers of paleosoils around their root. It's estimated Specimen Ridge took over 2 million years of volcanic activity and forest growth to form.

In science we have to look at ALL the evidence taken as a whole. YECs will cherry pick individual pieces that they can twist and spin while ignoring all the huge amounts of evidence that directly contradict the YEC claim.


Thorton (not Thornton) is prevented from further responses. You kill what might have been an interesting debate before it got started. Why are creationists so trigger happy? I'd like to see creationist aswers to the questions he asked. IMHO, if all that creation "science" says should be true, an overwhelming majority of the science community must be deluded nincompoops. I predict bannination is imminent. Do you see the similarities between creationism and Stalinism?

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Snoppen
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:27 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby awstar » Wed Mar 26, 2014 5:21 am

Snoppen wrote: I'd like to see creationist aswers to the questions he asked.



Here's a nice creationist explanation for the Speciman Ridge petrified forest in Yellowstone Park.

http://creation.com/the-yellowstone-petrified-forests

Let's discuss further.
awstar
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 2:32 pm

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Paul Giem » Fri Mar 28, 2014 1:35 am

Snoppen,

You wrote.
Thorton (not Thornton) is prevented from further responses. You kill what might have been an interesting debate before it got started. Why are creationists so trigger happy? I'd like to see creationist aswers to the questions he asked. IMHO, if all that creation "science" says should be true, an overwhelming majority of the science community must be deluded nincompoops. I predict bannination is imminent. Do you see the similarities between creationism and Stalinism?


You seem to have forgotten the subject,
C14 dating of fossils.

You seem to have also forgotten your original post,
I can only wonder what is meant by referring to "C14 dating of fossils" elsehere on this blog. In case there should be any confusion about the different radiometric dating methods in use, to the best of my knowledge it has long been common knowledge that the C14 dating method is not suitable for dating objects older than ~50.000 years.

The half life of C14 is too short for going beyond that. But there are many other methods for dating objects all through the history of the planet and I believe that sometimes several methods of dating can overlap and serve to strenghten the evidence. But I presume such methods are not approved by young earth creationists.


I am interested in the fact that Thorton is trying to broaden the discussion without starting a new thread. It appears that at least as far as 14C in very old material goes, he has no answers to the points being raised. That goes double for his lack of grasp of how much uranium it would take to create the requisite amounts of 14C in fossil carbon. If he would honestly say that instead of (or in addition to) trying to change the subject, he would probably get a little more respect. I am still awaiting his peer-reviewed literature in support of his claim that
There has never been any credible evidence of C14 being found in fossils.


I second tjguy's point,
I noticed that, but for his typical ridicule, he didn't even interact with Dr. Geim's responds to his judmental accusations. This is an example of when ridicule is used to hide either the fact that he is wrong or that he has no answer.


You also might check with the moderators. Since this is your post, according to Hezekiah Wang,
Snoppen you are allowed and encouraged to post your dissenting opinion in the Creation Science forum. Once you start a thread, you set the rules of the discussion.

If I were you, I would see if the moderators would at least allow Thorton on this thread. I would certainly do that before proclaiming Thorton a martyr.
Paul Giem
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 12:23 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby stcordova » Sat Mar 29, 2014 12:22 pm


Thorton (not Thornton) is prevented from further responses. You kill what might have been an interesting debate before it got started. Why are creationists so trigger happy?


Thornton got himself tossed. Nothing was preventing him from starting a thread like, "why I believe YECs are stupid". He could have started it, you can start it and invite and disinvite whomever you want to participated. Thornton could not even follow the simplest forum rule: "THREAD AUTHORS SET THE RULES FOR THEIR THREADS".

Don't accuse the creationists of breaking simple rules.
stcordova
 
Posts: 447
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:41 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby jguy » Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:58 am

Thorton wrote:
brotheroflogan wrote:[...]After all, if his young Earth claims are correct it would overturn virtually everything we know about physics and geology and biology and genetics and paleontology and a few dozen other sciences.[...]


It's easy to refute your broad generalization. Most real & observable science doesn't depend on the age of the earth. Sure, a young earth refutes evolution, but that doesn't equate to refuting everything about biology, not even close! And how would a young earth refute the laws of motion? genetics? See, yours is a fallacious sweeping claim. Perhaps, the closest you could argue is that there would be immense damage done to geology & paleontology - but even then, so what?

If something is overturned, then it wasn't actually knowledge - was it? Why should we resist something simply because if it's correct that it might overturn many things that you or anyone only thinks is known?
Last edited by jguy on Mon Apr 07, 2014 6:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jguy
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2014 7:57 am

Re: C14 dating of fossils

Postby Snoppen » Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:26 am

Advice to creationists: there is benefit in interacting with Thornton if you want to improve your debate skills. That is about all.


With such a fine specimen to experiment on, why throw it in the waste basket as useless?

Personally, I intend to check out what's true and what's not on the subject of the age of dinosaur fossils - in light of the overwhelming amout of evidence for a very old earth, the YEC position seems rather shaky to me. "One contaminated sample doesn't a young earth make."

I wish a creationist would come forward and explain why creationists sites are notorious for banning opponents while evolution friendly sites let creationist keep on posting. Just take a look at what Joe G. gets away with at AtBC - how much of that would be tolerated here?

If you want debate, you need someone advocating opposing views.
Snoppen
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:27 am

Previous

Return to Creation Science

cron