Originally posted by tim88
I like that part that says - Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5,730 years


..............................................................................................................

has two stable, nonradioactive isotopes: carbon-12 (12C), and carbon-13 (13C). In addition, there are trace amounts of the unstable isotope carbon-14 (14C) ...[text shortened]... ..............................................................

these were found underground!

that is why carbon 14 is not freakin used to determine the age of the earth.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no this is not true, there is no Biblical evidence which states that the creative 'days',
were of a specified period of time, in fact, Paul states of Christians, thousands of years
later than they are still in Gods 'rest day', so it cannot even be stated that this
erroneous assertion that the earth is as young as 6000 years has as its basis a ...[text shortened]... tionism
uses exactly the same scientific data, it simply interprets it in a different way.

Paul says no such thing. You are a Liar!

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

(Revelation 21:8 NKJV)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no this is not true, there is no Biblical evidence which states that the creative 'days',
were of a specified period of time, in fact, Paul states of Christians, thousands of years
later than they are still in Gods 'rest day', so it cannot even be stated that this
erroneous assertion that the earth is as young as 6000 years has as its basis a ...[text shortened]... tionism
uses exactly the same scientific data, it simply interprets it in a different way.

Paul says no such thing. You are a Liar!

But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

(Revelation 21:8 NKJV)

Originally posted by tim88
I like that part that says - Carbon-14 has a relatively short half-life of 5,730 years


..............................................................................................................

has two stable, nonradioactive isotopes: carbon-12 (12C), and carbon-13 (13C). In addition, there are trace amounts of the unstable isotope carbon-14 (14C) ...[text shortened]... ..............................................................

these were found underground!

Which just goes to show how little you know about physics and in this case, where C14 comes from.

In the atmosphere, C14 comes from the fact that incoming radiation from outer space hits the plentiful N14, the major constituent of our atmosphere and some of it continuously gets turned into C14.

What you deliberately refuse to see is the same thing happens underground because of the pervasive amount of uranium and other radioactives underground that has so much radiation it has made a noticeable increase in the underground heating of the Earth and that radiation can hit inside diamonds and convert what is there to C14 just as easily as in the air.

Of course that doesn't fit with your YEC agenda so out the window that goes.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
no this is not true, there is no Biblical evidence which states that the creative 'days',
were of a specified period of time, in fact, Paul states of Christians, thousands of years
later than they are still in Gods 'rest day', so it cannot even be stated that this
erroneous assertion that the earth is as young as 6000 years has as its basis a ...[text shortened]... tionism
uses exactly the same scientific data, it simply interprets it in a different way.

Your playing stupid today I see. Where did I say that creationism could be substantiated in scripture? Creationism comes from religion and is supported solely by religion. There are exactly zero non-religious creationists.
Creationists do not interpret the same scientific data in a different way, they just make it all up as they go along.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
that is why carbon 14 is not freakin used to determine the age of the earth.

im on the wrong subject( helium


Radiometric Dating and a Young Earth - Dr. Andrew Snelling

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/02/25/YEC_Andrew_Snelling_PhD_research_continues_to_verify_accurac/

Originally posted by sonhouse
Which just goes to show how little you know about physics and in this case, where C14 comes from.

In the atmosphere, C14 comes from the fact that incoming radiation from outer space hits the plentiful N14, the major constituent of our atmosphere and some of it continuously gets turned into C14.

What you deliberately refuse to see is the same thing ha ...[text shortened]... as in the air.

Of course that doesn't fit with your YEC agenda so out the window that goes.

That would mean that C-14 is not a good dating method for anything, if all that C-14 is continually being replaced.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your playing stupid today I see. Where did I say that creationism could be substantiated in scripture? Creationism comes from religion and is supported solely by religion. There are exactly zero non-religious creationists.
Creationists do not interpret the same scientific data in a different way, they just make it all up as they go along.

That makes perfect sense. For once a person see the errors in the theory of evolution, then Intelligent Design becomes more believeable. Who else could the Intelligent Designer be but God, the Creator of the heavens and the Earth?

Originally posted by RJHinds
That would mean that C-14 is not a good dating method for anything, if all that C-14 is continually being replaced.

You mean you admit to one more notch taken out of the creationist stance?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You mean you admit to one more notch taken out of the creationist stance?

The evolutionists have been using C-14 to prove things were old, now that you guys can no longer do that, it appears to me the notch is coming out of the evolutionists stance. This puts even more doubt on the C-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin. Doesn't it? HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Originally posted by RJHinds
The evolutionists have been using C-14 to prove things were old, now that you guys can no longer do that, it appears to me the notch is coming out of the evolutionists stance. This puts even more doubt on the C-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin. Doesn't it? HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

Yeah, maybe it is only 300 years old instead of 1300 years old like the fake it is.

But C14 is not invalided because most of the stuff close to the surface doesn't get radiation from underground or above ground sources. Sorry, the dating still works for most fossils. Newer techniques have actually increased the relatively accurate dating to more like 80,000 years now with advanced spectroscopic analyzer accelerators, a field I know a lot about, working as an ion implanter field service engineer for 20 years. Mass analysis is part and partial of ion implantation so I know a lot about that subject, in fact just 2 days ago, used a mass spectrum analyzer on my sputtering machine that I refurbished, spectrum analysis has many uses, one being analyzing the state of vacuum in high vacuum systems by telling what molecules are present there inside the high vacuum chamber. In our case there is a big peak at 18 amu, the peak of water molecules, saying somehow water is getting into our vacuum system, a troubleshooting tool.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yeah, maybe it is only 300 years old instead of 1300 years old like the fake it is.

But C14 is not invalided because most of the stuff close to the surface doesn't get radiation from underground or above ground sources. Sorry, the dating still works for most fossils. Newer techniques have actually increased the relatively accurate dating to more like 80, ...[text shortened]... ater molecules, saying somehow water is getting into our vacuum system, a troubleshooting tool.

Or maybe it is 2000 years old. No surprise to me.
Let me know when these technologies can get it right.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That would mean that C-14 is not a good dating method for anything, if all that C-14 is continually being replaced.

only to an unimaginative sort like yourself who needs shyster creationists to do the thinking for you.

despite your ignorance on the subject, there are various uses for C14 dating and even with advances in other areas of technology that increase the range, it is still a valid dating method in scientific circles, something you would know nothing about.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Or maybe it is 2000 years old. No surprise to me.
Let me know when these technologies can get it right.

get it right to what? within a microsecond? would that be good enough for you or do you need more accuracy?