I have a quick question for creationists...

[gamespotter10]

Its a very simple question. okay, here it is.
WARNING, your mind may be blown by your inability to answer it

Is there a single piece, just one single piece of scientific evidence that would lead one to conclude that the earth was created by god in 7 days 6000 years ago?

 

[AuraTwilight]

THE BIBLE!

.....oh wait.

 

[shinbits]

AiG has some listed, but they are either refuted or eclipsed by mountains of evidence that the earth is billions of years old.

 

[Moaty]

Is there any evidence except to the very inaccurate forms of radiometric dating, that has proven to be so inaccurate that its not even used anymore, that the earth is 6 Billion years old?
Don't even say Carbon-dating because carbon will completely disappear from objects after 10000 years. All life forms require carbon to live and dinosaur bones when carbon dated will test positive for carbon, when they shouldn't if they were truly extinct 63 million years ago.

 

[Blayz]

Is there any evidence except to the very inaccurate forms of radiometric dating, that has proven to be so inaccurate that its not even used anymore, that the earth is 6 Billion years old?

"not used anymore"...hilarious. Can I sig that?

Don't even say Carbon-dating because carbon will completely disappear from objects after 10000 years.

No! wait! carbon disappears after 10 000 years. That's even funnier. Can I sig that instead? Where does it go? On holiday? to heaven? Inquiring minds want to know!

All life forms require carbon to live and dinosaur bones when carbon dated will test positive for carbon, when they shouldn't if they were truly extinct 63 million years ago.

Damn straight! because carbon...like...disappears!

This has *got* to be a troll. It is not humanly possible to be this ignorant.

 

[Moaty]

first off I'm not sure what the heck sig means, because you're not using it as any of its definitions.

it doesn't simply disappear into thin air its a little thing called a half life, where carbon turns into something else, which I don't recall, and after 10000 it gets to an amount thats untraceable by any of our technology.

You're right I don't understand how you could be so ignorant.

 

[Mumbo]

first off I'm not sure what the heck sig means, because you're not using it as any of its definitions.

it doesn't simply disappear into thin air its a little thing called a half life, where carbon turns into something else, which I don't recall, and after 10000 it gets to an amount thats untraceable by any of our technology.

You're right I don't understand how you could be so ignorant.

He means that he wants to quote you in his signature.

Carbon-14 dating becomes ineffective when used on stuff that's more than around 60,000 years old, not 10,000. Fortunately, there are other methods of dating available.

 

[FishFace]

Is there any evidence except to the very inaccurate forms of radiometric dating, that has proven to be so inaccurate that its not even used anymore, that the earth is 6 Billion years old?

The earth is actually 4.5 billion years old, and the only people who think radiometric dating isn't used are people who wouldn't use it in the first place - creationists. In the meantime, scientists like thaumaturgy use it every day in order to do their job.

I suggest you check your facts before you repeat these things, because there are people here who have first hand experience of just how wrong you are.

Don't even say Carbon-dating because carbon will completely disappear from objects after 10000 years.

OK, first of all, no, carbon will not completely disappear from anything. A certain isotope of carbon, carbon-14, decays into nitrogen over time. Carbon-12, which makes up virtually all carbon, is stable and will stay put.
Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years or so, and after 60,000 years, although there will be some left, the carbon-14 will be so insignificant as to be undetectable.

All life forms require carbon to live and dinosaur bones when carbon dated will test positive for carbon, when they shouldn't if they were truly extinct 63 million years ago.

I'm afraid you've either misunderstood carbon dating, or someone has tried to teach it you and done a very bad job.

As I said, carbon-12, 99% of all carbon, is stable, it won't decay at all. A fossilised dinosaur bone, however, is no longer carbon - not because carbon has decayed, but because the organic material has been replaced by rock. In all likelihood, some carbon will remain behind, simply by random chance, but it's not a significant amount.

What I think you're alluding to again is the 60,000 year limit on carbon dating ages. But dinosaur bones aren't dated with this technique for two reasons - firstly because it's beyond the 60,000 year limit, but more importantly, because the bone is no longer bone, but rock, and you can't carbon date rock.

Historically, dating of fossils has been done indirectly, by using a different technique such as potassium-argon dating on rock layers that the fossil is in, or near to. Nowadays it is also possible to date the fossil directly, but I don't know the specifics.

 

[FishFace]

first off I'm not sure what the heck sig means, because you're not using it as any of its definitions.

it doesn't simply disappear into thin air its a little thing called a half life, where carbon turns into something else, which I don't recall, and after 10000 it gets to an amount thats untraceable by any of our technology.

You're right I don't understand how you could be so ignorant.

OK, you seem reasonable enough - except for the ignorance comment, but you were provoked anyway.

The reason people make insulting posts is because, as we've seen hundreds of times before, creationists see fit to come onto the forums and start posting away, but without any appreciable knowledge of the subject they're debating.
Your lack of knowledge of carbon dating isn't your fault, more than likely. However, you can do something about it - it's very easy to go on the internet, or go to the library, and find something about, say, carbon dating, and learn how it works. You clearly don't know what carbon dating is - that's not intended to be offensive, but it's true.

Wikipedia has a good article on it, or you could just google for radiocarbon dating and pick any of those links off the first page.

Here's what I suggest: read one of those articles, and, if you have any questions, post a new thread here to ask it. Some folks here bite your head off if you ask questions in the wrong way, and I'm afraid that's what you've just fallen victim to. But if you make an effort to learn, then you will be sure to pleasantly surprise everyone, and get a much better reception.

 

[Blayz]

it doesn't simply disappear into thin air its a little thing called a half life, where carbon turns into something else, which I don't recall, and after 10000 it gets to an amount thats untraceable by any of our technology.

Well, oh ye of no understanding, C14 turns into N14..so guess what, it does puff off into air. However, C14 comprises < 0.0001% of the carbon in organic systems, mosts of which (~98%) is the ever so stable C12 which does not decay.

Of course, said carbon gets leached and replaced with minerals during the process of fossilisation, so most of it does indeed get removed over time.


Guess what fundie, you were almost right. For completely the wrong reasons, obviously, but nevertheless, almost right.

Big gold star for you. Savour it, since it was a complete fluke, and is unlikely to ever happen again.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Is there any evidence except to the very inaccurate forms of radiometric dating, that has proven to be so inaccurate that its not even used anymore, that the earth is 6 Billion years old?
Don't even say Carbon-dating because carbon will completely disappear from objects after 10000 years. All life forms require carbon to live and dinosaur bones when carbon dated will test positive for carbon, when they shouldn't if they were truly extinct 63 million years ago.

Is that the question asked by the OP? No? Then please stop trying to change the subject.

 

[MarcusHill]

Go a little easier on the guy. He's only 18, so his fault is ignorance, not stupidity.

 

[monkeypsycho62]

Go a little easier on the guy. He's only 18, so his fault is ignorance, not stupidity.

I'm 14. Your point?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Is there any evidence except to the very inaccurate forms of radiometric dating, that has proven to be so inaccurate that its not even used anymore, that the earth is 6 Billion years old?
Don't even say Carbon-dating because carbon will completely disappear from objects after 10000 years. All life forms require carbon to live and dinosaur bones when carbon dated will test positive for carbon, when they shouldn't if they were truly extinct 63 million years ago.

It appears that you have been misled by profession creationsist and don't really have much knowlege of the subject. Please read Radiometric Dating A Christian Perspective and then we can try to answer futher questions you may have. But your post is a bit off topic because the OP asked for positive evidence that the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

 

[MarcusHill]

I'm 14. Your point?

He's less likely to have seen a load of the evidence we usually trot out. Youth doesn't imply ignorance (as you yourself prove), but it does give an excuse for it. Give it a while to see if Moaty is impervious to reason before being more judgmental.

 

[Loudmouth]

Is there any evidence except to the very inaccurate forms of radiometric dating, that has proven to be so inaccurate that its not even used anymore, that the earth is 6 Billion years old?

Wow!! First, the Earth is around 4.55 billion years old, not 6. Secondly, radiometric dating is accurate and it is still used. If you are unimpressed with the links provided by others we can continue to discuss the accuracy of radiometric dating. Here is one additional resource:

Radiometric Dating Does Work

Don't even say Carbon-dating because carbon will completely disappear from objects after 10000 years. All life forms require carbon to live and dinosaur bones when carbon dated will test positive for carbon, when they shouldn't if they were truly extinct 63 million years ago.

The half life of C14 is between 5,000 and 6,000 years (I can find the precise half life if you want). Given the historic levels of C14, there is sufficient C14 to date terrestrial organic materials that are 50,000 years old or less. C14 decays into N14 (nitrogen 14) but because C14 makes up such a low percentage of all carbon in the atmosphere (C12 and C13 make up the rest) not all of the carbon in organisms will disappear through radioactive decay. If this were the case then people would be getting cancer very early in life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Its a very simple question. okay, here it is.
WARNING, your mind may be blown by your inability to answer it

Is there a single piece, just one single piece of scientific evidence that would lead one to conclude that the earth was created by god in 7 days 6000 years ago?

!. It was in six days rather than seven.
2. Genesis does not claim that the earth was created 6,000 years ago.

 

[Oncedeceived]

See thread:

http://foru.ms/t5936660-fossil-record-and-genesis.html

My post is the last in the thread currently.

 

[elcapitan]

See thread:

http://foru.ms/t5936660-fossil-record-and-genesis.html

My post is the last in the thread currently.

So...in other words, you don't have evidence that God created the earth in six days, 6000 years ago as the OP requested.

I think the OP said the question was for "creationists", but he obviously meant YECs specifically.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So...in other words, you don't have evidence that God created the earth in six days, 6000 years ago as the OP requested.

I think the OP said the question was for "creationists", but he obviously meant YECs specifically.

The op did not specify YEC, I am a creationist so I answered. He said seven days and the Bible does not claim the earth is 6,000 years old so the op is really just a strawman.