CARBON DATING UNDERCUTS EVOLUTION'S LONG AGES

ICR ^ | October, 2003 | John Baumgardner

[HalfFull]

there remains far more evidence supporting the theory of evolution

Many would disagree, but that is not the topic of the article. How do you explain the common amount of C14 throughout the fossil layer "ages" ?

[ForOurFuture]

Can you prove that God exists?

[VadeRetro]

What it says is that there IS measurable C14 throughout the fossil layers, showing that the material is less than 20,000 years.

What the ICR charlatans don't tell the credulous, superstitious boobs upon whom they prey is that carbon is highly mobile in the form of CO₂ (atmospheric) and/or carbonic acid (which is essentially CO₂ dissolved in water), making it easy to find contamination by modern carbon in old rocks if you're looking to do so.

[mgstarr]

This is child's play. Let's debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin instead.

[f.Christian]

Yeah ... your bearings - bear greese --- froze !

You're on the skids -- no wheels !

[narby]

Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments

Don't really need to read past this line.

Even if you throw out 14C readings entirely, there are litteral mountains of other evidence that conclusivly proves evolution.

I really don't see a conflict between Genesis (which only has a few pages of very general descriptions of the creation) and science. The insistence of a few people to find that conflict seems to be going at things the hard way.

[Tac12]

REAL science is always searching, using facts...not "should have beens", "could of's", and "maybe so" of the Evolution Religion.
Of course science is like that: there is a lot of maybe, possible, highly likely, probable, problably not, very unlikely, ..., numbers one knows only with a certain precision,...,

[HalfFull]

making it easy to find contamination by modern carbon in old rocks if you're looking to do so.

Your typical name-calling aside, Vade...did you read the article and what the scientist did to avoid this problem?

[f.Christian]

Existence exists and your ... fantasy - bias - is --- tiresome - boring !

[Prodigal Son]

It is possible, perhaps he/she is a speed reader with quick comprehension.

I've never thought of myself as a speed reader. My wife's first language is not English, yet she reads at a faster rate (in English) than I and I wouldn't consider her a speed reader either.

[HalfFull]

This is child's play

If it is child play, refute the evidence. The children are waiting....

[narby]

Can you prove that God exists?

This is the very reason why the creationism argument is a very stupid move by faithful people. It is guaranteed that many bright young believers, when forced to choose between the proof of evolution and proof of God, will choose Evolution.

I see no conflict between Genesis and science, and believers who want to bring more people into their fold should decide that they should embrace this idea as well. Or at least shut up about the subject, and let people make up their own minds.

[ForOurFuture]

Existence exists and your ... fantasy - bias - is --- tiresome - boring !

Perhaps if I translate the question, you will answer it.

Can .. you-prove that ---- God exists-- ?

[VadeRetro]

Your typical name-calling aside, Vade...did you read the article and what the scientist did to avoid this problem?

They did nothing to avoid it. It's their whole game. Survey literature; mischaracterize literature.

[philetus]

Prove he doesn't.

[narby]

I guess he can't prove God exists. He's avoiding the question.

[narby]

Prove he doesn't.

Prove that Zues doesn't exist. (and show some respect, capitalize that "h" in "He")

[f.Christian]

If you think this intricately complicated universe fell out of garbage can -- space fart ... you are crazy -- a turnip !

[MontanaBeth]

It was an extremely interesting article, some of the other posters seem threatened by it which I don't understand....

[mgstarr]

No point in wasting anymore bandwidth than this thread already is and will.

If I thought your post actually had a point or was meant to stimulate real discourse then I'd consider discussing further . Since it doesn't, I won't.