A Question Rgarding Embedded Age

[Kylie]

AV has an idea regarding embedded age, which he uses to explain how the Earth can be billions of years old while only having existed for 6000 years. Apparently it involves age being something that can be put into an object, somehow.

Now, I have a question about how all this works.

Firstly, AV has said that the embedding of age into the universe happened in creation week.

Secondly, AV has said that fossils came AFTER creation week.

However, that means that age could not have been embedded into fossils because they came about after the process of age embedding had finished.

My question is this: if age has not been embedded into fossils (as per the two points above), why do they date to be much older than 6000 years?

 

[RickG]

Either way is an argument of deception. There is no biblical foundation for either scenario. The problem is easily solved when the genesis creation story is viewed as not being literal as most Christians do.

The scientific knowledge we have is what it is. Choosing what one likes and ignoring the rest is an exercise of conformation bias. In the scientific community it is called intellectual dishonesty.

 

[AV1611VET]

This site lists several problems with radiocarbon dating.

Happy reading.

 

[biggles53]

This site lists several problems with radiocarbon dating.

Happy reading.

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty....!

 

[RickG]

This site lists several problems with radiocarbon dating.

Happy reading.

I dare say I have had more experience with radiocarbon dating than anyone at that site, and especially the person who wrote that article. Yeah! A lot more.

The article runs the same rubbish analogy with Libby as we see with Darwin as if nothing has been learned or improved on the process since then.

The article says scientists assume, assume, assume. That is false. When any radiocarbon lab prepares a sample for dating, they assume nothing, except the information pertaining to the sample provided by the submitter which hopefully is correct.

The article also ignores the fact that a calibration scale is used for varying 14C atmospheric content over time. The reason we know it has varied over time is because we can measure that variation. Wow! Just wow.

The article also contradicts itself.

"At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years."

They discredit 14C dating but then say it is okay for a few thousand years. The same principles apply whether a few hundred, thousand, or thirty thousand years. You can't have it both ways.

 

[AV1611VET]

Speaking of intellectual dishonesty....!

Go right ahead.

Fill us in on the details -- if you can.

 

[AV1611VET]

The article says scientists assume, assume, assume. That is false.

I don't believe that.

Scientists assumed Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug.

Scientists assumed TMI was "Go" for test.

Scientists assumed the Deepwater Horizon was safe.

Scientists assumed it was okay for the citizens to return to L'Aquila.

Scientists assumed ...

 

[biggles53]

Go right ahead.

Fill us in on the details -- if you can.

Most of the dishonesty is in the first and last sections...the moron of an author attempts to conflate C-14 dating with the billions of years age of the earth...we know quite well that radio-carbon dating is NOT used for anything older than the last ice age...

At the end he complains that it isn't useful for anything more than a few thousand years old.......we know that...! That's exactly the kind of age range we use it for....!

You complain that science doesn't 'work'....but then you go to imbeciles like this to get your scientific knowledge...!

 

[RickG]

I don't believe that.

Why don't you believe it. Please be specific.

Scientists assumed Thalidomide was a prenatal wonder drug.

No, drug companies did, besides that is completely irrelevant to the discussion which you broached, Radiocarbon dating.

Scientists assumed TMI was "Go" for test.

Again, non sequitur. That has nothing to do with Radiocarbon dating.

Scientists assumed the Deepwater Horizon was safe.

I have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn't matter anyway. It has nothing to do with Radiocarbon dating.

Scientists assumed it was okay for the citizens to return to L'Aquila.

What does that have to do with Radiocarbon dating?

Scientists assumed ...

What specifically do scientists assume in Radiocarbon dating. Keep in mind that you are talking to a person who has been there done that.

 

[biggles53]

Why don't you believe it. Please be specific.



No, drug companies did, besides that is completely irrelevant to the discussion which you broached, Radiocarbon dating.



Again, non sequitur. That has nothing to do with Radiocarbon dating.



I have no idea what you are talking about. It doesn't matter anyway. It has nothing to do with Radiocarbon dating.



What does that have to do with Radiocarbon dating?



What specifically do scientists assume in Radiocarbon dating. Keep in mind that you are talking to a person who has been there done that.

Keep in mind that you are arguing with a rogue that will do anything to derail your argument, once he realises he is on a losing side...

 

[AV1611VET]

What specifically do scientists assume in Radiocarbon dating.

Did you read the article?

1. Scientists assume the rate of decay is a constant.
2. Scientists assume the rate of [sup]14[/sup]C creation is constant.
3. Scientists assume plants & animals use [sup]14[/sup]C equally with [sup]12[/sup]C.

 

[RickG]

BTW AV, do you know where creationist get the information about problems in dating methods? They get them from dating method textbooks, which with every method discussed is a section that specifically that points out problems that can be encountered and how to avoid them, as well as limitations of the method. That is the section creationists like to "quote mine" and misrepresent.

I think the question you and all creationists need to be asking is, "Why do they deliberately misrepresent information concerning dating methods?" Really! It is so obvious to those of us who have the training and experience with them.

 

[Dizredux]

Did you read the article?

1. Scientists assume the rate of decay is a constant.
2. Scientists assume the rate of [sup]14[/sup]C creation is constant.
3. Scientists assume plants & animals use [sup]14[/sup]C equally with [sup]12[/sup]C.

I am strictly a layman on this but even I know better on #2.


Dizredux

 

[RickG]

Did you read the article?

1. Scientists assume the rate of decay is a constant.
2. Scientists assume the rate of [sup]14[/sup]C creation is constant.
3. Scientists assume plants & animals use [sup]14[/sup]C equally with [sup]12[/sup]C.

AV, please pay close attention.

There is a huge difference between the scientific definition of the term "assume" than that of the layman, much like the misuse of the term "theory" in a scientific context.

1. Scientists assume a constant decay rate because decay rates are always being tested, and verified through other independent means. Conversely, creationists have absolutely no evidence of any decay rate change. It is just a made up idea. And don't try to pull out one of the well known radionuclide oscillations. They are extremely small and are not "rate" changes.

2. Did you not read my comment about the varying atmospheric levels of 14C. We know that. And they way we know that is because we can measure it. A calibration scale based on that knowledge (actual data) is what is used to make those adjustments.

3. Completely irrelevant. It is the ratio between the two that matters.

 

[dad]

1. Scientists assume a constant decay rate because decay rates are always being tested,

Nonsense, all testing has been recent, not always.

and verified through other independent means.

False there are no independent means! All means are religious twaddle that first believe in the present nature having existed, same state same forces etc. There are NO other means.


Why keep chirping on about decay rate changes? If the state changes, forget decay rates.

 

[dad]

The reason we know it has varied over time is because we can measure that variation.

Differences in carbon 14 do not mean that the differences resulted from our nature.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Differences in carbon 14 do not mean that the differences resulted from our nature.

Good thing we don't just use the decay rate itself to verify age. There are at least 4-5 different properties of matter used to date objects, all which function on different means (thus, in order for them to all be wrong and yet still agree with each other, there is no escaping god would have had to have done that on purpose to fool people, should we assume a different state physics).

 

[dad]

Good thing we don't just use the decay rate itself to verify age. There are at least 4-5 different properties of matter used to date objects, all which function on different means (thus, in order for them to all be wrong and yet still agree with each other, there is no escaping god would have had to have done that on purpose to fool people, should we assume a different state physics).

I can play that game kid. OK, so name these 5 different properties of matter used to date objects!!!??

 

[PsychoSarah]

I can play that game kid. OK, so name these 5 different properties of matter used to date objects!!!??

RickG could explain them better than I could, more his field. But hold on a moment, I'll try to write up a good way to explain it without too much science jargon.

 

[dad]

RickG could explain them better than I could, more his field. But hold on a moment, I'll try to write up a good way to explain it without too much science jargon.

Ha. Careful before spouting the bravado next time.