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.

[narby]

Bravo, bravo! Dady'o!

I've been trying to make the point that creationist dogma is a bad thing for believers for a long time on this forum. You've made the best argument that I've seen along that line.

Can I keep a reference to your post for later use?

Great post! Really Great!

[fishtank]

"The short answer to what is going on here is "Abuse the instrument, measure noise." There's a preferred instrument for every date range, one for which the element half-life makes sense. C-14 is only useful for very recent objects because of the short half-life. With any physical measurement, as the thing being measured shrinks, the spike of signal tends to go down not to zero but into a fringe of noise. These guys appear to be lawyering on the noise."

No. The lower limit of detection (LLD) for the AMS instrument is 0.002 pmc (percent of the modern ratio of C-14). In Figure 3 in their paper, the mean pmc for 10 samples of coal was pmc = 0.247, which is about two orders of magnitude higher than the pmc.

No, they are not "measuring noise".

I just wrote a document dealing with LLD determination for radioactive dose measurements. (I am the lead researcher on a new instrument.) They are not measuring noise.

The tables have turned. The statues are falling. Many scientists are being exposed as being not only fallible but biased, deceiving and dishonest on the question of evolution.

[Quix]

Obviously you were there in the beginning and can reliably affirm such.

---

Who knows?

---

My exceedingly brilliant Mormon dissertation chairman once wisely commented (when I asked him how he handled the many changes to the supposedly unchanged Book of Mormon):

LIFE IS SO COMPLEX, JUST ABOUT ANY COCKAMAYMEE EXPLANATION WILL DO.

---

We are finite critters.

Even our "recorded history" may well fail to record plenty of critical facts.

The "fossile record" may well fail to have recorded plenty of critical facts.

Our understanding of "physics" is turned this way and that and sometimes on it's head with recent discoveries. We haven't the DISTANCE in time nor geography to pontificate TRULY AUTHORITATIVELY about much of anything.

PERHAPS ALL THIS IS some kind of super virtual reality in God's comptuer. How could we know?

A variety of explanations are possible.

I'm skeptical about the earth being as young as 6,000-10,000 years old!!! Goodness, there are evidently Chinese villages from 7,000 years ago.

But neither am I convinced that the dating methods and postulations of the evolutionists are 100.0000% correct either.

THERE ARE TOO MANY UNKNOWNS THAT WE HAVE RELATIVELY NO ACCESS TO IN TIME AND/OR DISTANCE to base any TOTALLY RELIABLE pontifications on.

We are silly critters. All sides will continue to pontificate.

And, eventually, God will show all sides to have been exceedingly and pathetically ignorant and arrogant.

[Quix]

Don't know.

Haven't examined any of his used toilet paper.

[xzins]

Have you ever posted an article that claimed the earth was old...very old?

[50sDad]

It also assumes that conditions at Earth surface have always been the same as they are now...what if we peiodically pass through belts of radiation in the galaxy that irridate our soil? What if these belts of radiation produce a much higher mutation rate? Earth is not a laboratory where you can keep all conditions the same and vary one, nor is there a control group. That's why there are so few "Laws" of science, and so very many "theories". (Cloaked Darwinists take note!)

[fishtank]

"do you have the education required to promote it?"

Yes, I do. I just don't think that a valid article should be dismissed with name calling by those who don't even understand the science behind it.

The schoolyard games are being played by the people who are calling names about the people who wrote the article.

[Quix]

When God

ROLLS BACK THE HEAVENS LIKE A SCROLL,

I expect a lot of gaping jaws.

And perhaps no small amount of mobbing the nearest rocks, crannies and holes to hide in.

[50sDad]

And God said, "LET THERE BE LIGHT."

And there was Big Bang, a first day...

[wysiwyg]

Um, no...should I have?

[CollegeRepublican]

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

I like to use this arguement in my mind to justify my problems with religion and science. If there really is an all powerful God, what would stop him from being able to create a Universe that to us mortals appears to be 16-20 billion years old?

[50sDad]

Point taken.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Here is one for you. Supposedly the universt is 15 billion years old. The furthest star is 12 billion light years away (and we aren't at the very edge of the universe). Supposedly we all started out as an explosion at the center of the universe.

Therefore, at some time, the stars were traveling away from each other at speeds approaching C, the speed of light. They would have to have done so in order to be where they are now, right? If they had done so, then the Doppler effect would have rendered the wavelength of light so low as to be unobservable to the eye. Also, time is hugely distorted when you use Einsteinian physics, so if everything in the universe is moving at near light speed, what is the time constant that you use?

[billbears]

I have to admit I don't understand the how of God's creation, our minds are just too simple to fully embrace it. But I do know that He did create the earth and everything else. It's simply amazing just to look out, see all that there is, and to think that are people that believe this all came about by chance.

BTW, thanks for the info on C14. Have never heard that before

[50sDad]

And again, if your universe contains an all powerful God who would intentionally lie to His followers, is this not...

A) A vastly smaller God than the one who died for our sins, or...
B) A very poor way for Him to reveal his eternal, honest nature to Scientific People, who will merely use this blatent disception to decide that Christianity is no more than a myth.

I believe Old Nick, Mr. Scratch, the Dark One is the only one I have heard referred to as "the Father of Lies", and I wouldn't want to get put in the pen with the Pharasees who tried to ascribe the works of God to the devil...nasty results I hear! ;)

[narby]

I just wrote a document dealing with LLD determination for radioactive dose measurements. (I am the lead researcher on a new instrument.) They are not measuring noise.

Assuming you're correct, and the original piece is correct, then why does the C14 in some older samples "prove" that God created the world in 6 days? There are a great many other things that might have generated the same measurements. (By the way, read 50sDad's post, its great. If your goal is to insure that most scientifically people never find God, then continue your creationist work).

The tables have turned. The statues are falling. Many scientists are being exposed as being not only fallible but biased, deceiving and dishonest on the question of evolution.

You got a quote in a scientific journal along that line? Knowing that scientists compete with each other like dogs for new discoveries, any scientific traction along a creationist bent would be huge (hugh) news. The lack of any acknowledgement along that line in the scientific literature of such things would mean you're blowing smoke.

[50sDad]

Clearly, the matter in the universe is not moving at full C. The light eminating from the suns, who by poplular theory have coelesed at different times, or they all would be burned out at the same rate, is.

[SengirV]

Your homework assignment:

Read "Starlight and Time" by Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. at Sandia National Labs (retired)

Ahh yes, the master of "there are no voids in the universe". By this same reasoning, given the vastly different mediums that light would travel in this magical universe Dr. Humphreys discribes, new stars/galaxies/pulsars/etc.. would be poping up over time. To the best of my knowledge, this is not happening.

I might add, if this "magical medium" of unbounded matter did exist, then we would be able to see EXTREEM changes is rotational spins of pulsars in short periods of time while the medium thru with this light travels also moves due to gravity. But since pulsars are known as the watches of the universe, I do not put too much "faith" in Dr. Humphreys assumptions. The last part is VERY important since, as you claim, the universe is only 6K years old. In order to fool us as the universe does, there would need to be MANY differing layers of this magical medium where light travels at different speed. So fluctuations would not take the millions of years to see, but only a couple, if not daily, since you place all of this happening in only 6K years.

[50sDad]

Every scientist, like every person, and certainly everyone with a political party, cannot help but tweak and prod everything they do along the railroad track of their own existing beliefs. I challenge everyone to invent a New Idea that doesn't build on what they already "know" to be true.

[50sDad]

...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.