God did not create from nothing

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
Pretty naive to think all these considerations are always made when using C14 dating.....and it also points out how there are probably 100 other anomalies that are not know or accounted for.

You clearly have such a low opinion of science that I'm tempted to say that like AV, you were in school and got humiliated in some form by a science teacher and you've never let that grudge go.

Buddy: you don't know what you're talking about. It's clear as day. Just stop trying to pretend you have a leg to stand on regarding anything scientific. Because you sure as heck don't.

Platte · Jun 16, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I'm not playing along with you pretending that your just so story has any worth at all. It's easy to follow along, but it's only an idiot who thinks that such a claim is workable when talking about Carbon-14 dating.

So you don't think both the tester (being a real scientist) and verifier (also being a real scientist) would say the tree was 330 years old?

Tree ring counting is the most common and effective way for testing C14 results.

Platte · Jun 16, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You clearly have such a low opinion of science that I'm tempted to say that like AV, you were in school and got humiliated in some form by a science teacher and you've never let that grudge go.

Buddy: you don't know what you're talking about. It's clear as day. Just stop trying to pretend you have a leg to stand on regarding anything scientific. Because you sure as heck don't.

Your love of science and disdain for others is impressive.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
So if you don't think both the tester (being a real scientist) and verifier (also being a real scientist) would say the tree was 330 years old?

Tree ring counting is the most common and effective way for testing C14 results.

Getting carbon-14 from tree rings is not at all the same thing as counting tree rings. The difference is in the names of both: .tree ring counting' and 'carbon-14 dating'.

How are you unable to grasp that they're two completely different things?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
Your love of science and disdain for others is impressive.

It's not a love of science, it's an actual understanding of science, something you emphatically and demonstrably lack and something you seem to revel in.

Platte · Jun 16, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Getting carbon-14 from tree rings is not at all the same thing as counting tree rings. The difference is in the names of both: .tree ring counting' and 'carbon-14 dating'.

How are you unable to grasp that they're two completely different things?

Yes I understand that.

But still, you don't think both the tester (being a real scientist) and verifier (also being a real scientist) would say the tree was 330 years old?

Tree ring counting is the most common and effective way for testing C14 results.

My point is....I'm just waiting for your reply to confirm it....is that scientific methods of dating can provide incorrect results. Please confirm by answering my question.

In the scenerio mentioned (if you need me to repost the details of the scenerio again - let me know)

Do you think both the tester (being a real scientist) and verifier (also being a real scientist) would say the tree was 330 years old?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
Yes I understand that.

But still, you don't think both the tester (being a real scientist) and verifier (also being a real scientist) would say the tree was 330 years old?

Tree ring counting is the most common and effective way for testing C14 results.

My point is....I'm just waiting for your reply to confirm it....is that scientific methods of dating can provide incorrect results. Please confirm by answering my question.

In the scenerio mentioned (if you need me to repost the details of the scenerio again - let me know)

Do you think both the tester (being a real scientist) and verifier (also being a real scientist) would say the tree was 330 years old?

Again, I'm not playing along with your pretend scenario. Stop trying to force people to play along with your insipid made up scenarios that anyone with even an ounce of scientific knowledge will know are incorrect and asinine.

Tree ring counting is not the same as carbon-14 dating. Carbon-14 IS gotten from cutting trees, but they're not counting the rings when they do so, they count the carbon-14 inside the tree.

Hans Blaster · Jun 16, 2026

I want to offer this post as an illustration of what happens when you offload your thinking to a machine prone to hallucinations:

Platte said:
Supernova Radiation: Historic nearby supernova explosions may have blasted Earth with gamma radiation, temporarily elevating global ¹⁴C levels.

LOL. Supernova radiation. LOL. Gamma rays. LOL.

Let's start with the last one -- gamma-rays:

How do you make isotopes with gamma-rays (photons)?

You can't use a photon to change a neutron into a proton, because photons don't carry weak charge.

You can change nuclei with a photon, but the only reaction that makes sense is to knock a proton from N-15. In the compact notation of nuclear reactions n15(gamma,p)c14.

We could go through the exercise to workout how many gamma rays would be needed, but there are other problems with the claim...

Supernovae do produce gamma rays -- from the decay of nuclei. Many of them are trapped in the ejecta and help keep the ejecta hot and glowing in visible light. We need very sensitive gamma-ray detectors to find the gamma rays from supernovae.

We have detected isotopic anomalies from supernovae -- Fe-60 which is made in the explosion and lasts for millions of years.

This supernova blast was so close, it littered the ocean floor with radioactive dust

Radioactive stardust confirms the two closest supernovae to ever explode near Earth. The most recent of the pair may have altered human evolution.

www.pbs.org

From things like this we know that nearby supernovae have occurred, but none have been with in the C-14 era.

Platte · Jun 16, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
I want to offer this post as an illustration of what happens when you offload your thinking to a machine prone to hallucinations:

LOL. Supernova radiation. LOL. Gamma rays. LOL.

Let's start with the last one -- gamma-rays:

How do you make isotopes with gamma-rays (photons)?

You can't use a photon to change a neutron into a proton, because photons don't carry weak charge.

You can change nuclei with a photon, but the only reaction that makes sense is to knock a proton from N-15. In the compact notation of nuclear reactions n15(gamma,p)c14.

We could go through the exercise to workout how many gamma rays would be needed, but there are other problems with the claim...

Supernovae do produce gamma rays -- from the decay of nuclei. Many of them are trapped in the ejecta and help keep the ejecta hot and glowing in visible light. We need very sensitive gamma-ray detectors to find the gamma rays from supernovae.

We have detected isotopic anomalies from supernovae -- Fe-60 which is made in the explosion and lasts for millions of years.

This supernova blast was so close, it littered the ocean floor with radioactive dust

Radioactive stardust confirms the two closest supernovae to ever explode near Earth. The most recent of the pair may have altered human evolution.

www.pbs.org

From things like this we know that nearby supernovae have occurred, but none have been with in the C-14 era.

Are you saying Supernova radiation doesn't effect c14 and that we don't experience this radiation constantly?

Of the 100 items - this might not be the best selection for your illustration.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
Are you saying Supernova radiation doesn't effect c14 and that we don't experience this radiation constantly?

Of the 100 items - this might not be the best selection for your illustration.

It's amazing how you can ask that, after he clearly spells it out for you. And it's also being said by an actual scientist too, which is hilarious.

Herman Hedning · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
Well the tree rings were counted and guess how many their were? It wasn't 170 - it was higher...and it wasn't 200 or 300 - it was higher. 330 tree rings on each of the 5-6 trees that were cut down.

Sure, and the scientists who work professionally with dendrochronology can easily distinguish between main rings and false rings. No problem there.

By the way @Platte, when you post AI answers can you please include the question you asked so we can verify it wasn't posed in a biased way? Thanks.

Platte · Jun 16, 2026

Herman Hedning said:
By the way @Platte, when you post AI answers can you please include the question you asked so we can verify it wasn't posed in a biased way? Thanks.

I would never ask a question that way....but your request is very legit - I'll be sure to do that from now on.

Hans Blaster · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
Are you saying Supernova radiation doesn't effect c14 and that we don't experience this radiation constantly?

Of the 100 items - this might not be the best selection for your illustration.

I was mostly telling you that gamma rays are a very silly way to make C-14 (the primary production method is cosmic rays, not gamma rays) and that there are no nearby supernovae in the last 50,000 years that could affect *any* testable C14 sample. Please do pay attention. (If you used a real source, we could at least examine how you misunderstood it, but alas, we get AI slop.)

Platte · Jun 16, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
I was mostly telling you that gamma rays are a very silly way to make C-14 (the primary production method is cosmic rays, not gamma rays) and that there are no nearby supernovae in the last 50,000 years that could affect *any* testable C14 sample. Please do pay attention. (If you used a real source, we could at least examine how you misunderstood it, but alas, we get AI slop.)

AI is a Godsend for us Creationist.....lol

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
AI is a Godsend for us Creationist.....lol

AI will literally just read you websites that you frequently use and their like and tell you stuff you want to hear. It's a literal 'Yes-man', nothing more.

Platte · Jun 16, 2026

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
AI will literally just read you websites that you frequently use and their like and tell you stuff you want to hear. It's a literal 'Yes-man', nothing more.

I don't disagree with you.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
I don't disagree with you.

Hans Blaster · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
AI is a Godsend for us Creationist.....lol

Of course it is. It constructs "truths" from random bits scraped from online material and you can pretend it is "authoritative" since you don't have the actual knowledge to evaluate what it "writes".

The main problem with these "public AI" things is that they give a false impression of "real" and people accept them without evaluation. I do not. Your AI was spewing nonsense and I showed you why for just one of its many claims.

AI's also are great at the "Gish Gallop", which is a dishonest debate technique that is literally named after a famous creationist fraud.

Platte · Jun 16, 2026

Hans Blaster said:
Of course it is. It constructs "truths" from random bits scraped from online material and you can pretend it is "authoritative" since you don't have the actual knowledge to evaluate what it "writes".

The main problem with these "public AI" things is that they give a false impression of "real" and people accept them without evaluation. I do not. Your AI was spewing nonsense and I showed you why for just one of its many claims.

AI's also are great at the "Gish Gallop", which is a dishonest debate technique that is literally named after a famous creationist fraud.

its definitly the lazy way - and my points are usually not specific but rather general. The AI I posted, yes there could be a few issues - but it clearly showed that C14 has many many things it has to deal with...and for me, with that many issues - there is most likely many others we have not accounted for.

My overall message on C14 - it is not intended to be used as fact - but rather out best estimate based on the tools that we have. It could be off by 10%, 20%, or completely off. To anyone using the data as fact - I tell them its science fiction.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jun 16, 2026

Platte said:
its definitly the lazy way - and my points are usually not specific but rather general. The AI I posted, yes there could be a few issues - but it clearly showed that C14 has many many things it has to deal with...and for me, with that many issues - there is most likely many others we have not accounted for.

My overall message on C14 - it is not intended to be used as fact - but rather out best estimate based on the tools that we have. It could be off by 10%, 20%, or completely off. To anyone using the data as fact - I tell them its science fiction.

Are you incapable of imaging that scientists know what they're doing in their jobs?

God did not create from nothing

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Hiking is fun

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Reconstruction 3 will come

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads