Dinosaurs

[Anita]

xoxo

[zoegirl]

Been there, dont that, ITS ALL BUNK!

well, if that's going to be your arguement, right back at you....I've "been there, done that, IT"S ALL BUNK"

Radiocarbon dating as well as carbon dating is still a highly flawed science. So much to the point that carbon (which should have a half life) is found within diamonds as well as coal.

Well, here's another article for you to do some research on....

Other Issues
The RATE team also examined carbon-14 dating. Although this was not one of the five original RATE projects, their findings were included in the RATE book.98 For this reason, a brief discussion of this issue is warranted.

Background
There are two stable carbon isotopes on Earth: carbon-12 and carbon-13. There are also tiny amounts of the unstable (radioactive) isotope carbon-14. Most carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere as cosmic rays hit nitrogen atoms.99 Carbon-12 and carbon-14 are continually taken into living organisms. Because the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio in the environment is fairly constant, the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio in living things is also relatively constant.

However, when an organism dies, it stops incorporating carbon into its tissues and the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio changes as the carbon-14 decays away. Thus, scientists can date material from formerly living things by determining the carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio of the material. This is the process known as carbon-14 dating.100 Because the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5,730 years, the current maximum radiocarbon dating limit lies between 58,000 and 62,000 years (approximately ten half-lives). This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual carbon-14 is too low to be distinguished from background radiation.101

Approach
The RATE team examined ten samples of coal dated to the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic eras (which they classify as Flood deposits) and 12 diamonds. Both contained detectable levels of carbon-14. The RATE team contends this is strong evidence for a young earth because all of the carbon-14 should have decayed away if coal and diamonds are hundreds of millions of years old as mainstream scientists claim. They maintain the carbon-14 is from biomass (plants and animals) that was buried during the Flood (approximately 4,500 years ago based on their chronology).102

The RATE team claims the reason carbon-14 dating of coal and diamonds yields ages of hundreds of millions of years is carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio scientists use in the dating calculations is incorrect. They maintain that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 was less during pre-Flood times because the biomass was much greater than today (i.e., there were many more plants and animals prior to the Flood)-as a result, there was more carbon-12 in the biosphere and the carbon-14 was greatly diluted because it was absorbed by more living things. By applying what they believe to be a more accurate carbon-12/carbon-14 ratio, they obtained carbon-14 ages for coal and diamonds of a few thousand years.103

Discussion
The RATE claim that the pre-Flood biomass was greater than today is based on the young-earth view that nearly all the plants and animals in the fossil record were killed by the Flood. The problem with this view is there are far too many animal fossils to represent a single generation of creatures that was on the Earth simultaneously. Based on the number of creatures in the fossil record, conservative estimates indicate there would have been at least 2,100 animals per acre and the Earth simply could not support that many organisms.104 In addition, if the fossil record is a result of the Flood, one would expect to find a conglomeration of creatures in the so-called "Flood layers." Instead, the layers contain very distinct creatures.

To support the contention that the pre-Flood carbon-14/carbon-12 ratio was lower, the RATE team points to the fact that the total carbon found in fossil fuels is at least 100 times greater than the total carbon found in the world today.105 Again, this is based on the young-earth view of the Flood. They believe these deposits formed from biomass that was buried by the Flood, thus all the carbon they contain was in the pre-Flood world. Of course, if these deposits were formed over millions of years as mainstream scientists contend, they are the accumulation of millions of years of carbon. Thus, the RATE claim of a lower pre-Flood carbon14/carbon-12 ratio is not something rooted in empirical science, but a function of their Flood model.

Scientists have found fossil fuels vary widely in carbon-14 content. Some have no detectable carbon-14; some have quite a lot. This correlates with the natural radioactivity of the rocks surrounding the fossil fuels, particularly uranium-thorium decay series isotopes. As a result, most scientists believe carbon-14 in fossil fuels comes from the local decay of radioactive isotopes. Another hypothesis that is being explored is carbon-14 is produced by bacteria that grow in fossil fuels. Although it has not been demonstrated these organisms produce carbon-14, researchers believe it is very likely because they are known to produce other isotopes of carbon.106

Carbon-14 found in diamonds can also be attributed to outside sources. Diamonds form deep inside the Earth from virtually pure graphite/carbon. Because diamonds excavated from mines have not been exposed to the atmosphere, any carbon-14 they contain cannot be from the environment. Rather, it must come from the decay of nearby radioactive isotopes during, or after, the diamonds are formed. Therefore, radiation from uranium or other heavy metals must convert the carbon, or trace impurities like nitrogen, to carbon-14. For diamonds found on the Earth's surface, there is a different explanation. Once diamonds are on the surface, they are exposed to cosmic rays that cause conversions that can produce carbon-14.107 In fact, the RATE data seems to confirm this because the diamonds from mines had lower carbon-14 levels than those from Placer deposits-diamonds found in streams and exposed to cosmic rays.108

It should also be noted that the quantity of carbon-14 the RATE study found in the diamonds was extremely small, about one-third the level they found in the coal samples. This was detected by a technique known as accelerator mass spectrometry, or AMS, that counts the number of carbon-14 atoms. Because carbon-14 is present in the environment, there are many potential sources of trace amounts of carbon-14 and the levels detected could be the result of sample contamination and/or machine noise.109

This RATE study poses no serious challenge to mainstream science. While little research has been conducted on the source of the carbon-14 in coal and diamonds, there are plausible explanations for its existence. Even the smallest amount of radioactive decay, exposure to cosmic rays, or contamination can account for the miniscule levels of carbon-14 the RATE team found. In addition, scientists have studied a wide variety of sources that record the history of carbon levels on the Earth. Not only is there no evidence of vastly different carbon levels prior to the Flood (4,500 years ago based on their model), but there is no indication of any significant event that altered carbon ratios over the past 20,000-plus years.110

Conclusion
Young-earth creationists have long claimed there is no evidence for an old Earth. The fact that billions of years of nuclear decay have occurred in Earth history has been denied by most young-earth creationists. Now, the RATE team has admitted that, taken at face value, radiometric dating data is most easily and directly explained by the Earth being billions of years old.111 This is a remarkable development because no longer can young-earth creationists claim it is merely the naturalistic worldview that makes scientists believe rocks and minerals are millions or billions of years old.
Are the RATE findings sufficient grounds to reject mainstream science? What is known to science is radioactive decay would produce the quantity of daughter products on the Earth in a timescale of millions or billions of years. Unknown to science and lacking any independent verification is the idea that nuclear decay rates were accelerated in the past by five orders of magnitude (100,000 times) or more.112 Thus, we are faced with a choice: either we can accept the vast majority of radiometric data that indicates the Earth is very old, or we can believe the Earth is 6,000 years old based on a handful of anomalous results. Looking at the data objectively, the RATE research does not meet the burden of proof necessary to demonstrate that radiometric dating is fallacious.

Some may contend that God accelerated decay rates supernaturally, so the evidence lies beyond the limits of scientific inquiry. That is possible. As the Creator, God is certainly capable of altering the laws of nature. However, such a claim is an argument from silence. The Bible says nothing about God changing nuclear decay rates during the Flood, or of God intervening in the world to safeguard His creatures from the lethal heat and radiation. Nor do the Flood chapters describe a cataclysm of the proportion required by the accelerated decay model, or that Noah found the Earth had been radically changed when he emerged from the ark. Thus, those who make such an appeal are reading something into the biblical text.

For young-earth creationists, there is an additional problem. Young-earth creationists have consistently maintained decay was not part of the original creation, but something God instituted at the Fall (i.e., at Adam and Eve's sin).113 This is a bedrock principle of the "no-death-before-the-Fall" theology. However, according to the accelerated decay hypothesis, some accelerated decay must have occurred during the creation week, long before Adam and Eve were created. Therefore, young-earth creationists who support the accelerated decay model will have to abandon, or revamp, that theology.

The RATE team has raised some interesting issues and perhaps the accelerated decay hypothesis holds promise. However, it is not only premature, but irresponsible, for young-earth creationists to claim RATE proves anything. Even the RATE team admits the hypothesis creates huge scientific and theological problems they are nowhere close to solving, and additional research is needed on nearly every issue they examined.114 Such a rush to judgment not only reflects poorly on the young-earth creationists making these claims, but also on the Christian community as a whole. To paraphrase the great Christian theologian Augustine, how can we expect unbelievers to trust our statements about spiritual things if we make outlandish statements about worldly things?115 Obviously, we can't. Thus, it is our public witness we should be most concerned about, not promoting our sectarian views of the age of the earth.

//www.reasons.org/resources/in_the_news/R ... icle.shtml

And as far as large reptiles, they are still prevelent in the world today such as aligators like Gomek who lived to be 80 years old. He was 17.9 feet (5.5 m) long, and weighed well over 2,000 pounds. //72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:9BLONsVVbHIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomek+largest+aligator+gomek&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

So what?!?!? An 18 foot long alligator is hardly comparison for dinosuars!! LOok, all you would need is a small anole and the right formula... If your hypothesis is true, it is a simple matter of finding the right formula

Today reptiles dont have the adequite time, space and available food as they once had. Additionally, they are hunted.[/quote

So what if they are hunted??!?! In the right breeding facility, we should be able to accelerate this very convenient growth rate. We should be able to, with some small reptiled, show that they could grow proportionally large.

Plus dont forget that I had mentioned above that the animals along with man were sustained by G-d before sin crept in which allowed them more time to grow to enormous sizes.

Ah, so now you are changing your hypothesis. Which is it, God or the environment? This makes a convenient hypothesis, but hardly good argument.

Please read the *three* articles I have provided and do your research.

[Anita]

xoxo

[Robert Byers]

I am a yec.
The creatures mentioned in Job were probably not dinosaurs but large mammal creatures that did well after the flood but were soon extinct . Different animals then now found in on earth but hinted at in the fossil record.
Dinos were creatures along with others that dominated the pre-flood world as unclean animals all did. After the flood the clean animals were to dominate thus explaing the ark ratio .
Dinos all died out after the flood unless there can be made a case that mammal are in some cases just dinos with adaptation.
The fossil record in a excellent way supports the great destruction of the old fauna and the post flood new fauna dominances.
Just what this creationist wants to find.

[zoegirl]

I'm not changing my hypothesis, I'm just stating that it could have been a number of other factors that played into the equation.

Evolutionists and creationists can go round and round, but what the evolutionist doesnt realalize is that even their hypothesis or methods for testing are still built on FAITH!

Great, fine by me....but your ideas are very easy to test. And the fact that it has not been done or successful shows that they aren't going to be shown correct

I guess you are not going to critique any of the evidence for the accuracy of the dates.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Zoegirl,

Very good article about carbon dating. The thing is, unless a person has taking quite a bit of college-level science, it can get difficult to wade through even the simplest explanatory article. This makes it easy for someone to skew the data and make a YEC position sound scientific when it's not. The real dishonesty here is from the Henry Morris, Behe, and Dembski types who skew the data and ought to know better.

DB

[Gman]

The real dishonesty here is from the Henry Morris, Behe, and Dembski types who skew the data and ought to know better.

DB

Behe and Dembski are not YEC advocates only Morris... Sorry.

[Himantolophus]

wow, between Anita and Robert, replying to this thread would be maddening to say the least. I'm just going to observe for now...

[Anita]

xoxo

[zoegirl]

Ok....BUT

If it is simply the oxygen concentration that allows the growth to be so large, then let's test this theory....easy to do. You're not getting the point. YOu are merely making assertions because you want this to support YEC.


If DInosaurs are simply the lizards we have today or just small lizards that were able to grow larger, certainly is testable.

But aside from that....

Why make up such convoluted hypotheses? Why is it so hard to accept that their were different species of reptiles? THat God could easily have created the universe over a long period of time....not because He had to but because He wanted to....simple as that. That the complexity and the beauty of the universe reflect HIs complexity and beauty.

Let's just cut to the real reason here.

You think that the Bible only says that the earth is young. Starting with this, you MUST find evidence for this.

YOu don't even consider that the Hebrew language allows for different meanings.

Bottomline: Believing in an Old Earth does not mean you believe in a naturalistic evolution or somehow compromises the inerrancy of scriupture....despite what many YEC leaders state.

[Anita]

xoxo

[Himantolophus]

Look, the reality remains.

Again, to many technicalities, idiosyncrasies and labels. The point is that creatures were bigger in the past and the fossil records bare proof of it.

I'm not talking tit for tat (word games) - the evidence is there.

And "I BELIEVE" these things are all G-d based.

ok, we all know this. Atmospheric conditions were different millions of years ago. This is accepted and explained already.

Can you address Gman's question instead of dodging them?

[Anita]

xoxo

[zoegirl]

Your a troll, I'm done with you!

wow, that's put you in your place, Himan

[David Blacklock]

Hi Anita,

Since you are also using words, are you, by chance using word games? Just wondering.

DB