• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

More evidence for a young earth

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by npetreley, Oct 22, 2002.

  1. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    Someone else (Rize) asked how the armchair scientists would explain the following. I, too, would like to hear the explanations, so I figured the question would get more attention if it was posted as a new thread. Here's are the links and relevant quotes.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n2_geology.asp

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp

     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. ocean

    ocean Banned (just kidding)

    +3
    Agnostic
    take
     
  3. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    give
     
  4. choccy

    choccy Member

    126
    +0
    Atheist
    How exactly is this supposed to be evidence for a young earth?

    Choccy
     
  5. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    :: crickets chirping ::


    (What's good for the goose...)
     
  6. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +65
    Other Religion
    Indeed.

    Not all of us are expert geologists. Give us time.
     
  7. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    Okay, sorry to rush you. I'm saving a place for the reasonable explanation. I figure it will go very nicely right next to the example of a transitional series from 99.9875% of the fossil record I challenged people to provide -- that is, if anyone ever finds one.
     
  8. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      Of course, given the sheer number of people Nick has been adding to ignore lately, one wonders if he'll even notice a substantive reply.

     
      I can't believe he has the guts to hit this one again. Since I'm on ignore, I suggest you ask him what was wrong with the ones he was shown, and how he plans to determine polyploidy in fossils.

     
     
  9. FordPrefect

    FordPrefect WWADGD

    377
    +6
    Atheist
    so you are saying that you accept the 0.0125% of transitional fossil series that does exist? :)

    I am no biologist, nor am I a geologist. So I can't help you here, however, I did note the assumption about a stronger magnetic field in the past skewing the dates so much that the fossilized wood dates can be adjusted to fit the time of the flood. I was under the impression that there was no real proof of this assumption, that ocean floor geology had debunked that idea and therefore should not be used as it has been.

    As to why there are 23,000 year old wood fossils in 89mil year old rock, I could not tell you.
     
  10. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
    *cough**contaimination**cough*.

     
     
  11. FordPrefect

    FordPrefect WWADGD

    377
    +6
    Atheist
    :) According to the article linked, you have now slurred the dating teams... or, as I see it, the ones who sent the samples in, in the first place.
     
  12. kaotic

    kaotic Learn physics

    +3
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    Dang why doesn't everyone post stuff that that site everyone knows its not credible its a christians site to discredit science without any evidence. Stop posting these sites that lie about everything just to make science look bad.
     
  13. Pete Harcoff

    Pete Harcoff PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

    +65
    Other Religion
    A few points:

    From the first article:

    "The woody internal structure was clearly evident, thus the samples were not the remains of roots that had grown into this weathered rock from trees on the present land surface. When sampled, the fossil wood readily splintered, diagnostic of it still being ‘woody’ in spite of its impregnation with iron minerals during fossilisation."

    Out of curiosity, would 200-million year old wood have a composition like this? I mean, I own a piece of fossilized wood that's solid as a rock. It certainly isn't "woody" by any stretch. Furthermore, tree roots tend to be rather "woody" in their own regard (I've misidentified roots before as logs).

    "Three samples of fossil wood were collected from the south wall of Hornton Quarries, one from immediately adjacent to the belemnite fossil"

    Again, out of curiosity, why didn't they ship off a fossil belemnite to have carbon dating performed on it as well? Or another fossil? Why only the wood?


    Also, I notice that Snelling conveniently waves off the fact that these carbon dates don't fall in line with an assumed flood of 4500 years ago (by claiming stronger magnetic shielding back them would've caused slower decay rates), while trying to completely dismiss any argument for contamination. Seems like a pot-kettle-black situation to me.

    edit: My bad, those quotes were from the first link, not the second.
     
  14. fieldsofwind

    fieldsofwind Well-Known Member

    +11
    Christian
    sure pete

    and hey... after I finish a few papers that are going to be due soon... I'll be sure to continue our discussion where we left off.. or maybe somewhere else... how about the flood

    cool???

    seeya

    FOW
     
  15. sulphur

    sulphur thylacine

    920
    +0
    Carbon dating is not reliable beyond 40 000 years. If want to hit the big time try discrediting potassium-argon dating
     
  16. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    It's not reliable beyond 40,000 years because there shouldn't be any detectable C14 left by that time. That's the point.
     
  17. kaotic

    kaotic Learn physics

    +3
    Agnostic
    US-Democrat
    Yes, but there is other dating techniques that are for dating past 40,000 years.

    http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/archaeology/dating/
     
  18. sulphur

    sulphur thylacine

    920
    +0
    what about the second part? Or do have to look it up? I wouldn't use the same sources as you did for the first part .carbon dating has been used to that date especially in regard to the dating of aboriginal cave sites . what is the half life of carbon 14?
     
  19. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    What part of "if it is older than 50,000 years, there should be no detectable C14" are you having trouble understanding?
     
  20. sulphur

    sulphur thylacine

    920
    +0
    what is the half life of carbon 14 and why is it used to date remains up to 40 000 found in caves?Please answer the question and could I have your reliable source to understand at which point the dating breaks down.
     
Loading...