Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS: CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL
http://www.icr.org/research/icc03/pdf/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf ^

Posted on 08/11/2003 8:57:56 AM PDT by fishtank

PDF file.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: carbon14; creation; creationism; creationvevolution; evolution; radioisotopes; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 961-962 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
When you think we've reflected lasers off the moon, and used the transit time to measure the distance to exquisite accuracy...

IIRC we also did this with Venus several years ago but with radar of course.

661 posted on 08/13/2003 3:26:55 PM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
I would expect that one attempting to judge distance to something that gives off light would know that obstructions that slow or speed the light given off or a combination thereof will cause faulty measurments in distance due to an apparent shift in position of the object from where it truly is

Parallax does not depend on the speed of light. The only way light could 'bend' (except by relatistivistic effects), in such a way as would interfere with parallax, is if there were an object made of a perfectly clear substance, of refractive index greater than one, between us and the star or planet. Where is that object? Where is your evidence for it? That object would have to have no spectroscopic absorbtion anywhere between the microwave region and the gamma-ray region, since we do astronomy over that range of frequencies and we haven't seen it. And since refraction is related by the Kramers Kronig relations to absorbtion, that is impossible. You can't bend light unless you absorb it somewhere else in the spectrum.

This is all elementary physics, BTW.

662 posted on 08/13/2003 3:29:55 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Egyptologists place the 3rd dynasty at 2650 - 2575 BC. The first and second dynasties are probably at least a couple of hundred years younger. But what do they know?

What do they know. That's a good question. So let's consider what they know. They've known for some time that there was a problem in the timeline; but, to alter it bolsters the history given in the christian bible. That is anathema to them. But the case exists and more exist. Dynasties are not - I REPEAT - not a continuous record of reigning kings that came one after another. Dynasties refer to kingdomes under rule; but, that's about it. It is demonstrable that a 21st dynasty pharaoh outlived and outruled a 22nd dynasty pharaoh and it has been shown. They were buried side by side. The 22nd dynasty pharaoh's tomb had to be cut into and modified to make way for the tomb of the 21st dynasty pharaoh when he died. They co-ruled. The prior timeline was based on the assumption that the dynasties came one after another. This has been demonstrated to be false. It has also been demonstrated that the name Shishak, given to a biblically named pharaoh actually belonged to Ramsees. Ramsees who's given name was Shisha. The difference between the two names is a single character; but this is to be expected. Jewish histories never mention an enemy by his actual name, it is always slightly perverted from the original - this is a cultural known which scientists largely do not discuss because it's inconvenient. Between just these two modern proofs, 300 years has been removed from the length of the egyptian timeline. More will come.

These changes in the timeline are dragging the oldschool scientists along kicking and screaming - not because they're wrong; but, because they're right and they can't deal with it and don't want to admit what it does to the rest of history. But then, that is the point I've been making for years about modern science.

663 posted on 08/13/2003 3:32:10 PM PDT by Havoc (If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 644 | View Replies]

To: Theophilus
Evolution idolizes an imaginary thing called chance

Evolution doesn't idolize anthing. It's a scientific theory.

664 posted on 08/13/2003 3:32:20 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
I don't understand what you're saying. It was your point that we don't know what might be obstructing starlight on its way to us. Or are you saying that there could be something making starlight go faster than 186,000 miles per second?

Oh, gee, how do we focus laser light and make light powerful enough to destroy things. Even your own crowd has argued that the speed of light has not remained constant. Faster or slower is accomplishable through natural processes. Scientists have argued with regard to light speed only that which they could observe. But they have observed it slowing over time. This tells us a couple of important things that should be obvious at this point.

665 posted on 08/13/2003 3:39:26 PM PDT by Havoc (If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
These changes in the timeline are dragging the oldschool scientists along kicking and screaming - not because they're wrong; but, because they're right and they can't deal with it and don't want to admit what it does to the rest of history. But then, that is the point I've been making for years about modern science.

I think you're making this up as you go along.

Modern radiocarbon dates for the Old Kingdom pyramids (4th dynasty, c. 2500 BC) tend to be slightly older than archaeological dates.

At Giza, south of the Sphinx, we are excavating remains of facilities for storage and production of fish, meat, bread, and copper that date to the middle and end of Dynasty 4, when the pyramids of Khafre and Menkaure were under construction. Three of the eight dates from samples taken here are almost direct hits on Menkaure's historical dates, 2532- 2504 B.C. The other five, however, range from 350 to 100 years older. Our radiocarbon dates from the site suggest that, like those from the pyramids, the dates on charcoal from the settlement scatter widely in time with many dates older than the historical estimate. The pyramid builders were likely recycling their own settlement debris.

666 posted on 08/13/2003 3:41:39 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Faster or slower is accomplishable through natural processes.

Name one natural process that makes light travel faster.

(BTW, light doesn't really ever travel slower. What happens is that the electric field polarizes the medium, but that polarization takes time, becasue electrons have to move, so the electrical field change propagates slower than c.)

667 posted on 08/13/2003 3:44:16 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
1. Ceolacanths aren't extinct.
2. Ceolacanths don't look like they were portrayed.
3. Ceolacanths don't have lungs.
4. Ceolacanths don't have legs and cannot walk.
5. Ceolacanths aren't a marker for the fossil record.
6. Ceolacanths exist in two oceans at least and never "evolved".

1. Why do you think it was such a shock when they were first rediscovered in 1938? Because EVERYONE thought they were extinct.

2&3&4. They look exactly like they were portrayed. Take a look at the following fossils - http://www.dinofish.com/image16.htm http://www.amnh.org/naturalhistory/0501/images/0501_ceolo1.jpg http://www.nature.ca/discover/treasures/trsite_e/trimages/trfossil/trswhit-m.jpg
I don't see any legs. Nor do I see anything that points to lungs(and a form of locomotion on land) that would lead to such claims. I think you are making some of your stuff up.

5. There are over 80 different species of coelacanths that we know of. So for one or two of them to survive make headlines through out the world when they were discovered.

6. I seem to recall fossils of dragonfly's that look exactly like they do today, only that they were larger in the past. THere are fossils of cockroaches, even frogs,toads, sharks. So we have lots of examples of animals that have changes very little if at all. So that proves nothing. Evolution says that living being evolve to adapt to their environment. So if something doesn't need to change to survive/reproduce, then they won't change very much.

You're assuming men hunted dinosaurs for food. There is no evidence of that of which I am aware. In fact, I think your side would balk at that notion

Hmmm. There are dinosaurs that spent most of their life in the water because their girth to muscle ratio is so high that it is difficult for them to move on land. So instead of hunting them(some sauropods were only 15 meters) while they went on land to nest, our anceters decided to hunt very fast moving antelope and Wooly Mammoths with horns as large as the men at the time. Man, were our anceters stupid. More likely, ALL DINOSAURS DIED OFF MILLIONS OF YEARS BEFORE MAN EXISTED!!!!!

I don't think the Egyptians started until 2500-2000 years ad

I'm sorry if you do not track time like the rest of us. But BC years come before AD years. You live in the year 2003 AD. Plato died around 347 BC. Perhaps this will help in your further understanding of the world - http://agards-bible-timeline.com/q4_ad_bc_ce.html
No matter what, your claim that all dinosaurs lived within a span of 1000 - 1500 is laughable to anyone with a brain. I bet those dinosaurs in antarica were pretty cold - http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/locations/Antarctica.shtml

You don't have a measurable starting point because you literally don't even know the exact distance between earth and the moon. It is a rough distance.Lets start with the moon. Maybe this will help with your understanding of the exact disitance to the moon that you say we do not have(quote "They do this by beaming pulses of laser light to the Moon and measuring the time it takes for the light to reflect back to Earth. This technique has established the exact distance from Earth to the Moon to within a fraction of an inch.") - http://stardate.org/resources/ssguide/moon.html
Or how about this one("An astronomer from the University of Washington is hoping to pin down the exact distance from the Earth to the Moon - to the last millimetre. Using a collection of instruments including a telescope, laser beam and several reflecting mirrors, he will use a technique called "laser ranging" to collect data over the next five years to reach the most accurate distance ever measured. Current measurements, although very precise, are only accurate to a few centimetres.") - http://www.universetoday.com/html/dailyarchive/article2002-0116.html

Furthermore, you don't know if there are obstructions shifting the apparent position of the star from where it actually is.
Using only trig we can get exact distances to many thousands of stars. So it goes back to my old argument that God must be tricking us in each and every one of these cases. AS far as we know, all other stars in the universe just went supernova. But we won't be able to tell until that light actually gets to us. In some cases that would take several billions of years.

If you can't garauntee you're pointed at the correct angles and matched to the same point on both ends of a known lenth, you can't get there from here. You obviously havn't been keeping up with technology. Your strong arm tactics may have worked a hundred years ago, but not any more. I'd say that we can be pretty accurate these days. Here is a nice debunking of one of your heros Kent Hovind - http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/lies/stars.htm

We've not been to a single star yet to be able to establish a standard rule of distance that can be looked upon as sure. So don't try to sell a mathemitician with a physics background on your quackery. WOW!! You won't even accept trig to find the distances to the closest stars. You are an extreemist even in the YEC crowd. So trig is quackery? On that note, I will choose to ignore you from now on.

668 posted on 08/13/2003 4:10:39 PM PDT by SengirV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 631 | View Replies]

To: balrog666
I guess he skipped trig class as well as English grammer.
669 posted on 08/13/2003 4:11:31 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Parallax does not depend on the speed of light. The only way light could 'bend' (except by relatistivistic effects), in such a way as would interfere with parallax, is if there were an object made of a perfectly clear substance, of refractive index greater than one, between us and the star or planet. Where is that object? Where is your evidence for it? That object would have to have no spectroscopic absorbtion anywhere between the microwave region and the gamma-ray region, since we do astronomy over that range of frequencies and we haven't seen it. And since refraction is related by the Kramers Kronig relations to absorbtion, that is impossible. You can't bend light unless you absorb it somewhere else in the spectrum.

Not true. Light bends as it passes through water to greter than a one degree shift. This is just one such substance that can cause an apparent shift. Your assumption at the baseline is that there is nothing obstructing. Therefore, if you are going to state a distance as fact, you must first prove it a fact rather than assuming it is. This would involve proving absence of interferance or shift. And parallax does not adjust for this. And yes it is elementary physics. So is refraction through water. You are thinking in two dimensions on a best case scenario - as though, forgive the pun, things happen in a vacuum. I'm thinking three dimensionally knowing they do not. There could be a billion obstructions and factors between us and the closest star and you are arguing about the presence of even one.

You can't bounce a laser off a star, so you litterally are guessing it's distance based on a perfect world model with no natural interferance. I'm not stupid, sir, If I hold an amber lense in front of my eye, the entire spectrum shifts. If I look at light through water, the direction from which the light seems to come is not the direction from which it originates. That is the difference between position and percieved position - color and percieved color. I introduce two - just two obstructions and you're off course by light years.

Facts are truisms. If you want to engrave something as a fact, you have to prove it is true. Demonstrating logical plausability given a vacuum and no interferance is worthless if I can insert reasonable doubt. Knowledge is not so useless as not to matter when it's wrong. That has been aptly demonstrated here already. The spotted owl was a great modern example of idiots pontificating about something they knew little about; but, by god they were sure that the poor beast was endangered - to the damaging of many people affected by the statement of "fact." How many people do you suppose die if we send a ship to Alpha Centauri and you don't know if the star is where it "appears" to be or has the frequency of light that it "appears" to have. How bout we strap you into a rocket and aim you at the light and light the butt end of it. How sure are you then. It's different when we know the ship can comfortably get there and back. But when that is not the case, it becomes foolhardy. A fact is something you CAN comfortably bet your life on with no worry. Distance to the nearest star as proposed here by you is not something I'd even consider betting my life on.

670 posted on 08/13/2003 4:17:15 PM PDT by Havoc (If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Good, since you wish to slander me, you should be able to point out all of them and demonstrate.

Two down (Post #641), eight to go. By the way, if you wish to join the complying poster's league, you have to acknowledge errors when demonstrated. And in case you're wondering, yes I do know how to acknowledge errors when they're pointed out to me.

671 posted on 08/13/2003 4:17:46 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; BMCDA; Lurking Libertarian; SengirV
I think it's time to invoke clause #10
10. Errors When we are wrong about a factual matter or in our conduct, we will acknowledge it. We will encourage others to do the same; and thus we will not acquiesce in improper conduct by those whose views we generally support.

Time for full ignore.

672 posted on 08/13/2003 4:27:45 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
as you'll remember, it was "believed" by scientists that the coelacanth had 4 legs, crawled out of the ocean and began walking

Can you show me where any scientist ever said a coelocanth had four legs?

673 posted on 08/13/2003 4:27:56 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 609 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Not true. Light bends as it passes through water to greter than a one degree shift.

This is nonsensical. The angle of refraction of light at the air-water interface depends on the incident angle. It could be zero; it could be much more than a degree. Go look up Snell's law. Note this is a k12 site.

Water refracts light because it absorbs light (in the vacuum ultraviolet). If there were something refracting light from a star, it would have to (at another wavelength) absorb light from the star. Where is the absorbtion band?

Therefore, if you are going to state a distance as fact, you must first prove it a fact rather than assuming it is

I have proven it. All matter absorbs electromagnetic radiation. We have measured the interstellar absorbtion over a huge range of wavelengths. For distances measured by parallax, it's insignificant. Therefore refraction is also insignificant. QED.

(Trite little lecture about two-dimensional thought erased. Learn some high-school physics, and get back to me.)

674 posted on 08/13/2003 4:29:36 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Really. I'd hate to brand him a troll, but how clueless can you be and expect to have people remain polite while they explain high-school science to you?
675 posted on 08/13/2003 4:31:28 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
I'm not stupid, sir,

That remains to be seen but you are definitely establishing your ignorance.

If I hold an amber lense in front of my eye, the entire spectrum shifts.

As anyone who actually has taken a physics class could tell you, no, it doesn't.

676 posted on 08/13/2003 4:33:46 PM PDT by balrog666 (Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Time for full ignore.

Sorry, but I was simply too astounded to ignore this troll.

677 posted on 08/13/2003 4:37:14 PM PDT by balrog666 (Against logic there is no armor like ignorance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
I think you're making this up as you go along.

Good, that tells me how ignorant you are of modern archeology. Here go read the book by David Rohl. It's also available in video format from either A&E or the History Channel if you can't afford the time for the read.

And, yes, I'm well aware of the ongoing battle over the date of the sphinx and it's surroundings. I'm also well aware that tomorrow there will be ten more Theories because the carbon dating doesn't line up with other methods. But then that can be expected in Egypt.

678 posted on 08/13/2003 4:39:00 PM PDT by Havoc (If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Reformat

I think you're making this up as you go along.

Good, that tells me how ignorant you are of modern archeology. Here go read the book by David Rohl. It's also available in video format from either A&E or the History Channel if you can't afford the time for the read.

And, yes, I'm well aware of the ongoing battle over the date of the sphinx and it's surroundings. I'm also well aware that tomorrow there will be ten more Theories because the carbon dating doesn't line up with other methods. But then that can be expected in Egypt.

679 posted on 08/13/2003 4:39:30 PM PDT by Havoc (If you can't be frank all the time are you lying the rest of the time?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: Havoc
Good, that tells me how ignorant you are of modern archeology. Here go read the book by David Rohl.

One iconoclastic book is not 'modern archaeology'. And Rohl, from what I've seen from a quick google search, is trying to revise the chronology of the 21st dynasty, not the 3rd.

680 posted on 08/13/2003 4:48:05 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 961-962 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson