• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

The Second biggest evidence of the Flood. Fossils

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
I came to see what was being said about fossils, instead it's a liberal crying (again).
Rather than start yet another new thread, I thought I'd post the following which concerns Neanderthal remains (not fossils, but, close enough to on topic).


Key excerpt here: "[Neanderthals] died out around 40,000 years ago" Key because when dinosaur tissue has been tested with carbon-14 dating, the dinosaur tissue is found to be "around 40,000 years" old also.

And that's significant because we presume the carbon-14 content from ages past was the same as it is today. Call that proportion 100% for simplicity (I'm going somewhere with this). So brand new carbon has 100% carbon-14 radioactivity (I know it's not 100%, since actual carbon-14 content is like 1 part per trillion, but again, bear with me). The half-life of carbon-14 is according to Wikipedia 5730 years. So every 5730 years, the percent carbon-14 in brand new carbon (from living organisms) decreases by 50%.

In order to estimate the age of carbon at 40,000 years, we divide that number by 5730, which is about seven.

That means the carbon-14 decayed 50% seven times, which means the presumed starting radioactivity of 100% reduced to 50%, 25%, 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.125%, 1.5625% and then finally to 0.78125% which is what is measured in carbon-14 analysis of dinosaur tissue, and presumably Neanderthal tissue, if they're getting that same 40,000 year figure from carbon-14 dating.

You might wonder whether the residual carbon-14 is simply below the test's limit of detection, but not so. This testing reliably concludes that carbon from crude oil and coal is virtually completely vacant of carbon-14, which means it is well older than 40,000 years old (according to the majority report of geologists and paleontologists), but it also means that 0.78125% is above the test's limit of detection, since if it were not, then these tissues would be concluded to be much older than 40,000 years old.

Is it possible the carbon-14 content of brand new carbon, say 5730 years ago, was actually much higher than it is today? Like, say, double what it is now? To put that into perspective, it would mean carbon-14 content in brand new carbon then, would have been like two parts per trillion, rather than just one.*

=
Edit.

* Whoopsie! I flipped the numbers above. If instead of the one part per trillion that carbon-14 appears in brand new carbon today, instead if, say, 5730 years ago, the value was more like 1.5625% of that instead, then tissue from organisms that died in the Flood would today show carbon-14 content at 0.78125%----is it possible that natural level of carbon-14 antediluvian was only 1.5625% what it is today?
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Does this hold true when dogs are trying to communicate? When dogs are trying to communicate with humans? With cats? With other dogs?

What about dolphins?

Are there explicit rules for civility when talking about dogs or cats or dolphins? Do dolphins recognize civility?
These are important questions.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
It's somewhat bothersome to me, when a person goes to a theology forum and proceeds to inform everyone that what can be known of God is only what can be filtered through the lens of current (specifically 2022) scientific thought, which mostly denies any part God might have played in creation by attributing obvious evidence of design to an unthinking process.
But TOL is the place for such antics, it can't be denied.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Is it possible the carbon-14 content of brand new carbon, say 5730 years ago, was actually much higher than it is today? Like, say, double what it is now? To put that into perspective, it would mean carbon-14 content in brand new carbon then, would have been like two parts per trillion, rather than just one.
This gets back to the common problems of all radiometric dating methods.
  1. Unknown and unknowable starting conditions.
  2. Assumed constant rate of decay during the entire time in question.
  3. No outside influences (additions or subtractions).
 
Last edited:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This gets back to the common problems of all radiometric dating methods.
  1. Unknown and unknowable starting conditions.
  2. Assumed constant rate of decay during the entire time in question.
  3. No outside influences (additions or subtractions).
Also, it's important to remember that half lives aren't reality. They're a mathematical model, which can never account for all of the things that affect elements.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Also, it's important to remember that half lives aren't reality. They're a mathematical model, which can never account for all of the things that affect elements.
"Model" is a little weak in this case. They are an extrapolation of measurements, which has been very useful and accurate under controlled conditions, but can't account for the things RD listed.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
This gets back to the common problems of all radiometric dating methods.
  1. Unknown and unknowable starting conditions.
  2. Assumed constant rate of decay during the entire time in question.
  3. No outside influences (additions or subtractions).
Yes. But afaik dinosaur tissue dates at something much less than "65 million years old" whatever that means. If the tissue were really this old then the carbon-14 would be long gone by now, but still, there's a little carbon-14 left in there. Somehow. :unsure:
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Also, it's important to remember that half lives aren't reality. They're a mathematical model, which can never account for all of the things that affect elements.
What do you think about this article?

I want to know basically what you'd say to a person who espoused this view, in an elevator pitch? Like you've got a minute, what do you do to attempt to persuade this person that they're wrong, in one minute?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
"Model" is a little weak in this case. They are an extrapolation of measurements, which has been very useful and accurate under controlled conditions, but can't account for the things RD listed.
If atmospheric carbon-14 was different 6000 years ago than it is today, then our measurements of any carbon from an organism that lived 6000 years ago is going to reflect that difference.
 

Derf

Well-known member
If atmospheric carbon-14 was different 6000 years ago than it is today, then our measurements of any carbon from an organism that lived 6000 years ago is going to reflect that difference.
Yes, but since there are only the two elements involved (ratio of the two types of carbon), the difference could mean more time has elapsed or different starting point in time.
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Yes, but since there are only the two elements involved (ratio of the two types of carbon), the difference could mean more time has elapsed or different starting point in time.
Yes of course, but don't forget, because I think it's pertinent, all the carbon in petroleum and coal is carbon-14 dated as old, and this material is all said to be the same age as the dinosaur soft tissue that's been found. Why is there so much carbon-14 in soft dinosaur tissue?
 

Derf

Well-known member
What do you think about this article?

I want to know basically what you'd say to a person who espoused this view, in an elevator pitch? Like you've got a minute, what do you do to attempt to persuade this person that they're wrong, in one minute?
Notice that they have to start the wiki article by calling the view "pseudoscience." That's a PR move, not a "science" argument. It continues by arguing that there wasn't a global flood; it was a whole bunch of local floods in places all over the world. What exactly do you think we need to argue against?
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What do you think about this article?

I want to know basically what you'd say to a person who espoused this view, in an elevator pitch? Like you've got a minute, what do you do to attempt to persuade this person that they're wrong, in one minute?
What would I say to convince someone that flood geology is not "pseudoscience"?

Probably nothing. I'd simply chalk their position to a political stance.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Yes of course, but don't forget, because I think it's pertinent, all the carbon in petroleum and coal is carbon-14 dated as old, and this material is all said to be the same age as the dinosaur soft tissue that's been found. Why is there so much carbon-14 in soft dinosaur tissue?
Ballot box stuffing?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
Ballot box stuffing?
Carbon-14 contamination of the sample or in the lab, sure.

But these labs that do carbon-14 dating are well aware of the risk, so they impose policies which prevent carbon-14 from even being in the facility, to prevent contamination. (Carbon-14 can be used as "tracers" I believe in certain applications, so there is legitimate reason for using carbon-14.)

Tissue is made from carbon, but animals make tissue from the food they eat, which are plants and other organisms which consume plants. Plants make their own tissue from carbon in the atmosphere, and it is this carbon which contains the carbon-14, science says that the carbon-14 is formed when cosmic rays from the Sun impact atmospheric carbon, creating this carbon-14 isotope. So the atmospheric carbon has a certain proportion of carbon-14, but as this carbon is converted into tissue, the rules governing decay prevail. So all's to say, there is no way for tissue to absorb carbon-14 from the atmosphere since it would require chemical reactions that we know are not happening.

It's extremely curious that dinosaur soft tissue, desiccated and preserved, contains even a little bit of carbon-14, if science is correct in saying that the stuff is a million years old or older. Carbon-14 dating says, "No, this stuff is not that old." Why? Carbon-14 dating says that petroleum and coal are old, but not preserved dinosaur soft tissue. Why not?
 

Idolater

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
Temp Banned
It's not fatalistic. I just don't see any need to convince people of an idea when they approach it in the wrong mode.
Is this an absolute policy for you? If instead of discussing the Flood, you were preaching the Gospel, you'd work with someone who "[approaches] it in the wrong mode," right? Even if they led with, "Christ's Resurrection and Christian faith and the Christian Gospel is pseudo-science," you'd still try to engage them, wouldn't you? Wouldn't you try to inflict fatal damage to their defenses?
 
Top