Search This Blog

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Modern Science Mistakes Abound, and, Understanding Why Carbon-14 dating falsifies Evolution

As time allows, it is time to illustrate the various lies of evolution so that all can understand.  After an overview post from cre-evo headlines, we begin a look at Carbon-14 dating...again.   As always, my comments are in this color.   Green is from the authors of cre-evo headlines.

More Reasons to Doubt Scientific Pronouncements

Posted on February 11, 2012 in Darwin and Evolution, Dating Methods, Early Man, Genetics, Geology, Issues, Microbiology, Origins, Philosophy of Science, Physical Science

It’s unsettling to hear scientists say that long-held beliefs might be wrong, but that’s the nature of science. Scientific “findings” are tentative, not absolute. Some see this as a strength of science, but unless actual progress is demonstrated, that strength is called into question. Recent news casts doubt on various beliefs that had been trusted for a long time.

1. We were wrong about Neanderthal Man: For well nigh a century or more, Neanderthals were thought too brutish to make art. Not any more. Cave paintings alleged to have been created by Neanderthals have been discovered in Spain, New Scientist reported. Dating tests are still being done on the figures, which appear to be representations of seals. The correctives are more serious, though. The article also pointed out that dating of other cave art is uncertain. Paul Pettitt from the University of Sheffield let that cat out of the bag: “Even some sites we think we understand very well such as the Grotte Chauvet in France are very problematic in terms of how old they are.

(Long-time Radaractive readers would already know this, as several posts on the truth about Neanderthals, including excerpts from Buried Alive by Dr. Jack Cuozzo, illustrated that Neanderthals actually accomplished remarkable things and that Darwinists altered the appearance of Neanderthal skulls to make them appear apelike). 

2. Rings around the tree dates: What could be more reliable than tree ring dating? Trees make annual rings; count them and you’ve got an absolute date. Why, then, did PhysOrg report, “Tree rings may underestimate climate response to volcanic eruptions”? A study re-evaluated some estimates, and found them overall quite good, with one “glaring error” – trees might not produce rings after a volcanic eruption strong enough to affect climate. But if dates could be underestimated by factors not previously considered, could they be overestimated by other unknowns? The article exposed some of the assumptions that go into the dating method:

The potential absence of rings in the first one to three years following eruption further degrades the temperature reconstruction. Because tree-ring information is averaged across many locations to obtain a representative estimate of northern hemisphere temperature, tree-ring records with and without missing rings for a given year are merged, leading to a smearing and reduced and delayed apparent cooling.

Another reason tree rings and ice cores are not reliable methods to date the Earth.   As we learn more about them, we learn that they do not have a one-on-one correlation to years.

3. Power Law, or lawless power? One of science’s great strengths is the ability to describe nature mathematically. But now, PhysOrg said, it’s time for a “frank discussion,” about the use of power laws. These are widely-used techniques to describe relationships between phenomena so as to show causation, instead of just correlation. Causation is a vexed question in philosophy of science. There’s nothing like a graph to give the appearance of objectivity. Not so fast; Michael Stumpf [Imperial College London] and Mason Porter [Oxford], wrote in Science about “the inexact science of trying to apply the power law to situations in science where it’s not always easy to show a direct link between correlation and causation, a key problem they say, in much of the science that is conducted today.” The original paper in Science began,1

The ability to summarize observations using explanatory and predictive theories is the greatest strength of modern science. A theoretical framework is perceived as particularly successful if it can explain very disparate facts. The observation that some apparently complex phenomena can exhibit startling similarities to dynamics generated with simple mathematical models has led to empirical searches for fundamental laws by inspecting data for qualitative agreement with the behavior of such models. A striking feature that has attracted considerable attention is the apparent ubiquity of power-law relationships in empirical data. However, although power laws have been reported in areas ranging from finance and molecular biology to geophysics and the Internet, the data are typically insufficient and the mechanistic insights are almost always too limited for the identification of power-law behavior to be scientifically useful .… Indeed, even most statistically “successful” calculations of power laws offer little more than anecdotal value.

Sure enough; Nature last month reported a rethinking about power-law extrapolation in geology.2 “Multi-scale modelling of the deformation of magnesium oxide reveals the need for a re-examination of the way in which laboratory data are used to estimate the strength of Earth’s lower mantle,” Andrew M. Walker said. “.…The results suggest that the usual power-law extrapolation is not reliable over the wide range of strain rates that must be considered, potentially changing our view of the way in which the deep mantle deforms.” Note: “anecdotal value” is indistinguishable from “educated guesswork.”

The concept that numbers can seem to describe the Universe to an extent is just another indication that the Universe was designed by a Creator God.   More to come on that subject...

4. Rethinking evolution: Since the discovery of DNA’s structure and function as the carrier of genetic information in the 1950s, most evolutionary work has concerned mutations and natural selection on DNA alone. A major new monkey wrench has come into focus in the last decade: Epigenetics – heritable information and processes that lie beyond DNA (see new book by Woodward and Gills, The Mysterious Epigenome). One of the few papers to rewrite evolutionary history with epigenetics in mind is a paper in Current Biology,3Epigenetics: What News for Evolution?” The news is that there is little news – yet. They don’t even know the questions, let alone the answers. The authors wrote, “Having a formal body of evolutionary theory that incorporates epigenetics, as well as developing a clearer quantification of the connection between epigenetic variation and phenotypes will allow us to more rigorously ask whether or how epigenetics plays an important role in adaptive evolution.”

Evolution cannot explain DNA, let alone setting foot into Epigenetics territory.  In fact you will find that Evolution cannot explain ANYTHING without making up stories about the unobservable past and proclamations about future revelations to come...which never come.   An evolutionary explanation for life aka abiogenesis aka chemical evolution is the classic "the check is in the mail."   An evolutionary explanation for information involves trying to substitute data for information or trying to convince folks that a computer program running on hardware and software and operating systems all crammed with design and information can show us how information comes from a natural source.  Nope.  Information comes from intelligence and life comes only from life.   We've proved these things!  Check out the Law of Biogenesis.  

1. Stumpf and Porter, “Mathematics: Critical Truths about Power Laws.” Science 10 February 2012: Vol. 335 no. 6069 pp. 665–666, doi:10.1126/science.1216142.
2. Andrew M. Walker, “Earth Science: Limits of the power law,” Nature 481, (12 January 2012), pp. 153–154, doi:10.1038/481153a.
3. Ben Hunter, Jesse D. Hollister, Kirsten Bomblies, “Epigenetic Inheritance: What News for Evolution?” Current Biology, Volume 22, Issue 2, R54-R56, 24 January 2012, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.11.054.

There is no question that scientists provide a wealth of knowledge in the form of data and observations of the natural world. Whether they understand what they are looking at (particularly in questions of origins), and can explain it with rigor above that of anecdote, are entirely different questions. Healthy skepticism is a virtue when approaching scientific claims – especially about non-reproducible phenomena, like origins. Would that the skeptics, who are usually skeptical of creationism and naive about evolutionism, would develop some healthy skepticism about the nature and targets of their own skepticism.

by Andrew A. Snelling

Many people assume that rocks are dated at “millions of years” based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) dating. But that’s not the case. The reason is simple. Carbon-14 can yield dates of only “thousands of years” before it all breaks down.

The most well-known of all the radiometric dating methods is radiocarbon dating. Although many people think radiocarbon dating is used to date rocks, it is limited to dating things that contain the element carbon and were once alive (like fossils).

How Radiocarbon Forms

Unlike radiocarbon (14C), the other radioactive elements used to date rocks—uranium (238U), potassium (40K), and rubidium (87Rb)—are not being formed on earth, as far as we know. Thus it appears that God probably created those elements when He made the original earth.

In contrast, radiocarbon forms continually today in the earth’s upper atmosphere. And as far as we know, it has been forming in the earth’s upper atmosphere since the atmosphere was made back on Day Two of Creation Week (part of the expanse, or firmament, described in Genesis 1:6–8).

So how does radiocarbon form? Cosmic rays from outer space are continually bombarding the upper atmosphere of the earth, producing fast-moving neutrons (subatomic particles carrying no electric charge) (Figure 1a).1 These fast-moving neutrons collide with atoms of nitrogen-14, the most abundant element in the upper atmosphere, converting them into radiocarbon (carbon-14) atoms.

Carbon-14 Cycle
CARBON-14 IS CREATED (Figure 1a): When cosmic rays bombard the earth’s atmosphere, they produce neutrons. These excited neutrons then collide with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere, changing them into radioactive carbon-14 atoms.

CARBON-14 IS ABSORBED (Figure 1b): Plants absorb this carbon-14 during photosynthesis. When animals eat the plants, the carbon-14 enters their bodies. The carbon-14 in their bodies breaks down to nitrogen-14 and escapes at the same rate as new carbon-14 is added. So the level of carbon-14 remains stable.

CARBON-14 IS DEPLETED (Figure 1c): When an animal dies the carbon-14 continues to break down to nitrogen-14 and escapes, while no new carbon-14 is added. By comparing the surviving amount of carbon-14 to the original amount, scientists can calculate how long ago the animal died.

Since the atmosphere is composed of about 78% nitrogen,2 a lot of radiocarbon atoms are produced—in total about 16.5 pounds (7.5 kg) per year. These rapidly combine with oxygen atoms (the second most abundant element in the atmosphere, at 21%) to form carbon dioxide (CO2).

This carbon dioxide, now radioactive with carbon-14, is otherwise chemically indistinguishable from the normal carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is slightly lighter because it contains normal carbon-12. Radioactive and non-radioactive carbon dioxide mix throughout the atmosphere, and dissolve into the oceans.

Through photosynthesis carbon dioxide enters plants and algae, bringing radiocarbon into the food chain. Radiocarbon then enters animals as they consume the plants (Figure 1b). So even we humans are radioactive because of trace amounts of radiocarbon in our bodies.

Determining the Rate of Radiocarbon Decay

After radiocarbon forms, the nuclei of the carbon-14 atoms are unstable, so over time they progressively decay back to nuclei of stable nitrogen-14.3 A neutron breaks down to a proton and an electron, and the electron is ejected. This process is called beta decay. The ejected electrons are called beta particles and make up what is called beta radiation.
Because it breaks down quickly, carbon-14 is useful for dating creatures that died in the past few thousand years, not millions of years ago.
Not all radiocarbon atoms decay at the same time. Different carbon-14 atoms revert to nitrogen-14 at different times, which explains why radiocarbon decay is considered a random process.

To measure the rate of decay, a suitable detector records the number of beta particles ejected from a measured quantity of carbon over a period of time, say a month (for illustration purposes). Since each beta particle represents one decayed carbon-14 atom, we know how many carbon-14 atoms decay during a month.

Chemists have already determined how many atoms are in a given mass of each element, such as carbon.4 So if we weigh a lump of carbon, we can calculate how many carbon atoms are in it.

If we know what fraction of the carbon atoms are radioactive, we can also calculate how many radiocarbon atoms are in the lump. Knowing the number of atoms that decayed in our sample over a month, we can calculate the radiocarbon decay rate.

The standard way of expressing the decay rate is called the half-life.5 It’s defined as the time it takes half a given quantity of a radioactive element to decay. So if we started with 2 million atoms of carbon-14 in our measured quantity of carbon, then the half-life of radiocarbon would be the time it takes for half, or 1 million, of those atoms to decay. The radiocarbon half-life or decay rate has been determined at 5,730 years.

Using Radiocarbon for Dating

Next comes the question of how scientists use this knowledge to date things. If carbon-14 has formed at a constant rate for a very long time and continually mixed into the biosphere, then the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere should remain constant.

If the level is constant, living plants and animals should also maintain a constant carbon-14 level in them. The reason is that, as long as the organism is alive, it replaces any carbon molecule that has decayed into nitrogen.

After plants and animals perish, however, they no longer replace molecules damaged by radiocarbon decay. Instead, the radiocarbon atoms in their bodies slowly decay away, so the ratio of carbon-14 atoms to regular carbon atoms will steadily decrease over time (Figure 1c).

Let’s suppose we find a mammoth’s skull and we want to date it to determine how long ago it lived. We can measure in the laboratory how many carbon-14 atoms are still in the skull. If we assume that the mammoth originally had the same number of carbon- 14 atoms in its bones as living animals do today (estimated at one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms), then, because we also know the radiocarbon decay rate, we can calculate how long ago the mammoth died. It’s really quite simple.

This dating method is similar to the principle behind an hourglass.6 The sand grains that originally filled the top bowl represent the carbon-14 atoms in the living mammoth just before it died. It’s assumed to be the same number of carbon-14 atoms as in elephants living today. With time those sand grains fall to the bottom bowl, so the new number represents the carbon-14 atoms left in the mammoth skull when we found it.

The difference in the number of sand grains represents the number of carbon-14 atoms that have decayed back to nitrogen-14 since the mammoth died. Because we have measured the rate at which the sand grains fall (the radiocarbon decay rate), we can then calculate how long it took those carbon-14 atoms to decay, which is how long ago the mammoth died.

That’s how the radiocarbon method works. And because the half-life of carbon-14 is just 5,730 years, radiocarbon dating of materials containing carbon yields dates of only thousands of years, not the dates over millions of years that conflict with the framework of earth history provided by the Bible, God’s eyewitness account of history.

Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Author of numerous scientific articles, Dr. Snelling is now director of research at Answers in Genesis–USA.


PS - So for those of you who claimed that there are no Darwinists suggesting that Evolution frees men to be Atheists who can then sin to their heart's content?   I'd already quoted a few of them but this article is a good add to that...

Psychologist Advocates Sin

Posted on February 14, 2012 in Uncategorized

Is sin a scientific subject? Or is a scientist sinning who advocates sinning? One psychologist has written a book about the joy of sin. That sin brings temporary pleasure is not news, but claiming that sin is beneficial for overall health and well-being is a stretch. Should a so-called “scientific” website promote such ideas uncritically?

In time for lustful thoughts on Valentine’s Day, Medical Xpress promoted a new sin book by Michael Laham (psychologist at the University of Melbourne). The title surely attracts attention: The Joy of Sin: The Psychology of the Seven Deadlies (And Why They Are So Good For You). Laham says go ahead and indulge: lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, anger, envy, pride – all the vices the Good Book warns us about – are not only pleasurable but beneficial.

Dr Laham said that when you take a look at the evidence, the seven deadly sins can really serve us quite well despite being told for centuries they are bad for us.

This is great news for Australians as a recent BBC poll deemed Australia the most sinful country on earth,” he said.

So research now shows that it’s ok to indulge in a bit of Lust this Valentine’s Day and you’ll be better off for it. In fact, indulge in all seven deadly sins and you might just be a little smarter, happier and more successful.

Medical Xpress offered no contrary opinions. On the contrary, it opened its article by praising the “virtues of living a sinful life” and headlined, in bold letters, “Lust makes you smarter and evidence that seven deadly sins are good for you.

Jamie Condiffe at New Scientist was only halfway impressed, thinking that Laham was trying to shoehorn evidence from “experimental psychology” to fit his edgy title.

Don’t give this book to the military. Actually, it might be a smart tactical move to airdrop copies of The Joy of Sin on the military of the enemy. Let them become slothful gluttons so that they become easy targets. Students, why study? Get lazy and indulge your lustful desires; earn a B.S. (Bad Sin) the easy way. Parents, let your kids eat all the sugar and junk they want. Be angry and sin not not. Hate your neighbor as your self wants to. Tell everybody how great you are. Appoint yourself Vice President (president of vice). Why stop at the “seven deadly sins”? Break the Ten Commandments while you’re at it, and the laws of the land. Make the world a better place –land yourself in jail.

Condiffe is correct; Laham is just trying to sell books with his provocative title. The main flaw in his reasoning is confusing categories. Some of the examples he gives are misleading. For instance, napping when tired is beneficial, but that’s not sloth. Being passionate in a debate or negotiation might help you win, but that’s not the sinful kind of anger (some anger is righteous, like righteous anger). Having a piece of cake once in awhile is not gluttony. Sexual attraction to your spouse is not lust. Laham confuses naturally normal or good things with their perversions: it’s not a sin to eat, but to overeat; it’s not a sin to rest, but to turn rest into laziness. Sexual desire is not lust until it is misdirected. If Laham really practiced what he preached, his advice would implode. If he had been slothful, he would not have finished writing his book. If he were a glutton, he would be too out of shape to keep his job. If he lusted after his neighbor’s wife, he would be too preoccupied with a bitter divorce to write nonsense.

Bottom line: nonsense does not deserve to be anointed with the label of science. Thank goodness New Scientist was at least halfway critical. If Medical Xpress (a.k.a. PhysOrg) was doing its job, it wouldn’t parrot university press releases uncritically – as if university P.R. departments should put out nonsense in the first place. Aussies speak up: is your country more sinful than North Korea?

Making vice virtuous makes virtue vicious. The Good Book does not deny that sin is pleasurable; it just points out that the pleasure is passing and short-sighted (Hebrews 11:23–26). Eating cake every day feels pleasurable till you get heart disease. Telling your boss off feels wonderful till you find yourself on the street out of a job. Sleeping around is filled with bodily thrills till you get venereal disease or have to deal with unplanned pregnancy. Laham needs to hear a strong sermon and repent on his knees before a holy God, who warned,“the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

Sadly, there are more sinful countries than Australia, such as the "Pedophile Haven of the World" = Thailand.   Trust me, if your neighbor came over, killed your family and took over your home, you would not be a big fan of sin!  We know what sin is by comparing our actions to the standards set forth by God.  The greatest and only unforgivable sin is to defy God and not believe in and trust in Jesus Christ as Savior.    

Darwinism is a tool used to convince people there is no God and, therefore, no need to have a solution to the problem of sin.  Therefore I will continue to fight Darwinism until it is understood to be a myth to be abandoned and not science.   Belief in Darwinism is both tragic and pathetic.


Anonymous whatsit said...

"(Long-time Radaractive readers would already know this, as several posts on the truth about Neanderthals, including excerpts from Buried Alive by Dr. Jack Cuozzo, illustrated that Neanderthals actually accomplished remarkable things and that Darwinists altered the appearance of Neanderthal skulls to make them appear apelike)."

1. How exactly is any of this a problem for the theory of evolution? Oh that's right... it isn't.

2. How does creationism account for Neanderthals, btw?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Another reason tree rings and ice cores are not reliable methods to date the Earth. As we learn more about them, we learn that they do not have a one-on-one correlation to years."

Typical knee-jerk creationist anti-science remark.

Did you really fail to notice that the phenomenon described here results in rings missing instead of rings being added? In other words, it puts your goal of fitting tree-ring data into 6,000 years even further out of reach?

You're sounding like Santorum with his marvelous "we're winning... in a different way".

And let's not even get started on ice core layer data, which YEC can't possibly explain.

YEC is long falsified on the basis of a number of different dating methods, which YECs can't explain, but mainstream science can.

Thank you for the links to your previous posts on carbon dating, which demonstrate your continued failure to find any dating methods that indicate a young Earth.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"The concept that numbers can seem to describe the Universe to an extent is just another indication that the Universe was designed by a Creator God."

Huh? Could you explain your logic here?

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Evolution cannot explain DNA"

... surely elementary research isn't that elusive to you.

radar said...

Elementary research indeed! The focus is on elementary!

Neanderthals simply appear to be men, many of whom seemed to have lived longer than average lives and have visual acuity greater than modern man has today. These "cave men" had a source of light that did not involve fire in order to make intricate paintings deep within French caves. They buried their dead and, if Darwinists had not manipulated their skulls to look like apes, we would also see their appearance was similar to a modern man.

Tree rings NOT forming in some instances? Tree rings forming more than once in a year in some instances? Not useful in dating. Carbon-14 is somewhat reliable when calibrated properly but it definitely kills off Darwinism. It is plain to see that the half-life of C-14 precludes an old Earth when we find C-14 in every fossil sample taken!

You can say "convergent evolution" and you can say "hopeful monsters" or "punctuated equilibrium" but you have no evidence to back such things up, just stories.

Whatsit, in a random Universe that *poofed" into existence without design or purpose, there should be no set of logical and consistent laws, but there are. Also, that you can describe almost any process numerically indicates a design process. My posts on the Fibonacci series and related numbers found all over the Universe and within nature reveal this. At the bottom of the Universe there is design and information and it is able to be described in numerical terms = the extent of our understanding. Once we hit Quantum territory we have found the border between what man can comprehend and how God upholds the Universe. But for the purposes of doing things, Relativity and Newtonian calculations will get us to the Moon and send probes off into space and allow us to do wonderful things. Because logic, not chaos, was used by a Designer to create it all.

Anonymous said...

"Whatsit, in a random Universe that *poofed" into existence without design or purpose, there should be no set of logical and consistent laws, but there are"

How do you know that? How can you be sure that in a Universe without design or purpose there should be no logic laws?

radar said...

"Whatsit, in a random Universe that *poofed" into existence without design or purpose, there should be no set of logical and consistent laws, but there are"

How do you know that? How can you be sure that in a Universe without design or purpose there should be no logic laws?

Let me turn that around on you. Everyone takes it for granted that we live in a Universe that is orderly and structured from our point of view. If random processes created a consistent, logical, orderly Universe then why don't random processes do things like this now? The Laws of Thermodynamics show us that random actions are deleterious. The Universe is transitioning from order to disorder.

Now, for anyone to "make" anything in this world we have to work against the LOT by adding work and structure/design to a process. Throw a bunch of wood and nails and tools into a field and let them sit there and they will rot, rust, become junk. But add a blueprint to build a house and carpenters who know how to build it and the skill to use the tools and you will see a house where there was once a big pile of stuff.

So it is with the Universe. We see a house and understand that it had to be built. How is it that you see the Universe or a dog and assume that it simply randomly formed? Don't resort to natural selection for an explanation of the Universe, thank you. For that matter, natural selection only operates if you have organisms with genetic material from which to select. So, again, random forces cannot produce life as we have proved.

Darwinism/Naturalism is a worldview with magical thinking behind it. Marvelously constructed things just happened without a cause? This is what you call science?

Good philosophy argues for the existence of God and so does good science. Design and information within organisms point directly to a Designer. All else is magic.

Anonymous said...

"Let me turn that around on you."

Sorry, not taking the bait.
Let's try again: you claim that in a Universe without design or purpose there should be no logic laws. How do you know that?

"Hot Lips" Houlihan said...

"If random processes created a consistent, logical, orderly Universe then why don't random processes do things like this now?"

Who says random processes - or anything at all, for that matter - created the Universe? Your premise ("If random processes created...") is unfounded.

"For that matter, natural selection only operates if you have organisms with genetic material from which to select."

You're almost there: natural selection only operates if there is reproduction with variation. And reproduction with variation can spontaneously occur on a molecular level.

"Good philosophy argues for the existence of God and so does good science."

Is there any good science that can prove the existence of God?

radar said...

How do you "know" anything? In a random Universe you might only be a dream and will pop right back out of existence. A random Universe is a nonsensical construct. Houses do not randomly appear, nor do birds nor dog poop nor Dodge Chargers. We live in a Universe that has very logical laws and therefore we can confidently build things and know they will work if built according to specs. We can calculate the velocity and angle needed to propel a monstrous rocket from a launching pad in Florida out to orbit around the Earth or venture to the Moon or send a probe beyond the Solar System.

You might as well ask how do I know I exist? How do I know you exist? Everyone has some foundational presuppositions. However, not everyone has audited their own belief systems for logic and clarity and integrity. My belief system is much the same as Kepler's or Von Braun's or Bacon's belief system. We believe(d) God created, therefore the Universe could be logically investigated and understood. Therefore time spent studying the Universe to uncover the laws by which it operates is a worthwhile occupation.

radar said...

"You're almost there: natural selection only operates if there is reproduction with variation. And reproduction with variation can spontaneously occur on a molecular level."

Says who? That is a nice piece of nothing with no proof behind it. That is just the kind of nonsense that Darwinists use to fend off questions without actually saying anything.

Life does not form at the molecular level and we do not observe reproduction at the molecular level. What we find at the molecular level is chemical bonding that prevents the basic building blocks of life from forming, let alone forming into precise and massive chains of coded information like DNA. DNA cannot exist outside of the cell. The cell cannot exist without DNA. ATP Synthase powers cellular activity, but it requires DNA to code for it and DNA requires the cell and the cell requires ATP.

So it is not chicken and egg. Darwinism cannot even come up with a single-celled organism and to pretend that it can is either a matter of you having swallowed a big lie or being the source of it.

You would have Nobel prizes hanging off of your toes if you could prove and illustrate natural selection and reproduction happening at the molecular level. Good luck with that!

Jon Woolf said...

Anon whatsit at comment #1: Don't be fooled by Radar's alphabet-soup. Jack Cuozzo is not a doctor in the PhD sense; he's an orthodontist whose highest degrees are DDS (dentistry) and a master's in 'oral biology.' He's also a nut case -- he claims to have been a target of "evolutionist persecution," and he thinks neandertals were merely greatly aged Homo sapiens, a claim which is handily disproven by the fact that we've found skeletons of Neandertal children.

Radar, I don't understand why you claimed in the post title that "carbon-14 dating falsifies evolution." C14 dating is useless beyond about 50,000 years BP, so it has nothing to say either way about evolutionary theory or geologic time. It does, however, easily disprove YEC since numerous artifacts have been found with C-14 dates older than 10,000 years.

radar said...

Ha! Useless beyond 50,000 years? You mean it proves there is nothing older than that on Earth...and when calibrated right it gives dates of 10,000 years or below for everything and that is why the once-favorite dating method of Darwinists was abandoned once they understood it destroyed their long ages position.

You have missed the part about calibration but I will get to that again.

Anonymous said...

"Useless beyond 50,000 years? You mean it proves there is nothing older than that on Earth"

No, he means that the method is not effective beyond that, which of course DOESN'T prove that there is nothing older than that on Earth. That's where other (overlapping) radiometric dating methods come in, not that those would be of interest to you, seeing as they falsify your hobbyhorse.

Even as it is, this part was hilarious: "It should be noted that radiocarbon “ages” of up to 50,000 years don’t match the biblical time frame, either. The Flood cataclysm was only about 4,350 years ago. However, these young radiocarbon “ages” are far more in accord with the Bible’s account than the uniformitarian timescale."

"Far more in accord"?! They flat-out falsify a 6,000 year old Earth. What's so hard to understand about that?

Anonymous said...

"You have missed the part about calibration but I will get to that again."

Apparently YECs are missing the part about calibration... they don't understand how scientists have calibrated the different dating methods and they can't come up with a way to calibrate the data in a way that gives them the results they want....