God did not create from nothing

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:39:51-0500

Platte said:
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.

Only to someone who holds the Bible as literal, such as you do, because the basis of your arguments have not been anything scientific but have purely been religious.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:40:50-0500

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

You keep repeating that like it means anything. It's become a self-deluded mantra of yours, nothing else.

I repeat myself: 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.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:43:24-0500

@Platte you are aware that there are other ways for scientists to date things, that Carbon-14 dating is just one of many methods, right?

Platte · 2026-07-01T10:51:18-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Only to someone who holds the Bible as literal, such as you do, because the basis of your arguments have not been anything scientific but have purely been religious.

Historical

Platte · 2026-07-01T10:52:02-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
@Platte you are aware that there are other ways for scientists to date things, that Carbon-14 dating is just one of many methods, right?

Yes - My comments are targeted to C14 specifically.

Platte · 2026-07-01T10:52:56-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You keep repeating that like it means anything. It's become a self-deluded mantra of yours, nothing else.

I repeat myself: 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.

You don't agree that C14 dating being off by 1000 years is completely off?

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:53:10-0500

Platte said:
Historical

No your problem is religious. If it was historical, you wouldn't be saying that world is 6000 years old and that the Flood occurred; both of history, recorded and otherwise, shows to be false statements.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:54:06-0500

Platte said:
Yes - My comments are targeted to C14 specifically.

Which is a logical fallacy because all the other dating methods show that the Earth is older than 6000 years and are used accordingly.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T10:54:48-0500

Platte said:
You don't agree that C14 dating being off by 1000 years is completely off?

One incidence of error, of which you have refused to substantiate the claim with evidence to back you up, does not discredit and invalidate years of usage of Carbon-14 dating.

dlamberth · 2026-07-01T10:56:01-0500

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.

C14 dating is given as a range. You have never acknowledged that. At the same time through the years C14 dating has evolved to where it is way more accurate and the range narrowed substantially. You have never acknowledged that as well. The best estimate has become pretty certain.

dlamberth · 2026-07-01T11:08:20-0500

Platte said:
You don't agree that C14 dating being off by 1000 years is completely off?

With the many millions of C14 dating performed through the years, you focus on the one off.

I'm agreeing with others that the reason why is that C14 dating results fly's in the face of the 6000 year Biblical creation story. That's what this is all about.

Platte · 2026-07-01T11:12:46-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Which is a logical fallacy because all the other dating methods show that the Earth is older than 6000 years and are used accordingly.

Ok - still....my comments are targetted to C14 specifically. Its Bad, Really Bad.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T11:14:52-0500

Platte said:
Ok - still....my comments are targetted to C14 specifically. Its Bad, Really Bad.

But it's not. You just saying it's bad isn't showing that it's bad, and it's clear that your entire argument hinges on your need for the Bible to be correct in the world being 6000 years old. Your argument isn't scientific, it's purely religious.

Platte · 2026-07-01T11:16:44-0500

dlamberth said:
With the many millions of C14 dating performed through the years, you focus on the one off.

I'm agreeing with others that the reason why is that C14 dating results fly's in the face of the 6000 year Biblical creation story. That's what this is all about.

C14 being bad, really bad - has nothing to do with me. The science of C14 seems fine - determine the ratio of C14/C12....but the before and after are just bad.

Stopped_lurking · 2026-07-01T11:17:50-0500

Platte said:
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

I did, it didn't give me any specific person due to them eating shrimp (it gives me information about the marine reservoir effect, a known effect which can be taken into account). If you have the link, why just not give it? Even if somethings is off by 1000 years, there is no way for it explain that there is no global flood detectable in the last 6000 years (or 7000 years or 5000 years). You still haven't explained why tree ring chronologies would be problematic either. Can you give an explicit argument for why we should disregard radiocarbon dating or tree ring chronologies at all?

ETA, here is the actual AI results (I assume it is Google's Gemini model, prompt included):

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T11:19:17-0500

Platte said:
C14 being bad, really bad - has nothing to do with me. The science of C14 seems fine - determine the ratio of C14/C12....but the before and after are just bad.

But you have zero justification for saying that. And besides: why do the other radiocarbon dating processes get a pass and yet Carbon-14 dating doesn't? So many other dating methods give answers of tens of thousands or even millions of years, so why are you solely focusing on Carbon-14?

And yes, it wholly has everything to do with you, because you're the one making the claims without providing any evidence for your claims.

Platte · 2026-07-01T11:45:10-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
But you have zero justification for saying that. And besides: why do the other radiocarbon dating processes get a pass and yet Carbon-14 dating doesn't? So many other dating methods give answers of tens of thousands or even millions of years, so why are you solely focusing on Carbon-14?

And yes, it wholly has everything to do with you, because you're the one making the claims without providing any evidence for your claims.

I've posted a large amount of evidence

AV1611VET · 2026-07-01T11:45:26-0500

Platte said:
Ok - still....my comments are targetted to C14 specifically. Its Bad, Really Bad.

I don't know much about C14 dating, but my guess would be it is so popular because it can easily be manipulated to give them the number(s) they are looking for.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2026-07-01T11:48:34-0500

Platte said:
I've posted a large amount of evidence

You have done nothing of the sort. Known errors are not evidence of Carbon-14 being wrong. And also gain; there are OTHER methods of dating, methods that go far beyond Carbon-14's timescale. Why does Carbon-14 alone get your ire when there's methods that can date into millions of years?

dlamberth · 2026-07-01T11:49:52-0500

Platte said:
I've posted a large amount of evidence

No, you haven't.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Similar threads