tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post7884830489940097914..comments2023-10-31T20:08:45.037+10:00Comments on Operation 513 - Apologetics Blog: The Age of the Earth - Radiometric datingRyan Hemelaarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17902805101742992509noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post-18651521418817882412010-02-22T14:11:05.871+10:002010-02-22T14:11:05.871+10:00Most of the claims presented above come from the R...Most of the claims presented above come from the RATE project and have been rebutted elsewhere.<br /><br />The RATE radiocarbon analysis, for example, is flawed. What they claim to be “intrinsic radiocarbon” in the samples is a combination of sample contamination and measurement background.<br /><br />Modern radiocarbon measurements are extremely sensitive and never measure a true “zero” value. They always measure a non-zero amount of “background” that must be corrected for. Some of this is due to true contamination of the sample (either in situ or in collection), some is due to the complex steps required to prepare the sample for measurement, and some is due to backgrounds in the measurement system (either radiocarbon contamination or instrumentation “noise”).<br /><br />For more information on radiocarbon, see "RATE's Radiocarbon: Intrinsic or Contamination?" by Kirk Bertsche. For information on Polonium Halos, see "Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite & Granite" by Lorence Collins. For problems with He in Zircons, see the papers by Randy Isaac, Gary Loechelt, and Rodney Whitefield. These and many more responses to RATE by Evangelical Christians may be found on the website of the American Scientific Affiliation.<br />http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate.htmkjbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00960421696393289529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post-3313071760261465202009-10-26T10:37:55.863+10:002009-10-26T10:37:55.863+10:00@a 1 "...if you use carbon dating on a piece ...@a 1 "...if you use carbon dating on a piece of rock that consists largely of carbon your going to get inaccurate dates...that's the reason why scientists dont perform carbon dating on coal."<br /><br />Wrong, even by the standard of your cited atheism biased article (see comments on geological evidences re talkorigins biases). The reason stated why C14 is not trusted in coal is due to the presence of uranium in the surounding rocks and nothing to do with supposed errors from the high carbon content. That is a bald faced lie Aydan and you know it - shame on you! You trust C14 to be accurate when you have it in other sources but when convienient you discard it in favour of your theory, this is intellectually dishonest but unfortunately standard for talkorigins material. On the whole uranium thing by the way, there should be no-where near enough C14 produced from the uranium around coal to produce a reading of thousands of years old. The only rational way this would be possible is if there is almost pure uranium in the rocks around coal and large amounts in it. This is obviously not the case! Otherwise our coal power houses and mines would all be radiation hazards (which they are not!).<br /><br />@a 3 "...are you assuming that 'evolutionists' assume that all fossils take a really long time to form?"<br /><br />No Aydan we are assuming the ancient dates given to the fossilised wood is wrong. The wood was dated paeleologically and using other radio-dating methods - that is the problem!<br /><br />@a 4 "...diamonds consist entirerly of mineralised carbon im not surprised."<br /><br />No again diamonds are pure carbon and as for the dating issues the structure is so hard that even uranium based C14 has no hope of penetrating, otherwise see my comments on 1.<br /><br />@a re 5 - the problem is that the dating methods don't agree, not that the single methods have been tested for error in sampling Aydan.<br /><br />@a re 5 - yet you don't trust it in the most simple of tests on diamonds and coal - I smell a rat! It is too convienient for you to discard in one setting and yet you discount findings based on radiocarbon in another - what do you really believe? Or have you just swallowed what talkorigins and the other evolutionary blogs say without examining it?<br /><br />@a re 9 - Henke is full of noise and not much else, his rebuttal could be quickly proven by sending a sample from the site (I think one was offered by the RATE team) and testing it himself, yet he declines to do anything other than internet blogging - noble indeed! <br />The rebuttal of these posts by Henke is found here: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp and here: http://www.trueorigin.org/helium02.asp - niether have been addressed by Henke since and no-one else is stepping up to comment, not even the evolutionist who tested the zircons in the first place - odd don't you think?<br /><br />Aydan all these facts point to the earth having a maker and life including yours being His by right. You are moral and intelligent by nature, the rational mind in you claims that justice is only right for any crimes committed in this life. Apply that to yourself in the light of what your maker has said we should do and not do. If you like me have ever stollen anything, lied, lusted (which God views as adultery of the heart), hated (which is murder in God's eyes) or dishonoured God or your parents; then Aydan you need a saviour like me. Turn to Jesus Christ, He came to live, die and rise again to save sinners like us from our sin, if you trust in Him he will save you from the punishment of hell you and I deserve. Have faith in Him who is revealed in creation and confirmed in His word the bible. Atheism is a bleak philosophy if followed to its end brings only dispair. Turn from your sins and trust in the one saviour. God Bless you and know that we are praying for you.David Geehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05748613864241647205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post-26452286628852259742009-10-25T02:00:47.013+10:002009-10-25T02:00:47.013+10:001). this is just stupid, ofcourse if you use carbo...1). this is just stupid, ofcourse if you use carbon dating on a piece of rock that consists largely of carbon your going to get inaccurate dates...that's the reason why scientists dont perform carbon dating on coal. so stupid. Note: they also dont perform it on igneous rock or water dweling animals that live in environments with high carbon content. ofcourse if it's talking about coal deposits, scientists have already found several explanations to account for the c14: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html<br /><br />2). i fail to see it's point.<br /><br />3). what exactly is that supposed to mean? i thought it was creationists that maintained that under certain circumstances fossil can form very quickly, or are you assuming that 'evolutionists' assume that all fossils take a really long time to form lol<br /><br />4). considering diamonds consist entirerly of mineralised carbon im not surprised. which is probably why a scientist wouldnt carbon date a bloody diamond!<br /><br />5). scientists often perform multiple checks of the same sample in order to make sure the sample has not been contaminated...pointing to instances where contamination has occured and been found does not pose any problem to the dating method.<br /><br />6). and yet carbon dating being independently confirmed by tree ring dating up to 8000 years proves it correct.<br /><br /><br />9). debunked here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html<br /><br />10). refer to oneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com