MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL

http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

[fishtank]

PDF file.

[Sentis]

I havent read all the posts here and I have no need to read the article to know its BS. I would like to explain something to the creationists. YOU CANNOT C14 DATE A FOSSIL.

Here are some reasons

1. Fossils are not organic.
2. Fossils by their very nature are inorganic because they are made of rock.
3. Rock can't be C14 dated it isn't organic.
4. Only organic material can be C14 dated
5. fossils are created when minerals leach into an area left by the decay of the organic structure. Fossils are rock
6. If you find C14 in a rock it was introduced after the fossilization. The organic material deacyed many many uyears before
7. Damp coal promotes bacteria growth bacteria is organic and contains C14.
Being an archaeologist I know that if we even find coal in an area we don't bother to C14 date organic materials as they might be contaminated.

[ThinkPlease]

Looks to me like Baumgardner is dating very old rocks, and finding some carbon in all ages of rock. He then notes that ages for said rocks using the C-14 dating method will be skewed, since there is abnormal amounts than would be expected by him.

Not having any real background in radiometric dating, I can only use the knowledge I gained while I stayed in that Holiday Inn Express last night (i.e. web browsing). The thing I am curious about is the date ranges of the objects dated. That is, the C-14 method is known to be valid for certain date ranges, usually 50,000 to 100,000 years. What are the radiometric dates for these objects, not just from one element, but from a broad spectrum of decay measurments? The article seems to assume that people only measure with C-14, yet we all know that is not the case, measurements are done across a spectrum of elements and weighted and averaged according to reliability. I also see absolutely no support for the last line of the conclusions in the paper.

[WestPacSailor]

14C?? Skinny with a good handfullThat is just wrong. Funny, but wrong!

[SengirV]

...new stars/galaxies/pulsars/etc.. would be poping up over time. To the best of my knowledge, this is not happening.

Based on what sample time? Your existance, perhaps 40 years? The eighty years we have had higher-tech instruments to study the stars? The four hundered or so since the invention of the telescope? We are using a much grander timeframe that we have data to support if we are talking about the God-driven forces needed to create stars.

95 years(NGC & IC I&II celestial catalogues)/6000 years = 1.6% of the history of the Universe has man been able to quantify that of which I speak(your numbers, definately not mine). In all that time, I am not aware of a single instance where a new galaxy has suddenly appeared(of course new, further away galaxies are found), as would HAVE to happen if you use Dr Humphreys's matter in the universe is unbounded theory.

I'm not sure what your position is, so it is difficult to point out all of the failings.

[Sabertooth]

That's the best post on Evolutionism vs. Creationsism I've read on FR. My only suggestion is that you give it it's own thread sometime. Outstanding job.

[WestPacSailor]

"Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun"

[SengirV]

You are ignorant of Dr. Humphrey's material. He never mentions light traveling at various speeds through different media.

It's GRAVTITATIONAL time dilation, not anisotropic-universe time dilation.

Very true, I am. I assuemd that since Dr Humphreys big assumption is that the matter in the universe is unbounded(no voids in space, all space is completely filled with matter) then the path of the light reaching us would be affected by the medium in which it travels(local "GRAVTITATIONAL time dilation" along it's path).

[Con X-Poser]

What good would it do to tell him that Christ died for him, according to the Bible, but the Bible starts out spouting off a bunch of fairy tales about creation, young earth, literal Adam, Eve, serpent, fruit, Noah, flood, tower, and other myths. But somewhere in there God starts telling the truth, even though that truth (like: sin, marriage, the week, redemption, diet, morality, family, etc. etc.) finds its foundation in all those myths.

Granted, the NT traces your need for salvation directly to Adam's fall, so your need for Christ is based on a myth in the first place - but let's ignore that for now.

Also, granted Jesus Christ Himself is based on a myth, since the NT gives His geneaology back to Adam, but, ah, let's forget about that.

Also, granted this same Jesus Christ I'm trying to get you to trust your soul to actually BELIEVED all those myths, He thought He literally created Adam and Eve in the beginning, He thought they really lived in the garden of Eden and fell by eating the forbidden fruit, and that's why you need to trust Him to stay out of hell. He also believed some myth named Noah built a boat to survive a mythical worldwide flood. Yes, THAT'S the guy I want you to trust your eternal soul to.

Although, if Adam didn't really fall, there's nothing to be redeemed from in the first place, so ... never mind.

So your way of letting these things stand unanswered, and appealing to so-called science, helps establish the credibility of Jesus Christ just how?

[fishtank]

"1. Fossils are not organic."

Where did the C-14 come from if the fossil was formed eons ago, thereby trapping the carbon atoms in a rock-like matrix?

"2. Fossils by their very nature are inorganic because they are made of rock."

See above.

"3. Rock can't be C14 dated it isn't organic."

Why is there any C-14 in the rock since the dissolved minerals that formed the fossil should have long been decayed away. Actually, the fossils are even stronger candidates than the coal samples for the young earth view.

"4. Only organic material can be C14 dated"

No. Only C-14 containing materials can be C-14 dated.

"5. fossils are created when minerals leach into an area left by the decay of the organic structure. Fossils are rock

See above.

"6. If you find C14 in a rock it was introduced after the fossilization. The organic material deacyed many many years before"

So why is there C-14 there if it decayed away years ago?



"7. Damp coal promotes bacteria growth bacteria is organic and contains C14."

Where do the bacteria get the C-14 atoms from to grow new bio structures? Read the article to see how the coal samples were mined, transported and stored.


"Being an archaeologist I know that if we even find coal in an area we don't bother to C14 date organic materials as they might be contaminated."

Which is why they dated diamonds as well. I don't think the diamond material is in this study, though.

[Hegemony Cricket]

"...if your universe contains an all powerful God who would intentionally lie to His followers..."

"...who will merely use this blatent disception to decide that Christianity is no more than a myth"

As I read this post, I can't help but trip over the words "lie" and "blatent disception (sic)". I guess that seems to me to be a bit of a premature judgement. Your implication seems to be that if God can't present his creation to us in a form that any numbskull can immediately grasp and understand fully, then He is obviously trying diligently to deceive all of us, or play some cosmic joke. If you can assume for a moment that the biblical story of creation is true exactly as recorded, tell me, if you could examine Adam two minutes after he was created from the dust of the earth - how old would you say he was? My point is that God created mature specimans of all kinds. Would it not follow logically that the earth itself, as well as the whole universe would be created as a mature speciman?

[f.Christian]

rem (( rapid eye movement )) science ...

sleep --- roving hyper delusians ---

cerebral physical (( reality )) arrest ...

but they sleep post - walk - thrash too !

[50sDad]

Well, logically, you just aregued me out of my Salvation. Thanks, brother.

My arguement is based entirely on putting the cart before the horse. My own beliefs aside, why in the world would I want to bring up the (apparent) inconsistancies of my argurement first when trying to convince anybody of anything? Perhaps we should lead with Salvation and worry about the rest later?

As I recall, I can't document anyplace in in the Bible where Christ said that the path to Salvation is: "Place all your faith in a 7-day Creation, and you'll do fine." I'd rather stake my soul on believing Christ died for my individual sins, accepting His Grace, and telling others about His love for them. Why should I make this issue a stumbling block for my brothers?

[50sDad]

For that matter, the "Survival of the Fittest" arguement, which was at the core of Darwin's theories (not the "man evolved from apes" canard that emerged later) would indicate that God made Man fittest of all creatures to survive in a changable world, something we know to be true. Humm, "Lord over all Creaation" eh?

[f.Christian]

Also there is no evidence of giraffe necks ever growing ... or precambrian fossils --- true science will address all anomolies - assumptions !

[GladesGuru]

Dear Fishtank,

Consider reminding those demanding a credential check that Einstein said that if one's theory was not understandable to the man in the street, that one needed to refine one's theory.

What the credential demanders confuse is the difference between science - where the hypothesis must stand on it being testable & repeatable, and scholasticism - where the 'authority' of the hypothesis is important.

When I was a wee one, the seventh grade science teacher teaching us the rules of science emphasised that science recognized no authority. The suthor was not important, that the hypothesis was what mattered.

She then reminded us that science came to this rule after the sorry experience of the Inquisition making a certain early astronomer recant.

Science was right - while the Inquisitionis gone, I sat in an Dept. of Environmental Protection office in Tallahassee, FL and had to watch while a nationally known scientist(Ken Alvarez) was made to recant by a modern day inquisitor named Kirby Green.

Green was what his name implied, a socialist, and a FloriDUH Democrat. He was responding to the outraged demands of his intellectual masters, NPS, Audubon, ad nauseam. It was like watching an intellectual zombie crawling out of its grave, removing the oak stake from its chest, and re-enacting the horrors of the original Inquisition.

However, there is some hope for the future in the Sheeples Republic of FloriDUH. Thanks to Congressional intervention, the research lab in Everglades National Park which was originated by some of my academic mentors/colleagues has been taken out of the Dept. of Interior's control and given back to a university. Law enforcement (authority in its essence) no longer controls inquiry (inherently indifferent to, if not antithetical to, authority) at that lab.

Thank you Congressman Charles Taylor (R) NC.

And thanks to you, Sir, for such a prime example of why the intellectually honest should be willing to do what Crick/Watson said - "be willing to have an idea knocked out from under you before morning tea, or get out of the laboratory"

[50sDad]

DON'T PANIC!

[WestPacSailor]

DON'T PANIC!

I see somebody got the obscure reference.

Your tagline is hilarious.

[Havoc]

God created us and put fossils in the ground to make us think that the Earth was far older than it is.

God didn't put fossils in the ground to fool anyone. Events on this planet cause fossils to form naturally and blatent error on the part of those theorizing about their origen and then ratifying theory into 'fact' by way of opinioned vote is what presents the suggestion of vast age. The displacement of fossils in soil does not in itself indicate age at depth. Any idiot can sit down and figure that out based on events naturally occuring today. A localized flood might lay 1 foot of silt in one spot and a quarter inch in another. Bury that under progressive silt layers over time and apply liquifaction and natural sorting makes it impossible or near impossible to tell what happened to deposit the layers. Now let a volcano blast it into the stratosphere and blanket it elsewhere. How old is the material buried in the layers?

Old earth scientists have been so busy peddling their mistaken assumptions as fact that science has been given the shaft along with everyone it's supposed to serve. Special interests from the left control it just as they have controlled everything else. It's no wonder that getting a little honesty has taken a back seat to popular myth paid for by government Grants given by 50 years worth of liberal democrat congresses. Let liars and used car salesmen reign and what do we expect but to be lied to and have it labled truth.

What science needs is to be free of the idealogues and otherwise full of people who do science rather than speculation - who present facts rather than concocted theories posing as fact. We don't have that now. We have a passle of liberal idealogues building card houses that are gaurded by themselves. Anyone who examines the cards or the design is "tweaked". Anyone trying to build solid houses with real raw materials is tweaked. And when portions of the card house shake and or fall, they drag out the elmers glue and task the most rabid to rebuild the construct - proping it up with things that look like they provide support but that then too tremble with the rest of the construct.

The illusion only stands up so long as the cards are left alone. Touch one and examine it and you will be picking up cards for years. This is where we are now. Re-examining the cards and watching the gaurds howl and scream as though they were each Gollum lamenting their own stolen rings. Never mind the rings are all fake and they made all of them. But lord the shill shrieks of agony...

[headsonpikes]

I'm told that the Vogons don't hold with the Young Earth Theory.

[f.Christian]

To all the lurkers,

There are certain arrogant, evolutionists on these threads that spend their time posting veiled Christian insults (particularly toward "fundys"). They mock Bible believers and suggest that their "scientific" theories are superior to the Word of God. When they're not doing this they are busy posting stupid blue placemarkers, "don't feed the trolls"/"virtual ignore" graphics and pompous suggestions that the opinions of people who believe that God created ALL should take their thoughts elsewhere. When they get bored with the above, they then take on the innocent role. They get that "deer in the headlights" look about them and cry that the Christians are being mean to them.

These people are a detriment to this website, and to the Conservative cause. Please carefully note who these people are and DO NOT respond to them.


407 posted on 07/28/2003 12:39 PM PDT by conservababeJen