Posted on 02/17/2005 3:10:32 PM PST by DannyTN
No, it doesn't, because that amount of contamination makes an insignificant difference in the results within the normal range of measurement.
I'm taking the history recorded in Genesis as one piece of evidence and I'm trying to find theories that can fit with all the evidence.
In some cases, that incogruence causes Creationists to examine the assumptions that evolutinists have made. Sometimes we find that indeed the evolutionist's assumptions are unsupportable. Sometimes we don't have obvious answers like the speed of light.
I'm not changing the evidence, simply examining the interpretation and the assumptions.
Did you make that up? I can't even find it on your creationists' websites?
Or is access to that info limited to those that send in their $79.95?
It's not an insigificant amount of contamination. The normal range of measurement has been improved using the mass spectometer method to measure carbon 14 as low as 1/50,000 of the modern value. These fossils are coming up with more than 1/1000 of the modern value.
If the fossils can be contaminated with Carbon-14, they can be contaminated with other radioactive elements.
The most common dating method used was Potassium Argon dating. Argon is a gas with a smaller atomic number than Radon. Radon seeps up from the ground into homes here in Tennessee.
Prove to me that Argon isn't seeping into the rocks and fossils and contaminating everything that has been dated.
It is very clear that he created the animals ...
--------------------------------------------------
Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air;
No, you're not reading it right.
Nice Try.
"Nice Try" yourself. Care to try again?
Start with the letter "A" then throw all known letters\numbers\characters etc..into your applet and see if you can come up with that sentence.
What?
You're being quite incoherent here, but nonetheless that *is* rather how the applet works -- by "throwing" random characters into the population of character strings.
Why didn't the "evolution process" find a less perfect match and accept it? like: "If you can say, which grain will grow and which will not, speak then unto me and look into the seeds of time."
Because we're not modeling semantics, we're modeling the manner in which evolution rapidly maximizes a fitness function even when that local maximum is an immensely tiny needle in a haystack, via nothing more than replication with undirected variation, shaped by a selective process.
Gas doesn't seep into the middle of a rock. That's why we say "hard as a rock".
OTOH, if argon could seep in, it would also seep out which would be more probable and result in the actual ages of the rocks being many millions of years older than as tested.
He didn't make a help mate for Adam when He created the animals though did He? He had already made the animals, He presented them to Adam for naming and to demonstrate that none of them were a suitable help mate?
Then after the presentation of the animals, He made the help mate, Eve.
But I'm supposed to be believe groundwater with carbon 14 does? Yet Argon can't?
Let's see if linking will make it clearer for you ...
"And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field ..."
He gave all the animals to Adam in the hope that Adam would find a help mate, but Adam did not find one.
Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Where did you read that rocks absorb groundwater? Or did you make that up like you did about the C-14 levels which you refused to source when I asked for your source?
Which end of the animals did he present to Adam?
...to the same small degree, which makes a negligible effect on the results.
The most common dating method used was Potassium Argon dating. Argon is a gas with a smaller atomic number than Radon. Radon seeps up from the ground into homes here in Tennessee. Prove to me that Argon isn't seeping into the rocks and fossils and contaminating everything that has been dated.
Oh, that's an easy one -- I can prove that it isn't (neither as a contamination in "everything", nor as a contamination in any particular sample) because if it were, that would be obvious as a nonlinearity on the isochron lines.
I guess you're unaware that there are self-checking radiometric dating methods...
I just saw a 737 fly overhead but I know it was an illusion. I saw one on the ground and it was too heavy to be supported by air and it didn't even have any propellors to help it get off the ground ...
Which doesn't say a thing about groundwater contamination of rocks ...
sDid God make the earth and the heavens in six days or one as the Bible says here Gen 2:4?
dHe made it in 6 as described in Gen 1. Gen 2:4 uses day as a period of time. Gen 2:4 should be understood in light of what has already been told you in Gen 1.
No, it is obvious from the text that Gen 2:4 summarizes and defines what happened in the 7 "days". But I can see that rigidity is part and parcel of your being and I will not waste further time enlightening you on the passage.
sAlso, God rested on the seventh day and must be still resting because He hasn't started creating anything since.
dHow do you know He hasn't created anything since? I think He's been working His butt off trying to keep us from destroying ourselves.
dBut supposedly the Ancient Hebrew rabbi's taught that the earth would exist for 6,000 years and the 7th 1000 years would be a period of rest. We think it was about 2000 years to the flood, another 2000 years to Christ, and the signs are thick that we are in the last days prior to the 1000 year reign of Christ.
Do you realize you just proved my case?
It is sad that when a creationist is offerred a way to accept both God's word and the ToE, he choses to avoid the real for the imagined.
Please give us your evidence for what "kinds" God has just made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.