Deep Time

[AV1611VET]

Then how about you tell us where the Carbon 14 in diamonds comes from?

I would, but Rick wouldn't like it.

Censorship is a drag.

 

[RickG]

I would, but Rick wouldn't like it.

Censorship is a drag.

Censorship? You mean like following the CF rules and staying on topic? Oh! the humanity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Censorship? You mean like following the CF rules and staying on topic? Oh! the humanity.

Ya ... it bothers you when Christians break the rules, doesn't it?

 

[RickG]

Ya ... it bothers you when Christians break the rules, doesn't it?

Do you have any science to contribute to the discussion concerning deep time? Do you understand the concept I'm trying to get -57 to understand about diamonds not having cosmogenic 14C?

 

[-57]

How does cosmogenic 14C get into diamonds? It doesn't/can't. Diamonds are inorganic and form in the Earth's mantle in kimberlite and lamproite pipes.

Then why is there still 14C in them? As I said before, the source to leave that amount would have to have been huge. Now if you want to continue to dance around the issue, have at it.

 

[-57]

Then how about you tell us where the Carbon 14 in diamonds comes from?

It was there when it was formed....and shouldn't be there now if diamonds are 1-3.5 MY's old.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I would, but Rick wouldn't like it.

Censorship is a drag.

It's not censorship when you're on a science forum and asked to only talk about science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It was there when it was formed....and shouldn't be there now if diamonds are 1-3.5 MY's old.

That's a cop out answer.
Do you have a scientific answer, as to why Carbon 14 is found in diamonds, yes or no?

 

[Hoghead1]

I, too, am curious where you got your information, -57. I'm wondering if it came from another creation-science ruse. Creation-science people can be really devious and sneaky. They love playing up difficulties occurred in scientific measurements. Their goal is to make it appear evolutionary science is all false, as it is all based on inaccurate measurements. Oftentimes, laity, unfamiliar with scientific methods, easily fall what the creation-science people claim. I don't know about the data you are presenting; however, let my give another case in point: Barry Settlefield has argued that all current estimates of c (speed of light ) are totally wrong. Hence, scientists either knew this and were hiding data, or just weren't well-educated enough. Setterfield claims that c actually does vary significantly and therefore is not at all constant as per mainstream science. Setterfield's logic is that c was infinite at the beginning of creation and has been slowing down ever since. If scientists worked in this equation, they would easily see that we inhabit a very young earth. But where is Satterfield's hard data? Another tricky maneuver. He argues that if you carefully went through estimates of c in historical order, these have been continually getting slower. Looks real convincing to many laity. However, the fact is, when you do go through estimates of c in historical order, they have been consistently been getting faster. Check it out for yourself. Of course, creation-science people don't just stop at measuring c. They attack just about any scientific measure used today. What they don't tell you is that there never has been, is, or will be a totally perfect measuring instrument on this planet, except, of course, for ones used by creation-science people. For example, I'm one of the lucky few who get to run a real steam locomotive. And I could go on and on about how key measuring devices just for the water level and pressure can get really screwed up. I'll stop, simply by saying we know all this already and take steps to compensate. Same with science. Creation people , for example, love to play up difficulties presented by carbon-14 darting. But how did they find out about these? From the scientists themselves who devised and use this instrument, that's how. Creation-science people had nothing to do with this. Now I find you won't find too many creation-scientists pointing that out. And you won't find many creation-science people mentioning that, in the field, the scientists take all sorts of precautions to insure their results are accurate. And, believe me, are they ever picky here. I should know. A friend of mine is a professional anthropologist, and boy oh boy, is his team fussy abut thecarbon14 samples, right down to insisting they have to be packaged in some specific way. What if they are not, what if there is any slipup here? The sample is thrown out as contaminated. In the field, there are not on, but a number of measurements taken. Up to at least three samples are taken for c-14 dating. In addition, a separate system of measurement is also used. Everything has to yield the same result. If not, then you simply take the data as inconclusive and try again. Remember, it was the scientists themselves that seem to be having difficulty dating the rock, and certainly not creation -science people. So, if that is a real case, thing to do is check out what the scientists had to say. Perhaps a better example is the fact that there are famous cases where the carbon-14 data did not agree with the date the historians accept for such-and-such a antique. Since in a case like this, you cannot determine who's at fault, the data here is simply interpreted by both sides as inconclusive and in need of further research. The fact the FBI does not always come up with decent latent prints in no way invalidates their fingerprinting methods.

 

[Hoghead1]

You would but Rick won't let you? C'mon. This is getting silly. If you are really serious abut the diamonds, then you bear the burden of giving complete details, including what the scientists have to say about this.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It all falls apart when you cannot find human fossils in Mesozoic layer. That itself is evidence against creation.

The first mammals evolved from therapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") at the end of the Triassic period, and coexisted with dinosaurs throughout the Mesozoic Era. (about)

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you have any science to contribute to the discussion concerning deep time?

James Hall in June 1788: "the mind seemed to grow giddy by looking so far into the abyss of time". Deep time is a product of the mind. According to evolutionists the mind is able to preconceive deep time because of mutations, errors and mistakes in the DNA. Job asks back during the iron age: 20"Where then does wisdom come from? And where is the place of understanding? 21"Thus it is hidden from the eyes of all living And concealed from the birds of the sky." There is a two-fold wisdom; one hid in God, which is secret, and belongs not to us; the other made known by him, and revealed to man.

For the creationist: man's wisdom, knowledge and understanding is not a product of mistakes, errors and mutation. This is a gift of God. In Proverbs (Solomon) we learn that: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." This is why those that do not fear the Lord do not understand the hidden or secret things of God. They have not yet obtained this esoteric level of consciousness. Some refer to this as insight, perception, or understanding. As far back as 3115 BCE man began to develop an understanding of Law and the Concept of right and wrong.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The first mammals evolved from therapsids ("mammal-like reptiles") at the end of the Triassic period, and coexisted with dinosaurs throughout the Mesozoic Era. (about)

But none of those creatures are humans, ancient or otherwise.

 

[lesliedellow]

For the creationist: man's wisdom, knowledge and understanding is not a product of mistakes, errors and mutation.

Blah, blah, blah. The Bible's understanding of the word wisdom, is that it is about a knowledge of how to conduct yourself through life; especially as that life is lived in the presence of God. Even if scientific knowledge was a concern of the Bible, which it is not, having a complete knowledge of nuclear physics would be cleverness; not wisdom.

 

[RickG]

Then why is there still 14C in them? As I said before, the source to leave that amount would have to have been huge. Now if you want to continue to dance around the issue, have at it.

I have already explained how the non-cosmogenic 14C comes about. Radiocarbon dating is unique to organic life forms ingesting cosmogenic 14C. Diamonds do not from on the Earth's surface. The 14C sources are different. No AMS Radiocarbon dating lab is going to radiocarbon date a diamond. The only reason an AMS lab would process a sample would be for nutrino detection, which means that anyone presenting a diamond for such dating would be for neutrion detection, not dating the formation of the diamond. Thus, your source for such information are demonstrating dishonesty by misrepresenting their samples.

Examples: R.E. Taylor and J.R. Southon, “Use of Natural Diamonds to Monitor 14C AMS Instrument Backgrounds,” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B259 (2007) 282-287.

J.S. Vogel, D.E. Nelson, and J.R. Southon, “14C Background Levels in an Accelerator Mass Spectrometry System,” Radiocarbon 29:3 (1987) 323-333

K. Mueller and P. Muzikar, “Correcting for Contamination in AMS 14C Dating,” Radiocarbon 44 (2002) 591-595.

 

[RickG]

James Hall in June 1788: "the mind seemed to grow giddy by looking so far into the abyss of time". Deep time is a product of the mind. According to evolutionists the mind is able to preconceive deep time because of mutations, errors and mistakes in the DNA. Job asks back during the iron age: 20"Where then does wisdom come from? And where is the place of understanding? 21"Thus it is hidden from the eyes of all living And concealed from the birds of the sky." There is a two-fold wisdom; one hid in God, which is secret, and belongs not to us; the other made known by him, and revealed to man.

For the creationist: man's wisdom, knowledge and understanding is not a product of mistakes, errors and mutation. This is a gift of God. In Proverbs (Solomon) we learn that: "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." This is why those that do not fear the Lord do not understand the hidden or secret things of God. They have not yet obtained this esoteric level of consciousness. Some refer to this as insight, perception, or understanding. As far back as 3115 BCE man began to develop an understanding of Law and the Concept of right and wrong.

Off topic, non science.

 

[Larniavc]

I, too, am curious where you got your information, -57. I'm wondering if it came from another creation-science ruse. Creation-science people can be really devious and sneaky. They love playing up difficulties occurred in scientific measurements. Their goal is to make it appear evolutionary science is all false, as it is all based on inaccurate measurements. Oftentimes, laity, unfamiliar with scientific methods, easily fall what the creation-science people claim. I don't know about the data you are presenting; however, let my give another case in point: Barry Settlefield has argued that all current estimates of c (speed of light ) are totally wrong. Hence, scientists either knew this and were hiding data, or just weren't well-educated enough. Setterfield claims that c actually does vary significantly and therefore is not at all constant as per mainstream science. Setterfield's logic is that c was infinite at the beginning of creation and has been slowing down ever since. If scientists worked in this equation, they would easily see that we inhabit a very young earth. But where is Satterfield's hard data? Another tricky maneuver. He argues that if you carefully went through estimates of c in historical order, these have been continually getting slower. Looks real convincing to many laity. However, the fact is, when you do go through estimates of c in historical order, they have been consistently been getting faster. Check it out for yourself. Of course, creation-science people don't just stop at measuring c. They attack just about any scientific measure used today. What they don't tell you is that there never has been, is, or will be a totally perfect measuring instrument on this planet, except, of course, for ones used by creation-science people. For example, I'm one of the lucky few who get to run a real steam locomotive. And I could go on and on about how key measuring devices just for the water level and pressure can get really screwed up. I'll stop, simply by saying we know all this already and take steps to compensate. Same with science. Creation people , for example, love to play up difficulties presented by carbon-14 darting. But how did they find out about these? From the scientists themselves who devised and use this instrument, that's how. Creation-science people had nothing to do with this. Now I find you won't find too many creation-scientists pointing that out. And you won't find many creation-science people mentioning that, in the field, the scientists take all sorts of precautions to insure their results are accurate. And, believe me, are they ever picky here. I should know. A friend of mine is a professional anthropologist, and boy oh boy, is his team fussy abut thecarbon14 samples, right down to insisting they have to be packaged in some specific way. What if they are not, what if there is any slipup here? The sample is thrown out as contaminated. In the field, there are not on, but a number of measurements taken. Up to at least three samples are taken for c-14 dating. In addition, a separate system of measurement is also used. Everything has to yield the same result. If not, then you simply take the data as inconclusive and try again. Remember, it was the scientists themselves that seem to be having difficulty dating the rock, and certainly not creation -science people. So, if that is a real case, thing to do is check out what the scientists had to say. Perhaps a better example is the fact that there are famous cases where the carbon-14 data did not agree with the date the historians accept for such-and-such a antique. Since in a case like this, you cannot determine who's at fault, the data here is simply interpreted by both sides as inconclusive and in need of further research. The fact the FBI does not always come up with decent latent prints in no way invalidates their fingerprinting methods.

Hi Hoghead1.

I really enjoy your posts but could you break them up into paragraphs? You talk a lot of sense but it's sometimes hard to read.

Cheers.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Off topic, non science.

I am not off topic at all. How ironic that you want to be shallow about deep time and the reality that we really are looking at how our mind observes deep time more then we are actually looking at time itself.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Even if scientific knowledge was a concern of the Bible

Science is very much a concern in the Bible. Also poetry and history. The whole first chapter is all about science and the creation of this world in six days or six ages. Science today actually breaks it all down to 25 stages. So the Bible just gives you the basic outline and all the details came later on. The Bible give you a nice guideline to know how accurate your science is. In some cases like the Big Bang, Creationism is accepted by Science to the point where they consider it their own and forgot that they got it from Kabbalah and the Oral tradition of Moses.

 

[joshua 1 9]

But none of those creatures are humans, ancient or otherwise.

Evolution is not my theory. I am only talking about what science teaches. Humans are mammals, humans are vertebrates. So if you want to trace the history of Humans then you need to study the evolution of mammals and vertebrates. The Cambrian is a very good place to start esp if your talking about vertebrates because this is when you first have an explosion of hard bodies organisms. Again Humans are hard bodied and their predecessors had their beginning in the Cambrian explosion (radiation). Humans recombine their dna in order to reproduce. That first began with pond scum. So according to the theory of evolution we all evolved from pond scum. Humans were there in the beginning in the form of pond scum and they then evolved into what they are today. We may even retain the memory of that somewhere in our being.