«

[Sly]

Originally posted by R Havell@Jun 20 2005, 07:54 AM
@Sly, why do you choose to take some aspects of science to the letter to support your point (like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) but choose to completely disregard other aspects that disprove it (like the carbon dating of rocks and human remains)?

EDIT: And you could carry out the cat experiment in real life but animal rights groups would probably object

Carbon dating? You have got to be kidding me. It's a waste of time. That one can be ripped to shreds in 5 minutes.

Its entire premise is based on two faulty assumptions...

1) The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant
2) and its rate of decay has always been constant.

[Havell]

Originally posted by Sly+Jun 20 2005, 02:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sly @ Jun 20 2005, 02:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-R Havell@Jun 20 2005, 07:54 AM
@Sly, why do you choose to take some aspects of science to the letter to support your point (like the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics) but choose to completely disregard other aspects that disprove it (like the carbon dating of rocks and human remains)?

EDIT: And you could carry out the cat experiment in real life but animal rights groups would probably object

Carbon dating? You have got to be kidding me. It's a waste of time. That one can be ripped to shreds in 5 minutes.

Its entire premise is based on two faulty assumptions...

1) The amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant
2) and its rate of decay has always been constant. [/b][/quote]
1. It's provabe that cardon 14 is the product from nuclear fusion in stars.
2. Decay rates are constant, this is a scientific fact.
3. You copied and pasted that of the website in the first post of this thread.
4. You haven't answered my question.

[Yobor]

The fact is, that carbon dating works, and proves that the earth is older than 6000 years. Now why did we just have that discussion? LOL

[Sly]

Originally posted by R Havell
1. It's provabe that cardon 14 is the product from nuclear fusion in stars.
2. Decay rates are constant, this is a scientific fact.
3. You copied and pasted that of the website in the first post of this thread.
4. You haven't answered my question.

It would be nice if you guys would research this stuff beforehand.

http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=73

[Havell]

Originally posted by Sly+Jun 20 2005, 03:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sly @ Jun 20 2005, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin- R Havell
1. It's provabe that cardon 14 is the product from nuclear fusion in stars.
2. Decay rates are constant, this is a scientific fact.
3. You copied and pasted that of the website in the first post of this thread.
4. You haven't answered my question.

It would be nice if you guys would research this stuff beforehand.

http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=73 [/b][/quote]
It's good to see that you've found a nice, non-biased source to back your point up

[Sly]

Either side would be biased regardless. However you have not provided any support to defend your stance. You just have me taking your word for it. Just because someone tells me something is millions of year old, I want to know how they came to that conclusion, and the answer better be scientific. There is nothing scientific about carbon dating based on the assumptions made when compared to the current scientific data we have today. #1 being, equilibrium has not been reached.

Read the article and rebut the points made then. The candle illustration is by far the best way to explain the arrival at the assumptions carbon dating must make.

[Havell]

The reason that we have no such equalibrium is that this creation by the sun and decaying is not the only way that carbon enters and exits the atmosphere. It circulates throughout the carbon cycle by entering plants, those plants being eaten, animals exhaling carbon dioxide etc. plus the fact that the atmosphere has not always been like this, it is constantly changing. Also, carbon dating is not based on the amounts of carbon in the smaple, but the ratio between C-14 and C-12. The candle analogue is meaningless, the half-lives of elements are constant.

[Yobor]

R Havell is quite right.

I've read through the article. Obviously, the entire method of think of this guy is "It doesn't support my idea so it must be false". It is entirely reasonable to say that decay rates are constant.

[Quintopotere]

But sometimes carbon could lie.
For example there are some microbes living in fabrics that once died become a part of the fibers, so an ancient fabric cuold be too-early-dated...
Jokes like this cuold occour

[Havell]

Like Picard said, tainted samples are the bane of any scientist's life. So everything is done to prevent them, samples are taken with the help of a microscope. Anyway, if anything is found to be older then 6000 years (as MANY things are), then it still disproves creation as it is written in the Bible.