Please help with another debunking

StopEvangelists
Posts: 51
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Please help with another debunking

What is wrong with this article?

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

Note that I'm a firm believer in reality/atheism, but I just want to be prepared for the whacko explanation, noted above.

"Religion is like a badly written contract - most people don't read most (much less all) of it, believe what the other party says, and execute with the best of intentions and naivety."

- Me


qwak
Posts: 124
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Please help with another debunking

wow, there is so much wrong with that article, I don't even know where to begin.

obviously, references to biblical stories as a means to wipe the slate clean can be thrown out the window (just wow.)

Unfortunately, being only an amateur student of science, I don't have enough knowledge in my head to be able to easily debate that whole article without just dumping you back to wikipedia Eye-wink

music

http//www.myspace.com/antiqwak


qwak
Posts: 124
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Please help with another debunking

found a fairly good article concerning radiometric dating, and if it helps for your debunking, it was written by a christian Eye-wink

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

music

http//www.myspace.com/antiqwak


LeftofLarry
RRS local affiliateScientist
LeftofLarry's picture
Posts: 1199
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Re: Please help with another debunking

StopEvangelists wrote:
What is wrong with this article?

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

Note that I'm a firm believer in reality/atheism, but I just want to be prepared for the whacko explanation, noted above.

Ok, first off, I'm not an expert on carbon dating, however, I'm sure Yellow or someone else will be able to explain further. This is just another example to use lies to discredit truth. This premise is already working under false pretenses...C14 is usually used to date more recent organic material. Not millions of year old fossils. Other, methods are used to date fossils which usually include dating the rocks where the fossils are found. Carbon 14 dating first of all uses a derivative formula. t = [ ln (Nf/No) / (-0.693) ] x t1/2 This is the formula used to derive dates older than the 5700 years half life. So, if you had a fossil that had 10 percent carbon-14 compared to a living sample, then that fossil would be:

t = [ ln (0.10) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years

t = [ (-2.303) / (-0.693) ] x 5,700 years

t = [ 3.323 ] x 5,700 years

t = 18,940 years old

Where In is the natural logarithm and Nf is amount of C14 in sample and No is amount in living tissue. And t1/2 is the half life of that isotope.

Funny how they don't mention this formual, perhaps simple math is to compicated for the simple mind.

Even if they claim that fossils can't be millions of years old based on carbon dating, even at thousands of years it has shown that religious beliefe that earth is only what 6-8 thousand years is wrong... It is true the that carbon dating cannot be used becaus at most anything more than 50000 years old should have no detectable C-14..ok..but..they just proved their own bible wrong right there. Now tell me If god created earth 6-8 thousand years ago..why would he create, first of all radioactive isotopes with a half life of more than the earth itself is old, secondly...why bother wtih pesky radioisotopes to begin with. Also, the fact that other radioisotope have a half life of millions and even billions of years such as potassium isotopes disprove the 6-8 thousand theory right there. It is ironic how they also use the great flood would throw off the radioactive dating.

Again, what they do is find little holes or flaws and then discredit the whole theory...I have said this once and I'll say it again, USING SCIENCE to prove god, is already giving in to the argument that they cannot win on Faith alone, because science is observable. So what do they do they twist the science, they use scientific words without even knowing what they mean, but they WOW, the ignorant audience into believing this crap they spew. C14 is extremely reliable in dating using a derivative formula that has withstood time and history. I hope yellow can dispute the website word for word. I am not an expert in radiometric dating.

One more thing, look at the sources, none of these are peer reviewed scientific sources..these are all biased...sources that they have the answer and are struggling to find the evidence this is what this is. I like to call it psychological warfare or propaganda. The only credible sceintific journals they list are only to describe parts of teh processes in which they tehn twist for their own agenda.

Some websites of use:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm
http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/numeric.html

They all tend to get repetetive.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server which houses Celebrity Atheists.