[_ Old Earth _] Raidocarbon gives the wrong dates.

[Jayls5]

Well to be honest this is just stuff I've gathered over the times, i could Google hunt it but i don't feel its a good use of my time. the facts are there buddy.

Ok, so you won't tell us your credentials on this subject, nor will you cite your source. Thanks for clearing that up.

so debate the OP.

I will the moment you debate the fact that the entire fossil record has been mapped out with all transitional species documented in their entirety. All of the dating methods show it to be accurate within the chronological order expected as predicted by evolutionary theory. I have no credentials, and I will not cite this claim. What say ye?

 

[John]

I will the moment you debate the fact that the entire fossil record has been mapped out with all transitional species documented in their entirety.

LMBO :

All of the dating methods show it to be accurate within the chronological order expected as predicted by evolutionary theory.

Opps wrong again.

I have no credentials, and I will not cite this claim. What say ye?

You don't need to because its already a known fact that your wrong. its like needing citation to prove why elephants are orange...you don't need credentials to know the answer.

 

[Snidey]

I will the moment you debate the fact that the entire fossil record has been mapped out with all transitional species documented in their entirety.

LMBO :

[quote:4c4e8]All of the dating methods show it to be accurate within the chronological order expected as predicted by evolutionary theory.

Opps wrong again.

I have no credentials, and I will not cite this claim. What say ye?

You don't need to because its already a known fact that your wrong. its like needing citation to prove why elephants are orange...you don't need credentials to know the answer.[/quote:4c4e8]

It is known as a fact that what he said is right, among those whose opinions on such things actually matter. Yours does not, because you are scientifically illiterate to a large extent, and scientifically confused to a smaller extent. YECs' terrible understanding of just about every field of science may make it seem as if those statements are not true, but generally having YECs disagree with you is an indication that you're correct.

 

[John]

It is known as a fact that what he said is right, among those whose opinions on such things actually matter. Yours does not, because you are scientifically illiterate to a large extent, and scientifically confused to a smaller extent. YECs' terrible understanding of just about every field of science may make it seem as if those statements are not true, but generally having YECs disagree with you is an indication that you're correct

"I will the moment you debate the fact that the entire fossil record has been mapped out with all transitional species documented in their entirety." HYA you loose.

 

[Jayls5]

I will the moment you debate the fact that the entire fossil record has been mapped out with all transitional species documented in their entirety.

LMBO :

[quote:41ded]All of the dating methods show it to be accurate within the chronological order expected as predicted by evolutionary theory.

Opps wrong again.

I have no credentials, and I will not cite this claim. What say ye?

You don't need to because its already a known fact that your wrong. its like needing citation to prove why elephants are orange...you don't need credentials to know the answer.[/quote:41ded]

I think you completely missed my point, which is surprising from someone of your IQ level : .

I was mocking you. I made unsubstantiated claims without sources, with no credentials of my own. I didn't think anything of what I said was true.

Your stuff, on the other hand, is not common knowledge. That's why you need to cite your source.

 

[Jayls5]

It is known as a fact that what he said is right, among those whose opinions on such things actually matter. Yours does not, because you are scientifically illiterate to a large extent, and scientifically confused to a smaller extent. YECs' terrible understanding of just about every field of science may make it seem as if those statements are not true, but generally having YECs disagree with you is an indication that you're correct.

I'm an advocate for evolution, but I specifically said some pretty outlandish things there. I said the entire fossil record with all transitional species have been documented (mockingly), and this is overtly false. We have plenty of great examples for certain species, but all species and their origins are obviously not documented.

 

[Snidey]

It is known as a fact that what he said is right, among those whose opinions on such things actually matter. Yours does not, because you are scientifically illiterate to a large extent, and scientifically confused to a smaller extent. YECs' terrible understanding of just about every field of science may make it seem as if those statements are not true, but generally having YECs disagree with you is an indication that you're correct

"I will the moment you debate the fact that the entire fossil record has been mapped out with all transitional species documented in their entirety." HYA you loose.

lol I totally misread his post and my IQ has now dipped below yours.

 

[John]

Ah i did some digging through some books and found the source.

"Measurable radio carbon in fossilized organic materials" Baumgardner, John, et. al, Proc. Of the inter. Conf. On Creationism. 2003, p.127-142.

 

[Patashu]

Okay, so fossils can have extra C14 then they would under normal circumstances, but we also know the cause for the extra C14 (the presence of radioactive material), ergo we can adjust for this error by carefully studying the conditions the fossil was buried in. Problem solved.

Probably shouldn't be carbon dating fossils in the first place but hey.

 

[Jayls5]

Ah i did some digging through some books and found the source.

"Measurable radio carbon in fossilized organic materials" Baumgardner, John, et. al, Proc. Of the inter. Conf. On Creationism. 2003, p.127-142.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baumgardner

Nice source.

 

[John]

Okay, so fossils can have extra C14 then they would under normal circumstances, but we also know the cause for the extra C14 (the presence of radioactive material), ergo we can adjust for this error by carefully studying the conditions the fossil was buried in. Problem solved.

Probably shouldn't be carbon dating fossils in the first place but hey.

No just stick to circular reasoning ( fossil date rocks/rocks date fossils) its rather embarrassing.

 

[Barbarian]

I've seen many examples of it being in-correct, not even past the 40,000 [30k?] year limit
They carbon dated a seal that was dead for 30 years, when the carbon dated the seal it showed to be 4,600 years old.

For good reason. Seals eat animals that get most of their carbon from geologic (and therefore ancient) sources. So their C-14 content is a lot less than that of carnivores who eat plant eaters.

Mollusks get almost all of their carbon from geologic sources. You can't just test anything, without knowing from where the carbon came. Wood and plant material, which gets almost all of its carbon from the atmosphere is more reliable, unless it was buried and then contaminated.

If you think scientists haven't considered such things, you are very, very gullible.

 

[Barbarian]

And it's foolish to try to carbon date petrified fossils, since the rock is not from the organism, but rather replaced the material that made up the organism. You'll always get a bad number with that.