God did not create from nothing

dlamberth · Tuesday at 10:39 PM

Platte said:
I said shrimp. Not fish

Going to AI with the shrimp correction. Pretty much like the fish connection.

Shrimp do contain carbon—like all living things—but not in an unusually high or special way compared to other foods.

What “carbon content” means in food

All organic matter (plants, animals, you, shrimp) is built from carbon-based molecules like proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. So shrimp naturally contain carbon simply because they’re made of these compounds.

Shrimp specifically

Shrimp are high in protein, and proteins are carbon-based molecules.
They have very little fat and almost no carbohydrates, so most of their carbon is tied up in protein.
Compared to fatty meats (like beef), shrimp actually have less total carbon per serving, because fat contains more carbon per gram than protein.

Bottom line

Shrimp do contain carbon, but so does all food.
They are not especially high in carbon compared to other animal foods.
In fact, they’re relatively lean, so their overall carbon content is moderate.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T01:05:51-0500

Platte said:
Nice try. Religion has nothing to do with it. C14 is bad. Really bad. You say I have no basis at the same time you admit it has issues

Everything has issues but the fact they're known means they can be accounted for.

And you've never once argued that it's the issues with Carbon-14 that you have issues with. Your posts on this thread show that your problem IS a religious one whether you admit it or not.

sjastro · 2026-07-01T01:16:38-0500

AV1611VET said:
Do deliberate lies make science credible?

Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie about their data

Once again you have put your foot in your mouth with this whataboutism fallacy blissfully unaware instead of deflecting the blame onto science, you have inadvertently engaged in the very dishonesty creationists employ.

For your opening sentence to be consistent with the link one would expect science to be rife with this deliberate lying.
Instead from your link is this.

To see if similar patterns exist in scientific academia, Jeff Hancock, a professor of communication at Stanford, and graduate student David Markowitz searched the archives of PubMed, a database of life sciences journals, from 1973 to 2013 for retracted papers. They identified 253, primarily from biomedical journals, that were retracted for documented fraud and compared the writing in these to unretracted papers from the same journals and publication years, and covering the same topics.

Do you have any idea how many scientific papers are published over a forty year period and if only 253 were identified for fraud, it represents a very small percentage.

Let's get into some facts of how bad scientific fraud actually is.
From ChatGPT-5.5.

Measure
Approximate figure
Meaning
Papers retracted for misconduct in older PubMed-based estimates
about 0.02%
Detected misconduct retractions only; likely an underestimate. Fanelli notes this led to estimates that 0.02–0.2% of papers in the literature may be fraudulent. (PLOS)
Retractions in high-rate countries/fields
roughly 0.15–0.3%
Nature/PLOS report rates such as 30.6 per 10,000 papers in some countries, which is 0.306%, and field rates around 18 per 10,000, or 0.18%. (PLOS)
All retractions in 2023
>10,000 papers
A record number of papers were retracted in 2023, but these include papers from earlier years and not all were fraud. (Nature)
Among retracted papers, share due to misconduct
about 67% in a major biomedical/life-science study
Of 2,047 PubMed-indexed retractions, 43.4% were fraud or suspected fraud, 14.2% duplicate publication, and 9.8% plagiarism. (PubMed)

Probably far below 1% of published scientific papers are formally caught and retracted for fraud/misconduct each year — often around 0.02% to 0.3% depending on field, country, and definition.

But that is not the true fraud rate. Surveys suggest the real rate of misconduct is higher: a 2021 meta-analysis estimated 2.9% of researchers admitted at least one act of fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism, and 15.5% had witnessed another researcher doing so. (link.springer.com)

You have lied by trying to create the impression science is overrun with fraudulent papers yet the actual data supported by your own link shows otherwise.
AIG have engaged in the same lies.

Is Scientific Research Flawed?

Is it possible that we are facing a situation where there is a massive production of wrong information or distortion of information?

answersingenesis.org

Ophiolite · 2026-07-01T08:35:58-0500

Platte said:
I said shrimp. Not fish

So what is the source of this report? You have failed to provide it. It is good practice, common courtesy and sound sense to provide a source for specific claims that are made. Failure to do so is unprofessional, foolish and rude. You have been asked multiple times for the source, both implicitly or explicitly. Will you provide it now, or be confirmed as the mountebank your inaction suggests you are?

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T08:37:55-0500

Ophiolite said:
So what is the source of this report? You have failed to provide it. It is good practice, common courtesy and sound sense to provide a source for specific claims that are made. Failure to do so is unprofessional, foolish and rude. You have been asked multiple times for the source, both implicitly or explicitly. Will you provide it now, or be confirmed as the mountebank your inaction suggests you are?

In fairness, I do remember reading about this being a problem in the book I read about Vikings called 'The River Kings' (a VERY good read for anyone interested in the Early Medieval Norse and the Anglo-Norse), but it was dealt with, and though I can't remember how, I think it had something do with grave goods found alongside the bodies and them being radiocarbon dated too.

AV1611VET · 2026-07-01T08:56:24-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
In fairness, I do remember reading about this being a problem in the book I read about Vikings called 'The River Kings' (a VERY good read for anyone interested in the Early Medieval Norse and the Anglo-Norse), but it was dealt with, and though I can't remember how, I think it had something do with grave goods found alongside the bodies and them being radiocarbon dated too.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T08:58:15-0500

AV1611VET said:
View attachment 380922

Thank you, AV. That is very helpful; that is the book I was talking about. Though now I'm wondering why I add a 'The' to the title. Huh. Mandela effect in action I guess.

AV1611VET · 2026-07-01T09:50:02-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Thank you, AV. That is very helpful; that is the book I was talking about. Though now I'm wondering why I add a 'The' to the title. Huh. Mandela effect in action I guess.

Been there, done that.

Many times!

Ophiolite · 2026-07-01T10:03:04-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
In fairness, I do remember reading about this being a problem in the book I read about Vikings called 'The River Kings' (a VERY good read for anyone interested in the Early Medieval Norse and the Anglo-Norse), but it was dealt with, and though I can't remember how, I think it had something do with grave goods found alongside the bodies and them being radiocarbon dated too.

I quite expect there to be bona fide instances of a seriously questionable result. I'd just like to know if this is such a case. Anyone who has dealt with any measured variable in the real world from lymphocyte count in a blood test to mechanical specific energy (MSE) in a bit run is aware that dramatic deviations from the expected can and will occur as a consequence of a unique concatenation of events. Such incidences do not devalue the benefits of lymphocyte analysis in assessing the possibility of a viral infection, or the benefits of using MSE to identify dysfunctions in the drilling process. Strangely, @Platte seems to think it does. The conclusion is that he has little experience working with data in a practical and purposeful way.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:05:56-0500

Ophiolite said:
I quite expect there to be bona fide instances of a seriously questionable result. I'd just like to know if this is such a case. Anyone who has dealt with any measured variable in the real world from lymphocyte count in a blood test to mechanical specific energy (MSE) in a bit run is aware that dramatic deviations from the expected can and will occur as a consequence of a unique concatenation of events. Such incidences do not devalue the benefits of lymphocyte analysis in assessing the possibility of a viral infection, or the benefits of using MSE to identify dysfunctions in the drilling process. Strangely, @Platte seems to think it does. The conclusion is that he has little experience working with data in a practical and purposeful way.

Oh I have no doubt that he's never run such data in such a way. Nothing of his posts suggests he knows what he's talking about.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:09:54-0500

Also, thing is @Platte, if you claim that the world was created 6000 years ago and also that the Flood occurred as described in the Bible AND also say that any disagreement with the Bible is disrespect to the Bible, then you arguing against the findings of Carbon-14 dating as 'science fiction' clearly is you arguing against said dating from a religious perspective. There's really no workaround or side-angle to take with it.

Platte · 2026-07-01T10:28:54-0500

dlamberth said:
There's been roughly 3 to 5 million or more C14 test done since 1949. Are they all bad test and need to be discarded? If C14 testing is so bad as you claim, why so many test through the years?

Why are you ignoring all of the information shared here about C14 testing and the work done to overcome it's short comings?
It's like your stuck in a hole and can't get out or something. And other than the results of C14 testing flies in the face of your 6000 time line, Im not understanding why.

Here is what I'm saying - C14 is a tool that we use for dating - it provides our best estime for dating objects in some cases. The dating should never be used as a factual date - but rather our best estimate.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:29:54-0500

Platte said:
Here is what I'm saying - C14 is a tool that we use for dating - it provides our best estime for dating objects in some cases. The dating should never be used as a factual date - but rather our best estimate.

AND THAT'S HOW IT'S USED.

Platte · 2026-07-01T10:32:52-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Also, thing is @Platte, if you claim that the world was created 6000 years ago and also that the Flood occurred as described in the Bible AND also say that any disagreement with the Bible is disrespect to the Bible, then you arguing against the findings of Carbon-14 dating as 'science fiction' clearly is you arguing against said dating from a religious perspective. There's really no workaround or side-angle to take with it.

People have disagreements with the Bible all the time...Christians argue about it all the time - its not disrespectful.

As far as C14 - its bad, really bad. I mean off by 1000 years because someone ate shrimp....smh

Just enter this in google - see what AI responds:

was a persons c14 dating off by 1000 years because they ate a lot of shrimp

Platte · 2026-07-01T10:33:20-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
AND THAT'S HOW IT'S USED.

No - people here use those dates as factual dates.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:34:52-0500

Platte said:
People have disagreements with the Bible all the time...Christians argue about it all the time - its not disrespectful

You have said arguments against the Bible are disrespectful. In this very thread! Post #1940

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:37:05-0500

Platte said:
No - people here use those dates as factual dates.

Factual means supported by evidence, that they are objective and rooted in reality. A best estimate for a date provided via evidence IS a factual date.

Buddy, you don't even know a single thing you're talking about. Take the loss, humble yourself and admit that you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are, and go and pray for guidance and also actually study.

Platte · 2026-07-01T10:37:16-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You have said arguments against the Bible are disrespectful. In this very thread! Post #1940

having arguments and disagrements is not disrespectful - but to make a statement like Genesis is made up - the Bible is not the word of God - or their is no History in the Bible - those are disrespectful comments.

Ophiolite · 2026-07-01T10:38:36-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
AND THAT'S HOW IT'S USED.

All investigations of "The World" conducted with some form of rigour, seem to me to adopt the position (implicitly or explicitly) that using the methodologies associated with such investigations the intent will always be to deliver "the best possible answer" with the available data and those methodologies. This is true of the sciences and historical studies and just about everything else. The obsession with "factual dates" not being "factual" turns out to be a strawman, arising out of @Platte's seeming ignorance of how C14 analysis and every other study is viewed.

Platte · 2026-07-01T10:39:32-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Factual means supported by evidence, that they are objective and rooted in reality. A best estimate for a date provided via evidence IS a factual date.

Buddy, you don't even know a single thing you're talking about. Take the loss, humble yourself and admit that you're nowhere near as smart as you think you are, and go and pray for guidance and also actually study.

Evidence for a factual date could be off by 10%, 20%, or could completely off.

Measure	Approximate figure	Meaning
Papers retracted for misconduct in older PubMed-based estimates	about 0.02%	Detected misconduct retractions only; likely an underestimate. Fanelli notes this led to estimates that 0.02–0.2% of papers in the literature may be fraudulent. (PLOS)
Retractions in high-rate countries/fields	roughly 0.15–0.3%	Nature/PLOS report rates such as 30.6 per 10,000 papers in some countries, which is 0.306%, and field rates around 18 per 10,000, or 0.18%. (PLOS)
All retractions in 2023	>10,000 papers	A record number of papers were retracted in 2023, but these include papers from earlier years and not all were fraud. (Nature)
Among retracted papers, share due to misconduct	about 67% in a major biomedical/life-science study	Of 2,047 PubMed-indexed retractions, 43.4% were fraud or suspected fraud, 14.2% duplicate publication, and 9.8% plagiarism. (PubMed)

God did not create from nothing

Senior Contributor

What “carbon content” means in food​

Shrimp specifically​

Bottom line​

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

What “carbon content” means in food

Shrimp specifically

Bottom line