God wanted it this way....

Yeah, I thought that was pretty funny too.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig
Carbon Dating Flaws

I watched and rebutted the Ark/Fossil video SAE posted on the Noah thread. It was lots of good facts and then the rest was just fantasy. I mean my 8 year old could come up with a better theory. The guy even openly admitted some of the stuff he was saying he had no evidence for (dinosaurs were smaller pre flood), and that his theory isn't something some Creationists even agree on. Which I guess is good because it was utter garage.

Questioning is one thing. That is how we come to the truth and answers. Asking for evidence then ignoring it, all the while having NO evidence to back up your position is bullshit.

You can't take anomalies in dating and have it discredit the method entirely. That would be like saying Larue is shit because one guy had an issue with his.

And as other said, for old fossils and rocks, you DO NOT USE CARBON DATING.

This may be true, but isn't C-14 carbon dating utilized first within a total process of other dating methods as building a pipeline, so to speak, to the estimated age made by many assumptions according to the initial method of C-14, radio-carbon dating in the first place? This supposed 2.8 million year archeological specimen did according to the record of testing correct?

I don't understand how someone could manage to remember to breathe and even do a passable job of posting words on the internet and put up this bad a defense of their position.  This has got to be someone trying to make creationists look bad.  There is no other explanation.

Answer the question please..

Are you saying that Carbon-14 dating is the wellspring from which all other dating methods flow?  The answer to that is no.  Argon is not carbon.

ETA-  Trying to be less of an asshole online.  

I don't know what you are asking.

In a nut shell, radio dating is taking radioactive isotopes of certain atoms and measuring how much of them is in a sample to find it's age. Radioactive isotopes are atoms with extra neutrons, making them heavier and unstable. They decay over time to a more stable atom. IIRC C14 decays into N14. It does this at a consistent rate called a half life, which for C14 is about 5700 years. That is, if you have 100 C14 atoms, in 5700 years you will end up with only 50 atoms left. 5700 years later you end up with 25 atoms. As you can see eventually you will run out of atoms and that is why the limit of testing an item with C14 dating is 50,000-60,000 years. Thus you can't use it on something this old as there is no C14 left, and the bone has fossilized to rock.

C14 only works with living matter - or once living matter. Wood, bone, etc. We know the average amount of C14 living organisms have, and from that we can extrapolate how long ago it died due to how much is left. There are anomalies in measurements because C14 rates can become contaminated from other sources, or the organism may have acquired extra C14 somehow. So if you test one sample you might get a weird number, but if you are at a dig sight and test 100 items you will get a pretty acurate look at when these things died.

Now for OLD stuff, like dinosaurs or early man, you use other radioactive isotopes, such as Potassium and Argon which are found in volcanic ash layers. Theses have MUCH longer half lifes, and you can measure into the hundreds of millions of years. You can't date those the fossils are found in directly, but if the ash later below is at 2 million, and the layer above it is at 1.75 million, then you got a really good idea of when that rock layer was laid down.

That is a very basic primer on dating. I'd start with wikipedia and then maybe buy a geology text book off ebay if you want to learn more.

So.
Is Argon normally used first in the scientific dating processes which are currently employed according to the scientific method of dating fossils?

I reckon not.

Do you really even know what you're asking?   It seems like you're either intentionally being difficult, or you just have a really flawed understanding of how isotope dating works, because your questions don't make any sense.  

"When you function tested your AR, did you run some .22LR through it first?"

It's that dumb, which I can only assume is why everyone just threw up their hands and walked out of this shitshow of a thread.  
 

Those are all great points.  The current african ecosystem can be fraught with danger, especially in the watering holes on the savannah.
However, there are still rainforest like ecosystems in Africa, and they were probably much larger as you go back to the time of our origins. Those rivers, streams, lakes, and waterfalls are still there, and devoid of much of the danger.

Got to love the people who cling to a long debunked literal interpretation of mythology who are terrified by people figuring out what actually happened in the past.

 

Most YECs i talk to get it when I explain it this way;

The bible can be understood by anyone and everyone, from children to the elderly, rich or poor, smart or not so smart.  It is purposefully written that way by God for all of his people. The same is said for timelessness, the bible can be understood by a person living in the space age, or the stone age.  It is perfect in that it is for everyone.

Because of that, Genesis, in the beginning, and Revelation, in the end, are simplified stories of very complex things that happen over timescales that the human mind simply cannot grasp. They are written in a way that we can all understand, relate to, and have a glimpse of God's much larger grandeur and plan.  It is allegory for our benefit, explaining the "why" instead of the "how" that all human beings can't grasp.

What? That doesn't sound like a YEC explanation. They don't think it is allegory, it is literal.

Remember Genesis is from prophetic visions. If God showed you how the earth was formed it would be in a sped up simulation, like on a documentary. If you saw a silent overview of the formation and growth of the earth, that is what you would see, not that it literally happened in 7 literal days. And no where does it say it only happened 6000 years ago.

Pull some DNA from the teeth and start cloning

True, absolute literalists will never concede.  I know a few of them, and there isn't anything you can do to talk sense into them.  So it just is what it is.

In the Rift Valley where they find these hominids, they find the fossils of the predators and dangerous animals too (crocs, hippos, giant pigs, etc.).  They find many thousands of animal bones per hominid bone.
When these hominids were becoming bipedal it would have been much safer on the forest/plains mosaic away from the water.  The large predators like lions and leopards weren't there yet, but hyenas might have been.  That also squares with dietary analysis of their teeth (terrestrial tubers, nuts, etc.).  We start to see rapid changes in the hominids right about the time the big cats arrived.
 

I just love smug, dismissive atheist-dressed-as-scientists who believe we can know with absolute precision what happened in the past when they can't even explain satisfactorily how the first reproductive copulation could have happened.



 

While there are things we can't know with out 100% certainty, it doesn't mean we can't draw conclusions and assume they are within reasonable accuracy.

For example with your issue with sex. At one point it was all asexual reproduction, and then there was evidence of it being sexual reproduction. So we have two options - either God had a 2nd bout of creation and made sexual animals, or the ones already on earth evolved to reproduce sexually. There still are examples of things that can both clone them selves and reproduce sexually. Simple organisms began it and it evolved with them as they became more complex creatures.

Here's how it looked befor they pulled it out of her face last week.

Well said.



 

Fify

"Absolute precision" huh?  I'd go out on a limb and say that the person who uses such a term doesn't know much about science (or english). Can you provide a link with someone claiming to be a scientist talking about having "absolute precision", that way I can laugh at them and call them an idiot.
 

Well shit! my firend's cousin's uncle's brother in law's doctor's secretary who don't know shit says that's not real!

I've seen many times where people tend to massage the data to fit their desired results.
(Global warming is a well know example of this)

Literal interpretation of Christiany is the mostly widely known example of a boondoggle in history.