*sigh* You've got to be kidding me. How old are you? Have you ever taken a chemistry class? Radioactive decay. The half-lives of certain elements, such as Carbon and Uranium-238, can be used for geological dating. You could conduct such experiments yourself to prove it, if you had any semblance of ability to think and act for yourself. I am not impressed by someone stumping some insignificant dumbass professors. Even the stupid manage to get into the educational system sometimes... as shown by the ridiculous and asinine concepts such as 'intelligent design'. "Give me a break."

carbon dating is not an accurate form of dating.

Carbon dating is a good dating tool for some things that we know the relative date of. Something that is 300 years old for example. But it is far from an exact Science. It is somewhat accurate back to a few thousand years, but carbon dating is not accurate past this. Thirty thousand years is about the limit. However, this does not mean that the earth is 30 thousand years old. It is much younger than that.

Because of the earth’s declining magnetic field, more radiation (which forms C-14 is allowed into the earth’s atmosphere.

The man who invented Carbon dating knew that atmospheric carbon would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years. He assumed that the earth was millions of years old, and that it was already at equilibrium. However each time they test it, they find more c14 in the atmosphere, and have realized that we are only 1/3 the way to equilibrium.

- What does this mean? It means that based on c14 formation, the earth has to be less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This would make the earth less than 10,000 years old! )

***Carbon dating is based on the assumption that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere has always been the same. But there is more carbon in the atmosphere now than there was 4 thousand years ago.

Since carbon dating measures the amount of carbon STILL in a fossil, then the date given is not accurate. Carbon dating makes an animal living 4 thousand years ago (when there was less atmospheric carbon) appear to have lived thousands of years before it actually did!

What was the original amount of Carbon in the atmosphere???

A great book on the flaws of dating methods is "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" (edited by Larry Vardiman, Andrew Snelling, Eugene F. Chaffin. Published by Institute for Creation Research; December 2000)

Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:

1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material
("Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg v)

We must recognize that past processes may not be occurring at all today, and that some may have occurred at rates and intensities far different from similar processes today.
( "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg vii)

First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.

The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations.

The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.

No carbon-14 existed immediately after creation, because carbon-14 accumulates with time. The preflood earth had more land area and less sea area, because about half of today’s water was under the earth’s crust. Therefore, what little carbon-14 accumulated before the flood was diluted with the carbon-12 in the vast amounts of lush vegetation growing on the earth, most of which was buried during the flood to become our coal, oil, and methane deposits.

Third, For carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...s/carbon14.jpg

To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size!

Carbon dating is frequently an embarrassment to Scientists.
Here are some Carbon 14 dates that were rejected because they did not agree with evolution...

*Living penguins have been carbon dated and the results said that they had died 8,000 years ago! This is just one of many inaccurate dates given by Carbon dating.

*The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon 14 method, only to find that the method gave it a date as having been dead for 23,000 years!(Science vol. 141 1963 pg. 634-637)

*The body of a seal that had been dead for 30 years was carbon dated, and the results stated that the seal had died 4,600 years ago! ("The Illustrated Origins Answer Book" by Paul Taylor)

*What about a freshly killed seal? Well, they dated one of those too, the results stated that the seal had died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6 Sept-Oct 1971 pg. 211)

Antarctic seawater has a low level of C14. Consequently organisms living there dated by C14 give ages much older than their true age.

*A lake Bonney seal known to have died only a few weeks before was carbon dated. The results stated that the seal had died between 515 and 715 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, Washington)

*Shells from living snails were dated using the Carbon 14 method. The results stated that the snails had died 27,000 years ago. (Science vol. 224 1984 pg. 58-61)

*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!
R. E. Taylor et al., “Major Revisions in the Pleistocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometry,” American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1, 1985, pp. 136–140.

*The potassium-argon method was used to date volcanic material in this next example:
"Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows. But these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801.
("Dry bones and other fossils" by Dr. Gary Parker)

Radiocarbon dates that do not fit a desired theory are often excluded by alleging cross-contamination of the sample. In this manner, an evolutionist can present a sample for analysis, and tell the laboratory that he assumes the sample to be somewhere between 50,000 years old and 100,000 years old. Dates that do not conform to this estimate are thrown out. Repeated testing of the sample may show nine tests that indicate an age of 5000 to 10,000 years old, and one test that shows an age of 65,000 years old. The nine results showing ages that do not conform to the pre-supposed theory are excluded. This is bad science, and it is practiced all the time to fit with the evolutionary model!

Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see, and explain away unwanted data.

Perhaps the best description of the problem in attempting to use the Carbon-14 dating method is to be found in the words of Dr. Robert Lee. In 1981, he wrote an article for the Anthropological Journal of Canada, in which stated:

"The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a fix-it-as-we-go approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half has come to be accepted…. No matter how useful it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually the selected dates.”

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position. This method of dating, overall, tends to be as faulty and ill conceived as the evolutionary model that is was designed to support.

http://contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...html#wp1729594
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html

Once again, copied and pasted. I congratulate you on your superior knowledge of the Ctrl + C and Ctrl + V functions of the keyboard.

-----

If that is the case with Science, then it must also be the case with Religion. How do you explain all the contradictions in the Bible? Look at what you and Jess were arguing about - she argued that the Bible said everything. You came back with quotes that said only kinds of animals. YOU only see what YOU want to see. You don't even have your own views!! You copy and paste everything from sites, and use what the Bible says to put forth an argument. Those aren't your views! You're arguing other people's views and the word of a book.

-----

I see you don... I'm sorry. I can see your sites don't seem to have any quibbles with Uranium-238 into Lead in rocks? Is that because you couldn't find enough sites, or is it because they know they can't say anything against it because it works?

I was looking forward to arguing against your "proof" that dinosaurs are 5,000 y/o, but that's been done.

Oooh! There's a point. Ever heard of this miraculous scientific substance called "ice". It's so amazingly miraculous that it can keep living tissue preserved for millions of years! :eek:!

Instead of arguing with you on this occasion (you're too stubborn to take anything into your head), I'm going to leave you with a nice little quote I put in my second RS exam yesterday which asked the question "Does God exist? Do you agree or disagree with this statement?":

On the sixth day, God created man.
On the seventh day, man returned the favour.

Dont be sorry.

No...its because the uranium-lead dating method has produced so many anomalous readings that it has fallen into disrepute, even among Evolutionists!

If you would like I could provide examples. but it might involve cutting and pasting!:grin:

Actually it hasnt and so was I.

..and why argue when we can debate. Do you know the difference Lenny?

I dont see you explaining all the examples and FACTS I have givin you.

Dont shoot the messenger Lenny. It makes you look foolish. But thats what happens when you try to shoot the message and continuiosly miss.

..and for the record, I am not a scientist, I play one on the internet.:D

We've gone through debating and out the other side.

Before we carry on. How old are you? Sometimes you act like you're 40, other times 17, and there's been occasion when I think of you as 8. So, which one is it?

I'm 16, if you can't be bothered looking at my profile.

Actually WE havnt. I have and you act your age.

Hers some info for you Lenny. Read slow. ENJOY!:D

There is a basic pattern that occurs in the decay of radioactive substances. In each of these disintegration systems, the parent or original radioactive substance gradually decays into daughter substances. This may involve long decay chains, with each daughter product decaying into other daughter substances, until finally only an inert element remains that has no radioactivity. In some instances, the parent substance may decay directly into the end product. Sometimes, the radioactive chain may begin with an element partway down the decay chain.

A somewhat different type of radioactive dating method is called carbon 14-dating or radiocarbon dating. It is based on the formation of radioactive elements of carbon, in the atmosphere by cosmic radiation, and their subsequent decay to the stable carbon isotope. We will also discuss radiocarbon dating in this chapter.

SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS—At the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand a basic fact: Each of these special dating methods can only have accuracy IF (if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS (always!) apply to EACH specimen that is tested.

Here are seven of these fragile assumptions:

(1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years!

But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space.

(2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading.

But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionary scientists do!

(3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed.

Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct.

Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants.

The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past.

The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it.

(4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past!

"His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.

(5) If any change occurred in past ages in the blanket of atmosphere surrounding our planet, this would greatly affect the clocks in radioactive minerals.

Cosmic rays, high-energy mesons, neutrons, electrons, protons, and photons enter our atmosphere continually. These are atomic particles traveling at speeds close to that of the speed of light. Some of these rays go several hundred feet underground and 1400 meters [1530 yards] into the ocean depths. The blanket of air covering our world is equivalent to 34 feet [104 dm] of water, or 1 meter [1.093 yd] thickness of lead. If at some earlier time this blanket of air was more heavily water-saturated, it would produce a major change—from the present rate,—in the atomic clocks within radioactive minerals. Prior to the time of the Flood, there was a much greater amount of water in the air.

(6) The Van Allen radiation belt encircles the globe. It is about 450 miles [724 km] above us and is intensely radioactive. According to *Van Allen, high-altitude tests revealed that it emits 3000-4000 times as much radiation as the cosmic rays that continually bombard the earth.

Any change in the Van Allen belt would powerfully affect the transformation time of radioactive minerals. But we know next to nothing about this belt—what it is, why it is there, or whether it has changed in the past. In fact, the belt was only discovered in 1959. Even small amounts of variation or change in the Van Allen belt would significantly affect radioactive substances.

(7) A basic assumption of all radioactive dating methods is that the clock had to start at the beginning; that is, no daughter products were present, only those elements at the top of the radioactive chain were in existence. For example, all the uranium 238 in the world originally had no lead 206 in it, and no lead 206 existed anywhere else. But if either Creation—or a major worldwide catastrophe (such as the Flood) occurred, everything would begin thereafter with, what scientists call, an "appearance of age."

By this we mean "appearance of maturity." The world would be seen as mature the moment after Creation. Spread before us would be a scene of fully grown plants and flowers. Most trees would have their full height. We would not, instead, see a barren landscape of seeds littering the ground. We would see full-grown chickens, not unhatched eggs. Radioactive minerals would be partially through their cycle of half-lives on the very first day. This factor of initial apparent age would strongly affect our present reading of the radioactive clocks in uranium, thorium, etc.

Evolutionary theorists tell us that originally there was only uranium, and all of its daughter products (radioactive isotopes farther down its decay chain) developed later. But "appearance of maturity" at the Creation would mean that, much of the elements, now classified by evolutionists as "daughter products," were actually original—not daughter—products and were already in the ground along with uranium instead of being produced by it. We already know, from Robert Gentry’s studies, that original (primordial) polonium 218 was in the granite when that granite initially came into existence suddenly and in solid form; yet polonium is thought by evolutionists to only occur as an eventual daughter product of uranium disintegration.

FIVE URANIUM/THORIUM DATING INACCURACIES—Here are some of the reasons why we cannot rely on radioactive dating of uranium (all uranium) and thorium:

(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end product.

In addition, common lead (lead 204), which has no radioactive parent, could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (*Scientific Monthly, November 1957). *Faul, a leading authority in the field, recognized it also (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, 1954, p. 297).

When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is "daughter-product lead" (that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium). The specimen is not carefully and thoroughly checked for possible common lead content, because it is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium samples.

(2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions.

(3) There can be inaccurate lead ratio comparisons, due to different types of lead within the sample. Correlations of various kinds of lead (lead 206, 207, etc.) in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also.

Thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth’s existence. A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well.

Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years.

(4) Yet a fourth problem concerns that of neutron capture. *Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 (normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizeable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth’s crust could have been produced in this way instead of by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods!

(5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, molten rocks would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials.

"Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds, laid down within a few weeks of each other, differ by millions of years?"—*Glen R. Morton, Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age.

It is a well-known fact, by nuclear researchers, that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings; yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time when, in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.

2—THORIUM-LEAD DATING—A majority of the flaws discussed under uranium-lead dating, above, apply equally to thorium-lead dating.

The half-lives of uranium 238, 235, and thorium 232 are supposedly known, having been theorized. But whenever dates are computed using thorium,—they always widely disagree with uranium dates! No one can point to a single reason for this. We probably have here a cluster of several major contamination factors; and all of these contamination factors are beyond our ability to identify, much less calculate. To make matters worse, contaminating factors common to both may cause different reactions in the thorium than in the uranium! (*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, p. 295).

"The two uranium-lead ages often differ from each other markedly, and the thorium-lead age on the same mineral is almost always drastically lower than either of the others."—*L.T. Aldrich, "Measurement of Radioactive Ages of Rocks," in Science, May 18, 1956, p. 872.

PROBLEMS WITH ALL RADIODATING METHODS —The rocks brought back from the moon provided an outstanding test for the various dating methods—because all those techniques were used on them. The results were a disaster.

The age spread of certain moon rocks varied from 2 million to 28 billion years! Now scientists are arguing over the results. Some say the moon is 2 million years old while others say it is 28 billion years old. We have here a weighty scientific problem, and a headache for evolutionists. (For more on this, see *Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences; Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17.)

Yet there is clear-cut non-radiogenic evidence that the moon is less than 10,000 years old. (See chapter 4, Age of the Earth). In contrast with these inaccurate dating methods, scientific facts, such as the almost total lack of moon dust, lunar soil mixing, presence of short half-life U-236 and Th-230 in moon rocks, low level of inert gases, and lunar recession,—provide strong evidence that the moon is less than 10,000 years old. (See chapter 4, Age of the Earth.)

EMERY’S RESEARCH—In order for a radioactive clock to be usable, it has to run without variation. But *G.T. Emery has done careful research on radiohalos (pleochroic halos) and found that they do not show constant decay rates. When the long half-life radiohalos (made by uranium, thorium, etc.) are examined, the time spans involved show inaccuracies in the decay rates.

JUST ONE CATASTROPHE—As *Jeaneman explains so well, just one major catastrophe—such as a worldwide Flood—would have ruined the usefulness of all our radiodating clocks.

Why would a single worldwide catastrophe reset all the atomic clocks? First, there would be massive contamination problems, as fluids, chemicals, and radioactive substances flowed or were carried from one place to another. Second, there would be major radioactive rate-changing activities (atmospheric, radioative, and magnetic changes) which would tend to reset the clocks directly. Third, a major shifting and redistribution of rock pressure occurring above radiogenic rocks would reset their clocks. Fourth, there would be reversals of earth’s magnetic core, which was caused by the shock-wave vibrations through that fluid core from what was happening closer to the surface (volcanoes, earthquakes, gigantic geysers, seafloor sinking, and massive mountain building—see chapter 14 (Effects of the Flood) and chapter 20 (Tectonics and Paleomagetism).

Now read this:

FIVE WAYS TO CHANGE THE RATES—Careful laboratory tests by *H.C. Dudley revealed that external influences can very definitely affect decay rates. He CHANGED (!) the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, stress in monomolecular layers, etc. The implications of this are momentous, even astounding! (see *H.C. Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2). The sedimentary rock strata were laid down under massive pressure. This involved great stress. (See chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, for more on both points.) Dramatic temperature changes occurred shortly after the strata were laid down; and Earth’s iron core was disturbed to such an extent, that magnetic reversals occurred at the poles (see Paleomagnetism, on our website). Yet *Dudley showed that each of these forces would have dramatically affected the clocks within radioactive rocks.

Immense forces were at work, during and just after the Flood, that could and did affect the constancy of radioactive half-lives—which, in turn, are the only basis for radiodating methods!

The consequence is inaccurate dating results which are not reliable and which cannot be reset—since their earlier settings are not now known.

*Time magazine (June 19, 1964) reported an intriguing item which was overlooked by much of the scientific community. Although scientists generally consider that no known force can change the rate of atomic disintegration of radioactive elements,—researchers at Westinghouse laboratories have actually done it. How did they do it? Simply by placing inactive "dead" iron next to radioactive iron. The result was that the disintegration rate was altered!

Radioactive iron will give off particles for a time and then lapse into an inactive state. When the researchers placed radioactive iron next to inactive iron, the inactive iron gradually became active. In this way, the apparent age of the radioactive iron was changed by about 3 percent while the clock of the previously inactive iron was returned to its original radioactive mass. Its clock was set back to zero!

If so much variation can be accomplished in small lab samples, think what has been taking place out in the field. All that, in this case, would be required would be for radioactive lead solutions to flow by and coat inactive lead.

INTERLOCKING IMAGININGS—A brief historical review will help explain the situation:

(1) Early in the 19th century, evolutionists decided that fossils in certain rock strata should be such-and-such an age.

(2) So they gave the strata containing those fossils dates which would match their fossil age theories.

(3) Then they announced that they had thought up the dates by peering at so-called "index fossils."

(4) They declared that they could now prove the ages of the fossils in the rocks—by the rock strata they were in. Thus, they started out by dating the strata by imagined dates for fossils, and they ended up dating the fossils by applying those imagined dates to the strata!

This circular reasoning pattern has continued on down to the present day in regard to the dating of fossils and strata.

But then as the 20th century began, radioactive mineral dating began to be discovered. Repeatedly, scientists have tried to correlate radioactive dating with the dates they applied to fossils and strata a century before radiodating was known. But they have not been able to do so. Out of literally thousands of tests, they have been able to correlate only three of them (the Colorado, Bohemian, and Swedish dates given in the *Knopf quotation [a lengthy statement we did not have room to include in this paperback]. The evolutionists decided that three successes out of hundreds of thousands of test failures were enough to make their fossil/strata theory "scientific," by matching radiodating. It is on this basis that evolutionary scientists now grandly proclaim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals! See chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, for much, much more on this.

SOME DATING SAMPLES—To conclude this section on radiodating problems, here are a few dating samples. Many, many, many more could have been cited!

"Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years [*G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55].

"For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499].

"Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146.

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c06a.htm

..and this is for you Lenny.

Absolute Scientific Proof the Evolutionary Theory is Dead
Flashing Horizontal Line.

A story about two friends from day one.

Once upon a time there was a Polonium 218 element of the family of radioactive isotopes. Nuclear chemists classify Polonium 218 as radioactive because the nuclei of the atom continually emit alpha, beta and gamma radiation. This radiation loss causes the atom to disintegrate or decay into a smaller atom. Eventually the material will become lead, which we commonly use for fishing weights and lead-acid batteries in our cars.

Polonium 218 would be classified in elementary school as being "hyperactive." It can't sit still very long. In only three minutes, half of the atoms decay into a lighter element, and in only one day it is all changed.

Polonium 218 can be created by the decay of a parent atom such as Uranium 238 or some other element below Uranium 238 in the chain. It can also be created as the parent without having come from the decay of a heavier atom. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Once upon a time there was granite rock. Granite is a very unique rock but at the same time is very common and plentiful. It can easily be found in mountain areas such as the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Granite is easily identified by its hard crystalline structure and light color. The crystals are large enough to be easily seen with the eye. It has an interesting structure with a mixture of light-colored quartz and feldspar crystals, and darker crystals of mica and hornblende. Granite is solid and hard without cracks or seams, and it is very strong.

Granite has another very unique property in that it cannot be created by scientists. It is considered to be an "original" material in the Earth. When melted and allowed to harden, it does not return to the original granite crystalline structure. The new smaller crystalline material is called rhyolite. Granite cannot be made by cooling the initial molten materials. This is very important, so remember this fact.

Granite never contains fossils such as are found in sedimentary rocks. All of these properties have led many scientists to refer to granite as a creation rock, since it could not have solidified from molten material according to the evolutionary theory.

Evolution cannot explain the presence of granite in its present structure. And where is this granite? Everywhere. Granite is the bedrock shell which encloses the entire Earth. Its exact thickness is unknown, but scientists have speculated that it forms a layer about 4.35 miles (7 km) thick, and in some areas possibly 20 miles (32 km) thick. It occurs on every continent.

These are the two friends from day one. We know they were friends because they lived together. The Polonium 218 lived only a very short time (3 minutes), but he left his mark on his friend, granite, in that short time. Polonium emitted alpha particles which left a very distinct mark in the granite. These marks are called Polonium halos. These halos are tiny colored concentric circles which must be viewed with a microscope. The concentric circles are actually concentric spherical marks which appear as circles after the rock is cut open. "How many halos are there?" you may ask. One trillion times 10 billion are present on every continent around the world. They are everywhere.

The Polonium 218 was the parent radioactive isotope because other distinct halos which are created by other isotopes are not present. The Polonium halos are not accompanied by Uranium 238 halos.

One minute there was nothing. The next minute there were parent Polonium 218 radioactive atoms locked in the center of solid granite. The granite rock could not have formed from cooling molten rock. Granite will not form that way. In fact, scientists cannot make granite by any method. They can make diamonds but not granite. Granite is solid. The Polonium could not penetrate existing granite because it is not porous or cracked. This was day one.

These friends are absolute scientific proof that evolution is dead. First, the granite could not have been produced by evolutionary theories, the Earth cooling, etc. Second, the Polonium locks the entire time period into an instantaneous event proven by nuclear chemistry. The time is not "millions and millions and millions" of years. The granite was produced as a solid with the Polonium parent elements inside at that instant. Within the first three minutes, half of the Polonium had decayed into a lower element. The Earth, granite and Polonium were created by God together in an instant.

Yes, my friend, it wasn't a big bang. It was a big AMEN (translated, "So be it.").
So, have we proven that evolution is dead and the Earth was created?

Well, it's faith isn't it? Either you believe in creation which requires a Creator, or you believe in evolution as a theory which ignores a creator. Basically, people who believe in the evolutionary theory either 1) deny scientific fact in order to deny that God exists, or 2) they have not studied well enough to see that evolution is not possible. Science makes it very difficult to believe in evolution because an instantaneous creation is perfectly supported. Evolution cannot be proven.

http://www.biblelife.org/creation.htm

I'll ask once again. What is your age?

Stop being the politician. Stop using someone elses argument.

How about this? For the next three posts in this thread, neither of us can post a link, nor copy and paste ANYTHING other than what has already been said on this site.

now Lenny, I know you didnt read all that information that fast...:weird:

How about THIS: you try to respond the best you can to ANYTHING I have posted in my thread...

feel free to use whatever sources you want.

Third time lucky, maybe.

What is your age?

For one, ~Jesus~ seems to be married already.
2.What does age matter,I am 19 myself, if you can't prove yourself and your beleif as he does, don't bother debating.
3.If you would actually READ ALL the info above, you might see it is VERY accurate.
4.Check out this site and watch the video 'Lies in the text books'.
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
and note that dr.hovind is offered for YEARS a $250000.00 reward to anyone who can prove him wrong in a debate about evolution and big bang vs. creation.He has NEVER lost!

Thats because it can't be proven yet either way. But the aurgement leans toward evolution.

What are you Jesus partner?

I heard somewhere he had sex with the Virgin Mary.

LOL!There is a GOOD reason why that stupid story about Jesus having sex with Mary Magdaline and having kids with here(The davinci code)Is placed under 'FICTION'.
That's what you think, to bad it is false.Creation BY FAR succeeds evolution and big bang in scientific FACTS(Not theory).Watch these videos, especially
the one on "Lies In The Texbooks''
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
This contains FREE videos you can watch online!
I am merely agreeing with him in his studies.If he strays the wrong way, then I will disagree with him, but so far I have seen only good report of his studies.I go with the facts, NOT the theories.

All of creationism is completly based on faith. And thats exactly how the higher powers want it, so you don't question it, so your docile, so you do as commanded. If you get into heaven by believing then you won't have any reasons to question, you won't have to ask for proof.

Thanks for copying and pasting. It just proves you can't actually argue the topic.

Not so.If you would watch the actual studies and videos, you would see that creation is actually science.
You got that a little backwards.It was Scientists and crazy politicians who put evolution into textbooks and tried to say it was fact(ALL LIES) when it is a COMPLETE unproven theory with science added.
Watch the WHOLE video of "Lies In The Textbooks" here.
http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php
You might find it a bit interesting.
It does take beleiving(and repentence, baptism, holy ghost) to make it to heaven, true.However, I am not asking proof, but merely agreeing and spreading the proof given.This way, those who do not beleive, may one day beleive.

Im not watching any of your propaganda. I don't need any other information or people to tell me that life is this way or that way. I think on my own and come to my own conclusions.

I am not gonna try and force any kind of beleife on you, religious or scientific.I am just letting a door be open to you, if you choose to take it, lovely, if not, that's all up to you.Do as you wish.

..and its not even the right Mary.

Thats right. Evolution is a bi-product tool of the illuminati for slavery and the dumbing down of the planets human unity and brotherhood. The entire world has been ruined because of this special theory that takes away a purpose by the creator.

150 years ago, scientists and people in general believed in a young earth and a biblical creation. Now, as truth and history has once again become lost, (especially when shaped and controlled, and dictated by a small group of men), we are born into an illusionary pre-determined reality shell of a world, where the created is worshiped(unknowingly).

It didnt happen overnight. Nothing major ever does. Its very calculated and fine tuned. But God allways wins in the end.

check out the video above, it really is excellent. The textbooks are written and controlled. What our children are learning is dicated VERY carefully. The truth is out there, and it will set you free.

The thing is, the bible says this would come to pass. It has to.

I tip my hat to you brother.

I only wish others would not be afraid of the truth. But thats what shaping of the mind does. Everyone can sit comfortably and make jokes and play video games and live for land that doesnt belong to them all they want, its comfortable I know, but meanwhile things are gonna get worse. If anyone really cares about the future of mankind, unity and true peace, (at least of the mind) then they will wake up and listen, then try to help there fellow man. Its actually our duty!

Very well said.....

Thats easy when THE CHOICES COME FROM ONE SIDE ONLY!:(

Frosted is right. Your "conclusion" is backwards.

Ask yourself a question, if you "think on your own" like frosted does, then why wont you open your mind to all the facts and information out there? I mean, do you realize how very fortunate you are to even be able to? TAKE ADVANTAGE BROTHER!!!!

The Earth has been around for a very long time. 4.5-5 billion years. In that time, the very solar system itself has rotated around the galactic center many times. There are so many cosmic events that could have happened that may have caused the creation of Polonium. Maybe there was a MASSIVE solar flare in the early days of earth that caused all this, or maybe we were too close when a supernova went off and we got shot in the face with a galactic shotgun of high energy particles. Who knows?

Just because science has yet to or can't explain why those halo's are there, doesn't mean that God created everything in an instant. Humans still insisted that the Earth was FLAT until some schmuck had to take a boat and sail across the ocean to show us otherwise.

I don't think I have any right to claim to know how the universe was created, how life came around, or what happens when we die. I don't think anyone does. What we all have are our very own personal theories on everything that should be kept to ourselves until the human society as a whole has evolved enough to stop trying to shove THEIR opinions down others throats.

We're probably all wrong anyway.

Btw, moved to Opinion and Debate.

God didn't do it in an instant, he took 6 days and did it.what is funny is that the BIBLE says the earth was round and it was written years before columbus ever whent.
What we are trying to say is that Evolution should not be put into text books unless creation is.This way we all get a fair chance to have our beleifs noted.Sure, if they whant to have evolution in their text books,fine,but why not something that was proven even moreso then evolution.It isn't fair that we had to sit through school and listen to the teachers bash our beleifs, call us a supreme monkey, then tell us we came from a goop that was created by some weird rain that hit a certain rock(Evolution), ect. while we sit there and keep our cool.What even worse is that whenever we say something about it, we get brought to court and sued for some wacked out can't spread BIBLICAL truth law.I say if they can have a Non-Proven Theory in textbooks, then they can have a PROVEN source (Creation) in textbooks as well.And I state again, THE BIBLE HAS NEVER BEEN PROVEN WRONG.It is 100% accurate in all scientific studies.

god knows.

..and you can too..if you really want to!;)

read these pages...
http://www.creationscience.com/onlin...lSciences.html

no actualy ,the bible says its round..you just have to know where to look!

sure you do, you are special man. feerfully and wonderfully made! thats why you were made, and have the ability to choose. ...and to observe and ponder and give praise to the creator!!! nothing else can, the world and stars and heavens were created just for you!!!!
God gave you the answers man cannot explain! What a gift!

Its easier for some more than others. Facts are facts and opinions and lies are another...

the truth IS obviously out there...and it will make you free! imagine...o_O

Make up your mind.

And I have a high school textbook that states the universe is shaped like a sphere that is expanding at a idenical speed in all directions. If future science prooves that true will my text book be the spawn of a new religion? Not really trying to poke fun but that's the only comparison I could think of at this hour. It's interesting that it was stated, yes, but I think it was by mere luck more then anything.

EDIT: And I'm off to bed. Happy debating!

Thats right! amongst other things..check out JOB!

Exactly! :D

If you are gonna teach biology, teach biology, you can without going into orgins. if you are gonna teach theories of orgins, call them what they are, not factual science..it confuses people for the worse! give them the truth!!!..let them take it from there as God intended.

when a group controls all the information sources and further, LIEs about that information, well that means that there is a motive. ...and believe me, your BEST interest is not it!

Recent studies show that over have of the people today still beklieve and support creation by God!

However, if granite and Polonium are part of the earth, it is very possible He
(God)Made the outer layer(crust,rock,gasses)at the same time,I dunno,what I do know is that it took HIM 6 days to make it ALL(Earth water rock animals mammals humans ect.)WOW I am really tired, i can tell in my typing.My mind isn't strait right now so I will check this post later and see if I am accurate.

In the beginning he made the heavens and the earth. The days were not yet, time was not yet...then he made the first day by making the sun and moon for that very purpose, amongst other things..)

I dont believe in luck or coincidence or chance.

good night!:D

the earth, granite and polonium are all one. Granite is the earths crust.

The rest of creation (the contents there of) took 6 days total.

Read the bible and you will see.:grin:

nope..you know!

yes thats what the bible says...and science..:)

Are you sure its 2 different people? amazing, must be luck! :weird:

LOL, funny ~Jesus~.

You still haven't answered my question. :(

So instead, 2 more questions. Answer them and you will find out why they are relevant.

1. How old do YOU think the Earth and the Universe are. No posting from Websites for this, it's PERSONAL opinion. Use your Bible if you really must.

My answer is 13.5 billion years for the universer, 4.5 billion years for Earth.

2. Do you believe in the Pentecost (apostles started speaking in tongues, flames above their heads)? If so, is that a good indication of their holiness?

If you really want me answer, then I'd say it was another metaphorical story to prove 'Gods Power' to believers.

In the end what it comes down to for myself an many others is seeing proof. "Seeing is believing", eh? I have yet to see any solid proof. All of your C&P nonsense? Just not proof enough, imho. For me...though I do believe in a higher being, and I'm open to all religions, I find it impossible to put all of my faith into a book that was written by man, and not God himself. Men err, and it's my belief is that the Bible has contradictions.

Erring comes naturally to humans. We learn from mistakes, and forever seek the truth to everything around us. Some people find their truth sooner than others, and some never find it at all.

And for those who do find their truth? They're usually pigheaded, close-minded and refuse to believe anything other than what they believe in. It's pointless to argue really, no one ever shifts from what they believe, and that's usually the reason I never debate about religion to begin with.

That's a very good point. I'll be the first to admit that I rarely take onboard other views, and this thread and other's give evidence that other people don't either.

But it's what make arguments and deabtes and whatnot, fun! Don't you agree? It's better than arguing against a "Yes-Man", for a start. :p

I believe based on the word of god and science, that the earth is 6,000 to 10,000 years old.

Acts 2:1~4 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Penticost was a feast where jews from every nation heard the gospel of Jesus and the holy spirit filled them all, and they understood each other and what Peter preached by the power of the Holy spirit filling them all, even though Peter spoke in one language. As a result 3,000 jews were converted and believed on the name of Jesus.

"Tongues" are languages... anything else is lack of understanding the bible.

"Speaking in tongues" in the bible means languages. NOT the language of angels or god! Just different languages. Angels through the bible spoke the same language man does. Anybody who claimes they can "speak in tounges" doesnt understand the bible and further, have a bit of dillusion going on.

On the day of pentecost God provided two symbols of the spirits presence: thw WIND, which was assosiated to the Jews as spirit, and the FIERY TONGUES: which contrary to what some ignorant uninformed present day churches think, is actually understanding through the spirit coming upon them. :)

Communication can be amazing with the true power of the spirit! Communication and understanding on deeper levels by the power of there belief and conversion. Spiritual levels.

I have seen people who cant speak english yet hear a preacher preach the gospel in english and understand on a different level..a spiriual level that has no boundries. That is the lake of fire that comes upon the very soul from the holy spirit!

Simple if you understand the bible and really want to know the truth!

further on Pentecost in general.

This day was very important, Pentecost was the third great Israelite feast mentioned in Lev 23. It was a harvest fest 50 days after the passover week. This actual pentecost , was greater then all others. The Old testament pentecost occured 50 days after Israel left egypt and the passover lamb was slain. New Testament Pentecost occured 50 days after the Lamb of God Jesus was slain. Old testament pentecost celebrated the birth of the nation Israel. New Testament pentecost celebrated the birth of the church of Christ. Old testament pentecost wittnessed the slaying of some 3,000 souls. New testament Pentecost wittnessed the SAVING of some 3,000 souls. The former pointed to the later which is the case of the bible.

The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed!

Couple of points...

1. ~JESUS~ if you don't stop simply copying and pasting or linking rebuttals, no matter how applicable, people are going to stop reading them and thus stop caring. Whether or not your sources are right, we're not having a research-off. We're having a debate. State your understanding and interpretation of an idea and then give your references if you want.

2. As I've read, society, as a whole, did not think the earth was round before Columbus sailed. The general consensus was inaccurate, in that they underestimated the size of the planet, but they did not believe that a person would simply fall off at the edge as dramatized in cartoons.

3. Stop responding to your own posts or to previous posts multiple times. If you can't find the edit button, then I can't imagine how you're putting forth complex and seemingly intelligent responses in a debate about the beginning of existence.

Additionally, ~JESUS~, people want to know how old you are because it is appliable to the points you are making. The life experiences you've had and the time you've been here supposedly indicate levels of intelligence. I don't believe the two are necessarily linked, thus, if I would reccomend that, if you don't want to be ridiculed for whatever age you are, you keep it secret.

Whats this have to do with ones belief in a religion. Religion is a main instigator of war.

I know. Let's take this to bits, paragraph by paragraph.

The experiment showed that it is not impossible that "life's building blocks" appeared purely by chance. There would be many permutations of the conditions in the experiment which could lead to different proteins being formed, and no-one can say what the initial conditions were like. This was just a proof of concept, not a proof of what precisely happened.

Are you looking in the right textbooks? When the Cambrian explosion was first discovered, the technology to look at the fossils properly, to find the precursors of the species which emerged in this eight milion year window. The boundaries of microscopy are being pushed back, and it is expected that more detail will be found regarding these organisms yet; no reasonable person in the scientific community assumes they have found everything.

This paragraph requires a great deal of detail which it is missing to be of any use to anyone. The accusations appear to be unfounded, a slew in general on textbooks which remain nameless, and there would have been an outcry by biologists (I feel it can be reasonably assumed that not all young biologists taking their first degrees of study, looking at textbooks and comparing with reality, are dishonest, many in fact profess to be Christian).

The archaeopteryx is not generally believed to be a missing link. It is believed to be a relative to the direct ancestors of modern birds, and is still not fully understood. However, its bone and wing structure is particularly interesting to scientists, and has been observed fossilised in very fine grain limestone, meaning it can be studied perhaps more thoroughly than most fossils, hence its heavy use in textbooks and the like.

The peppered moth is a useful demonstration of the theory, showing how it could be employed. There is argument on both sides of the debate, not just one, and it is not the only demonstration of the principle (polar bears vs brown bears is a more wide ranging example across different species, but illustrates the point).

Darwin, the first major literary proponent of evolution in his book "The Origin of Species..." used Galapagos finches as his own example. It is a very easy to understand presentation of the idea, and shows the differences across the different islands clearly, something a textbook is meant to do. It tries not to demonstrate evolution (a long term process), but natural selection by means of survival of the fittest (a more short term process, where genetic mutation is not paramount to its success, merely an already present difference). Also, the meaning of this paragraph is somewhat vague, and could do with some clarification of what it's getting at precisely, for instance when you use the term "net evolution".

It is particularly difficult to engineer extra wings on an animal, or even just extra cartlidge, or an extra head. Give the scientists a break, they demonstrated that if you modify DNA, you can end up with a very different animal. Scientists have demonstrated their concept much more successfully where GM crops are concerned, with many GM crops now in large scale production. The changes to DNA with physical consequences show that changing DNA could lead to improvements in an organism.

Artists drawings are useful in showing to the general public what has been found. They are usually representations of evidenced creatures, found by their fossil, or even bone records, and make science more accessilble. They would not be used as evidence (hence justifictation) in serious research.

Scientific fact is unlikely ever to be proven, and is used as a substitute phrase for "proven beyond reasonable doubt". It is not believed by the scientific community, which oversees what is protrayed as "scientific fact" that the current theory of evolution (not exactly the same as Darwin's original) that the theory is based on misrepresentation of "the facts". Any fact in science is up for disproof; that's what the scientific method is about, I'm afraid.

"The Origin of Species" is no longer the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, it has been expanded upon, as Darwin would have wished, its claims tested, sometimes disproved, but very often supported. Just because Darwin said something in his book does not make it true, so his admission that his theory may not be up to scratch was in fact very correct of him. The people who were to read his book would possibly have been rather shocked by his work, and he did not want to appear too prescriptive, and he therefore allowed people to make up their own minds, based on the evidence he produced.

THis argument does not follow. Darwin's followers did take to his ideas and believe fervently in them, but this is because they stood up to scientific scrutiny, and not because of a blind faith which would lead a religion into turmoil and uselessness. Creationism is not regarded as scientific fact, it is a religious concept. Evolution now is regarded as a scientific fact, not as a religious concept, however "religious" its beginnings. By saying "other concepts such as creationism", you also imply that creationism is one of many different things which "should be banned", when in fact, this debate appears to be purely about creationism and evolution; nothing else had so far been mentioned. Overgeneralisation spring to mind?

Evolution has not become a scientific law in the same way that the effect of gravity on a macroscopic scale is regarded as a law. People are looking for the evidence, and it appears that "Icons of Evolution:..." would be a rather biased source; Jonathan Wells has not been without criticism. Namedropping a book such as this in an argument is a rather unsteady way to support your claims. There has been much less "evidence" (I use ""s ironically here, I'm getting bored of this argument)

We are doing. It's called the study of evolutionary theory, and I couldn't agree with you more. However, by using this conclusion with such unsteady evidence as above, you discredit yourself as a serious debator. Think it through yourself next time, okay? :p

When looking into tongues, do you entirely discount the experience of those who are from a background of worship in the power of ths holy spirit, and who can speak in their own, individual "prayer language", which is very clearly (when it is heard) not any earthly language? It does happen, really.