Scientific proof of flood.

[rmwilliamsll]

Is it not a fact that fossil fuel deposits when carbon dated all return a value of about 4500 years the exact time of the Flood of Noah .

Perhaps it is for this reason that carbon dating is not considered "reliable " any more .
I wonder why?

i would expect zero C-14 in fossil fuels. too many 1/2 lifes have passed. what reference do you have to this 4500 years ago figure?


so a date via C-14 of greater than max limits would be expected, or > 60K years ago.

again i know of no scientific places on the net that think that C14 dating is unreliable so what are your sources so we may read them....



...

 

[leccy]

Is it not a fact that fossil fuel deposits when carbon dated all return a value of about 4500 years the exact time of the Flood of Noah .

Could you provide some evidence of that claim?

Perhaps it is for this reason that carbon dating is not considered "reliable " any more .
I wonder why?

Radiocarbon dating is reliable in relatively young organic material that has died in the past tens of thousands of years. Most oil fields are considerably older than that and dating of those would use other methods than radiocarbon dating.

 

[A4C]

i would expect zero C-14 in fossil fuels. too many 1/2 lifes have passed. what reference do you have to this 4500 years ago figure?


so a date via C-14 of greater than max limits would be expected, or > 60K years ago.

again i know of no scientific places on the net that think that C14 dating is unreliable so what are your sources so we may read them....



...

Here are some interesting sites relating to carbomn dating and fossil fuels :


How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html




Carbon-14 Dating Shows that the Earth is Young

http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html




What about carbon dating?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp




Coal: memorial to the Flood

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/coal.asp

 

[Valkhorn]

How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html



Carbon-14 Dating Shows that the Earth is Young

http://www.ldolphin.org/sewell/c14dating.html



What about carbon dating?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp



Coal: memorial to the Flood

http://www.answersingenesis.org/cre...v23/i2/coal.asp

Wow. Not only does this show a terrible understanding of carbon dating, but it also shows a terrible understanding of radiometric dating in general.

Swing and a miss.

 

[A4C]

Wow. Not only does this show a terrible understanding of carbon dating, but it also shows a terrible understanding of radiometric dating in general.

Swing and a miss.

Please elaborate. Could you point out the errors or are you just hand waving again?

 

[Valkhorn]

Please elaborate. Could you point out the errors or are you just hand waving again?

Funny you accuse me of what you do best.

For starters, Carbon dating has an upper limit since C-14 has a short halflife.

Next, why don't you research how the earth is dated, since I and many other people here have posted how it is done many times yet you choose to ignore it.

 

[A4C]

Funny you accuse me of what you do best.

For starters, Carbon dating has an upper limit since C-14 has a short halflife.

Next, why don't you research how the earth is dated, since I and many other people here have posted how it is done many times yet you choose to ignore it.

Oh OK Just hand waving Fair enough

 

[A4C]

For starters, Carbon dating has an upper limit since C-14 has a short halflife

Isn't 4500 years within the half life of C14?
If you trusted C14 then you would produce C14 results of oil deposits to show why oil is older then 4500 years
But do you?
No
Why ?
Because carbon dating shows an age of 4500 years
Surprise! Surprise!

 

[Elduran]

Come on, did anyone seriosuly think at this point that any of A4C's evidence would come from sources other than creationist websites?

Ignoring AiG and christiananswers for the moment (I'm sure there's already plenty of evidence against any of their "research" elsewhere), let me just quote from the very top of the second link:

Summary -- This article describes Carbon-14, and how it's distributed throughout all living objects. We also discuss the basics of its radioactive behavior, and the principles of the Carbon-14 Dating Method, including its assumptions.

In the last part of this article, we discuss some new scientific evidence, showing that some basic assumptions are in error. At least one of these errors actually becomes a strong evidence that the Earth cannot be more than about 100,000 years old.

​

The second paragraph shows a lack of understanding of the carbon dating method, which could not be used to date anything to 100000 years, as at that point the background count would be several orders of magnitude greater than the signal count, thus rendering the technique unsuitable for such datings. In that brief synopsis the author shows his ineptitude with the theory of the carbon dating method, and his entire article is therefore pointless reading material.

An equivalent error would be to try to measure the diameter of an atom with a metre ruler: a totally unsuitable method to use because oft he difference in orders of magnitude.

 

[Elduran]

Isn't 4500 years within the half life of C14?
If you trusted C14 then you would produce C14 results of oil deposits to show why oil is older then 4500 years
But do you?
No
Why ?
Because carbon dating shows an age of 4500 years
Surprise! Surprise!

Put up or shut up. Claims coming from you with no real supporting evidence are worthless, as we have seen in the past.

 

[A4C]

Put up or shut up. Claims coming from you with no real supporting evidence are worthless, as we have seen in the past.

So have you got contrary evidence that Carbon dating tells us that fossil fuels are older that 4500 years before I produce mine?

 

[Tomk80]

So have you got contrary evidence that Carbon dating tells us that fossil fuels are older that 4500 years before I produce mine?

We'll wait untill you show us the source that daated fossil fuels to 4500 years ago. Put up or shut up. If you don't want to go through the trouble of backing up your arguments, why would we go through the trouble of trying to look for evidence not supporting your argument that you don't even want to back up?

 

[A4C]

We'll wait untill you show us the source that daated fossil fuels to 4500 years ago. Put up or shut up. If you don't want to go through the trouble of backing up your arguments, why would we go through the trouble of trying to look for evidence not supporting your argument that you don't even want to back up?

Well here are some extracts from the site named:




http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ2.html







How Accurate Is Radiocarbon Dating?

>
>
>

This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen—even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new “accelerator mass spectrometer” technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less!10
>

>

>

Very precise measurements now show that most fossils—regardless of presumed “geologic age”—have roughly the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. (This includes fossil fuels: coal, oil, and methane.) Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time—less than 100,000 years ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood.12

Radiocarbon dating is becoming increasingly important in interpreting the past. However, one must understand how it works and especially how a flood affected radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years are probably accurate. Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years, which are typical of coal, have much younger true dates—near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000 years ago

>
>
>

 

[Wotan]

Well here are some extracts from the site named:


less than 100,000 years ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood.>
>

where does a gigantic flood come in???? "probably buried.." thats guesswork for one, based on nothing for 2 and impossible to get from the evidence of "fossils preserved in water deposited sediments" you dont need a flood to get water deposited sediments. You starting you arguement saying that there was a flood and that the evidence could fit it (which isnt exactly fair) i dont trust that article as far as i could flick it with a miniture spoon!

 

[A4C]

Is this interesting or not?

Figure 149: Increasing Amounts of Carbon-14. Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the organic matter being dated was part of a living organism. The assumption (shown in red), which few realize is being made, is that this ratio has always been what it was before the industrial revolution9—about one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms. Willard Libby, who received a Nobel Prize for developing this technique, conducted tests in 1950 which showed more carbon-14 forming than decaying. Therefore, the amount of carbon-14 and the ratio must be increasing. He ignored his test results, because he believed the earth must be more than 20,000–30,000 years old, in which case the amount of carbon-14 must have had time to reach equilibrium and be constant.3 In 1977, Melvin Cook did similar, but more precise, tests which showed that the ratio was definitely increasing, even faster than Libby’s test indicated.

Today, carbon-14 forms in the upper atmosphere at the rate of 21 pounds a year, but in 5,730 years, half of it decays. Therefore, carbon-14 would normally increase from the time of the creation, as shown by the blue line. Before the flood, the blue line levels off as the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere approaches equilibrium—where the amount forming balances the amount decaying. Earth’s lush forests had so much carbon that the equilibrium level was much lower than today. Those forests, ripped up and buried during the flood, became our coal, oil, and methane deposits.

During the flood, carbon-12, released from the subterranean water chamber, diluted the carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans even more. (Carbon-14 could not have formed in this chamber, because it was shielded from the cosmic radiation that produces carbon-14.) If one thought the C-14/C-12 ratio had always been what it is today, he would erroneously conclude that small amounts of carbon-14 in fossils meant much time had passed. Instead, less carbon-14 was in those organisms when they died.

It comes from here

 

[A4C]

where does a gigantic flood come in???? "probably buried.." thats guesswork for one, based on nothing for 2 and impossible to get from the evidence of "fossils preserved in water deposited sediments" you dont need a flood to get water deposited sediments. You starting you arguement saying that there was a flood and that the evidence could fit it (which isnt exactly fair) i dont trust that article as far as i could flick it with a miniture spoon!

On what basis don't you trust it . Can you see error in the manner that the research was undertaken?

 

[Wotan]

On what basis don't you trust it . Can you see error in the manner that the research was undertaken?

It starts out with the idea there was a flood which is scientifically wrong to start with and tries to make the evidense fit into the flood, it makes assumptions that it should not state as truth as they are most certainly not. I cannot see how the evidense they have indicates there was a flood, just that if there was a flood they can make the evidence fit it, and when you do it that way round it isnt so hard and it is most definatly not scientific.

When i said trust it i mean trust its assumptions and ideas and guesses.

 

[A4C]

It starts out with the idea there was a flood which is scientifically wrong to start with and tries to make the evidense fit into the flood, it makes assumptions that it should not state as truth as they are most certainly not. I cannot see how the evidense they have indicates there was a flood, just that if there was a flood they can make the evidence fit it, and when you do it that way round it isnt so hard and it is most definatly not scientific.

When i said trust it i mean trust its assumptions and ideas and guesses.

Why dont you believe there was a global flood?

 

[Wotan]

Why dont you believe there was a global flood?

because, if you start at an unbiased position and use the evidense from the earth to understand the past you never get to any global flood. the only way you get to a gigantic flood is to read the bible and im not that gullable to believe everything that is written in an old book by a few people, id rarther work off millions of people with technology and knowledge and understanding

 

[notto]

Is this interesting or not?

Only if your intent is to show that creationist sources ignore the very real process of calibrating C-14 dating against substances of known age and measured ratios.

Otherwise, its just silly graphing that has no basis in reality.

Don't creationists understand how c-14 works and is calibrated? Every source provided so far shows that they conveiniently avoid this well know fact and procedure.