Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In
Preview Build of the new site!

Quote# 14349

Carbon-14 dating of fossils is based on the amount of C-14 found in that fossil, the more C-14 found in a fossil, the younger it is supposed to be; if very little C-14 is found, then it is supposed to be very old. It's as simple as that. The problem is, however, it is ASSUMED by Carbon-14 daters that the C-12/C-14 ratio in the atmosphere reached a steady state millions of years ago; in other words they ASSUME the amount of C-14 being produced in the atmosphere has been the same as the amount of C-14 decaying or leaving the atmosphere for millions of years, therefore the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere is ASSUMED to have been a constant amount for millions of years.

Unfortunately, for evolutionary-minded people, there is not one shred of EVIDENCE to support that ASSUMPTION; the only way to prove that the C-12/C-14 ratio has been the same for millions of years as it is today is to test something living today that is known to be millions of years old [such as a tree with a million tree rings], but we know there's nothing living today even remotely approaching such ages.

Evolutionary scientists have calculated that it would take 30, 000 years from the beginning of the earth to reach a steady state or constant amount of C-14 in the atmosphere. Measurements taken recently by nuclear chemists Fairhall and Young suggest that the amount of C-14 being produced in the atmosphere is as much as 50 per cent out of balance. By these measurements we would have to conclude according to evolutionists' very own calculations that the earth is much less than 30, 000 years old since the C-14 in the atmosphere has not yet built up to that steady state.

Perhaps, these are just a few of the reasons that the late Stephen Jay Gould, for many years America's foremost evolutionist, always refused to debate any creation scientists.

Kevin, Myspace 32 Comments [8/30/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
Submitted By: Winston Jen
WTF?! || meh

1 2


I know it's a bit late for this post (I'm new to the site, and thought I'd look through old gems), but to be \"fair\" to this guy Kevin, he's basically quoting Morris word-for-word from \"The Genesis Record\".

I was raised Christian and Creationist and got a fair dose of Morris. Being a young, naive kid, you assume that he knows what he's talking about and isn't a bald-faced liar. That's a really bad assumption.

I feel sorry for Kevin. He's trying to be scientific, but has been told that real science texts are lying and that he has to rely on \"unbiased\" texts like Morris. Like me, I suspect he'll find the truth one day... and be pissed at having been lied to.

9/1/2006 8:34:06 PM

Me again

@ Julian

You should probably read up a bit on carbon dating too. Sunlight turning protons into neutrons! *facepalm*

7/3/2008 2:46:40 PM

Quantum Mechanic

C14 is useless for anything over ~50K years old dipshit.

6/19/2012 12:41:40 PM


Carbon14-dating is only used for things that are younger than about 50 000 years.
They don't just ASSUME; they double-check with many different methods of dating, to see that they all give similar results.

The late Stephen Jay Gould probably couldn't find any creation scientists to debate with, as creationism isn’t a science.

2/16/2015 7:21:24 AM

rubber chicken

Stephen Jay Gould didn't debate Creationists for the same reason that nobody plays pigeons at chess.

2/16/2015 7:52:38 AM

Unfortunately, for creationist-minded people, there is not one shred of EVIDENCE to support that ASSUMPTION; the only way to prove that their god poofed the universe and everything in it into existence is to first prove that gods exist, then prove that their god exists, then prove that gods can create universes, then prove that their god can create universes, and then prove that their god created this universe.

2/16/2015 8:28:20 AM

Hi! I don't understand science, so any bullshit claim I want to make up must be the only possible answer!

Since I don't understand science, my specific claims about my specific mythological supernatural sky-pixie must be the only other possibility! Everyone else with different claims and different gods is wrong! I don't need to show you any evidence for any of those claims because since I don't understand science, science is wrong and my conclusion must be the only correct one!

2/16/2015 9:30:15 AM
1 2