The History of Air?

[Volbrigade]

Lists of fun facts can be entertaining. Those focused on natural phenomena are a good way to promote an interest in science, and what it reveals to us about Gods creation, by drawing our attention to items that awaken our wonder and awe. Clearly, God has equipped us with curiosity regarding the workings of the natural world; as well as the capacity to explore and understand how He has designed it (which is the proper function of science).

However, fun facts are not fun, if they are not facts.

But that is what uniformitarian (the present is the key to the past; slow, gradual changes over vast expanses of time), evolutionist presuppositions are consistently presented as: unarguable facts -- which they categorically are not.

Case in point: a recent online infographic presenting 50 Unbelievable Facts About the Earth.

While many of the facts are grounded in operational science, which involves direct observation and measurement " for instance, the hottest and coldest surface temperatures ever recorded; or the number of times that lightning strikes the earth each day, on average; several facts involve speculation as to events and conditions that occurred millions of years ago. For instance, this one:

Dinosaurs could only exist because the earths atmosphere once contained far more oxygen. Reptiles and amphibians can no longer grow to such large sizes. ( http://mightymega.com/2013/04/18/infogr ... out-earth/ )

A Young Earth Creationist (YEC) is tempted to embrace this claim -- although with stipulations. On the face of it, it appears to support models of a dramatically different pre-Flood global environment. Our current post-Flood environment has been altered by the cataclysmic events associated with the release of the Fountains of the Deep (Genesis 8:2); the subsequent submersion of the earths entire surface under water; and the massive climatic changes that those events triggered, including an Ice Age that lasted several centuries.

The disappearance of the giant dinosaurs and arthropods in the altered post-Flood environment suggests that their inability to thrive in its lower-oxygen atmosphere may have been a cause. It would seem that conceding the fact of higher oxygen levels in the past, makes it possible to win the argument on this point when discussing origins and history. Changing the paradigm of those higher oxygen levels to a pre-Flood environment reinterprets the existing data in terms of a Biblical lens, or worldview. This kind of paradigm change applies to such pivotal factors as the fossil record and radiometric dating, as well.

But caution is advised. The eagerness to accept a theory in order to score a point with regard to Biblical truth must be tempered with careful scientific analysis of the existing theory. This kind of testing is needed to determine the theorys validity under real world conditions.

This speaks to the non-negotiable framework that must be adhered to in terms of Scriptures magisterial role over science. It is within that framework that normal scientific operational procedures can be used to arrive at the best explanations to describe past phenomena (for which direct observation and measurement is not possible), based on the forensic evidence those phenomena have left for us to study.

Sometimes this process involves acknowledging the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact (per T. Huxley). An unyielding, uncompromising approach to analyzing evidence has produced a revision of several arguments once cherished by YECs. In this way, science " in its proper ministerial (subordinate) role to Scripture, can arrive at the best possible explanation for the evidence as presented.

In the case of higher oxygen levels in the pre-Flood atmosphere as an explanation for the large size attained by reptiles, amphibians, and arthropods in that environment (and their disappearance in the post-Flood environment), the evidence is not just inconclusive: it is questionable (some of the factors which have been reassessed include the presence of higher oxygen levels in amber air bubbles; higher air pressure being necessary for pterosaur flight; giant insects proving higher oxygen levels; et. al.).

Facts arrived at through scientific analysis that illuminate the design and order God imposed on His creation " even the fallen version of it that we inhabit " are fascinating, and theyre fun. But erroneous presuppositions (such as matter is all that exists) lead to false conclusions; and when those false conclusions are presented as facts, its not fun " but rather leads to confusion, and what The Bible refers to as false knowledge (1 Timothy 6:20).

Scientific analysis of the evidence must be viewed in the context of Scripture as propositional truth in order to arrive at the legitimate facts of nature, which is Gods creation.

[Volbrigade]

To deny His existence is to deny the fundamental principle: "everything that has a beginning must have a cause."
Those who deny God accept this axiom in all things, with one exception: the universe itself.
That is not only fallacy; it is denial.
In fact, it may properly be called "delusion".

I reject God, but I also reject that I am delusional for doing so. (I also note the crafty insertion of 'that has a beginning' as an attempt to exclude God from the rule or the same reasoning would apply to theism.)

I freely confess the origin of the universe is something I do not understand or comprehend. However that does not mean I feel the slightest inclination to call what ever did bring the universe into being 'God', although what brought the universe into being is certainly at least part-qualified to be called a god.

But that is not really the issue, because the concept of God goes beyond 'that which brought the universe into being'. The God concept I am asked to believe also answers prayers, provides a home for my departed soul, rewards people for performing certain ritual acts and so on and so forth.

The universe was brought into being by X. Now I don't know what X is. But I don't think I am being delusional in questioning whether that X - which was probably something like a quantum fluctuation - also answers prayers and worries whether people abstain from shellfish or not.

I think it more likely to be a delusion that the 'unknown X' that brought the universe into being has anything in common with what the word 'God' implies at all.

I commend you, keith. This is a very succinct and well-stated summation of what I refer to -- with slight bemusement, and not disrespectfully -- as "Whateverism."

Since I believe that Jesus Christ is the Truth; and that The Bible is His inspired written record to us; then it follows that belief in some-, any-, or every-thing else is a belief in varying degrees of untruth. It is usually encountered as a vague and nebulous belief in "Whatever...": uncaused quantum fluctuations, panspermia, abiogenesis, the goddess, mother nature... whatever.

It is a view that I am intimately acquainted with, having nurtured various versions of it myself.

The question is -- and it the one that my OP raises -- can the Biblical version of events provide a credible explanation for the reality that we inhabit? Does it withstand acute scrutiny, and still conform to the standards of truth?

The answer, to me, is a resounding, unqualified, unequivocal "yes". It is not for you (at least, it is to be hoped, not yet).

My purpose is not to argue or persuade you or anyone else into accepting the Biblical account as truth. I have learned from experience the well-known maxim that "no one has ever been argued into faith in Jesus Christ." We are, in fact, by nature averse to that faith -- and are desperate to believe in anything else; again, in "whatever".

My purpose is only to defend the claims of Christianity, in whatever small way that I have been given the provision to do so. Argument may lead some towards the reality of faith in Christ -- which is the ultimate reality: but faith itself, like salvation, and our very biological lives, is a gift from God.

Our choice is whether to accept that gift -- those gifts -- or not.

We may refuse the gift of biological life by our volition.
We may refuse the gift of salvation by our ingratitude.
We may refuse the gift of faith by our pride.

[100%atheist]

Standard rules of discourse. You are answering my questions with questions. I reserve the right to answer or not answer your subsequent queries at my discretion, based on my inclinations. The official rule is "I asked you first."

I am ready to answer any of your questions. However, this exchange will be unproductive unless we believe each others statements. (of course not that they necessarily true, but in that we really believe in what we say).

I get my morals from the only possible source of morals: the transcendent standard provided by God. And I don't need a book for it; but I am eternally grateful that He has provided one.

Could you clarify please. I don't know what is that "the transcendent standard provided by God".

Here's an example. You complain that I haven't answered your questions.

There is NO complain in my response. I don't understand why you make false statements. Is it representative of your morality?

I respond that you haven't answered mine first. I am appealing to a standard that is transcendent of our own individual, subjective opinions, and hoping that you will recognize that standard.

Sorry, I missed Sunday school when I was young. I have no bloody clue what is "transcendental standard". Please believe me, and try explain it again. And yes, I am really curious about what YOU mean by this.

Morality is not something that "comes from the brain".

Please explain where do you take your morality from. So far you failed to explain what is that "transcendental standard" that you use instead of your brain. I use my brain to find out what is bad and what is good.

Then it would be subjective, and relativist.

Subjective - yes, I am not sure about the existence of objectives morals. Relativist - no, though it depends on what do YOU mean by relativist morals. Could you clarify?

Morality is an order imposed by a transcendent entity.

Great! And the Great Invisible Unicorns are pink! I certainly understand your proclamation, but l don't believe that transcendental entities exist. Sorry about the inconvenience for you, but I am an atheist and I don't believe in everything that is especially "beyond normal" just because you proclaim it is true.

Our views toward it -- that order, that standard -- are thus either in right or wrong relation to it.

Again, so far you have failed even to define your transcendental standard and its origin. I don't want to assign you a position that might be not what you believe in.

I don't think it's moral to own humans. But I'm not God. I don't have title -- He does.

Hold on. Above you said that you receive your morals from some transcendental source provided by God. That source should obviously be very different from morals, both God's morals and morals commanded by God, which are in the Bible and which tell you nothing about immorality owing other human beings. It also obvious that your "transcendental standard provided by God" had to change not so long time ago, when it was not considered immoral to own humans.
... and I have a big problem with this... for example...
If God changes his "transcendental standard", how do we know that during the WWII that standard did not include the extermination of Jews?

This is a legitimate point. And bears discussion.

God does not "change his 'transcendental standard' ". His standard is, and has always been, that we are to be perfect. Perfect in love; perfect in obedience; perfect in communion with His eternal power and glory. That perfection is based on our choice. Adam was made perfect, and became sinful -- sin and death entered into the world -- through his willful disobedience. That ushered in the whole sad saga of human history. Slavery, along with every other evil, is part of that history. The Bible provides rules for slavery -- including of their periodic offer of liberation (frequently declined; the ancient world was a tough place; there were worse things than being the lifelong servant of a Godly master) -- along with rules for most other forms of social discourse.

Question 1: Is reaching perfection in something guarantees that something is necessarily moral?
Question 2: Should I understand your statements about slavery that you believe that you consider it can be moral for one human being to own another human being? I am asking this because your statements here contradict your previously made claim that you don't think it is moral to own a human being.

Regarding the Jews during WWII -- it should be remembered that God singled out the Jews -- the descendants of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob -- to impart The Law to;

... I still wander where are Australian aborigines, not to mention Chinese people in all this Abrahamic God's plan...

and for unconditional promises and/or covenants -- some of which have yet to be fulfilled. but they will be. One of those promises is that he will "curse those that curse (them)". You may apply that to the Third Reich as you see fit.

Maybe nope, maybe yes. I don't know. I don't believe in religious stories, so I would be not very good in applying biblical stories to some REAL world events.

A question for you: do you think it's moral to own animals? If so, please explain to me, you being an atheist, and as if I were an alien from another world, why that is permissible, but owning other humans is not.

I am actually not sure about the morality of owning animals. I own 3 fish and sometimes I feel not so good about it. Considering extraterrestrial life, I extend my moral statement that owning other human beings is immoral to include higher intelligence aliens.

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify here a bit. You are unsure about animal ownership for yourself -- what about for other people? It is immoral for people to own -- and by extension, to eat -- animals? Should vegetarianism be imposed on humans?

As I said, I am not sure about this. I tend to think that it is bad to grow other human beings for enslavement and for food. I would extend this moral approach to all apes and all "higher" sentient extraterrestrial forms of life (if found).

I would ask you to think about this, because there is an important principle here. What is it about humans that make ownership of them immoral? What is the distinctive characteristic? What is the difference between, say, a man and an ape? Or an ape and a dog? Or a dog and fish? Etc.

Well, one thing is that humans belong to the same species. Another thing is that morals have evolved a lot from the time of the cave age, and from the time of your bible writers. Secular morality (which is the only morality that exists) arrived to the currently held conclusion that it is good to consider all human beings having the same rights, and it is bad to consider that some humans "are more equal than others". Slavery, obviously, interfere with the rights equality for all humans.

You mention "higher intelligence" aliens. Is intelligence the defining criteria for determining the rights, and rules regarding, other creatures?

Yes, because without intelligence you are not likely to be able to make rules ... especially for others... (look at the Congress for an example )

Do you understand the implications if that is the case? Do you realize who the Nazis began their racial purification projects with?

Sorry, I lost you here. Can you be more explicit about what you mean? Thanks.

I believe I answered all your questions. Now it is your turn.

Ditto.

Thank you. However, there is a couple of unresolved questions still:
1) You hold this notion that I somehow should be aware of that "transcendental standard" for morality that you use instead of your brain. Sorry, I really really don't know what you are talking about.
2) We still didn't get your position on morality of owning other human beings. The Bible never says it is immoral. You, at one point said that it is immoral, but they started to defend the morality of owning other human beings.
Can you please once and for all answer this question:
Do you think it is moral for humans to own as property other human beings?

[Volbrigade]

The formatting here is getting a little unwieldy for me; but, as I'm enjoying our chat, I'm going to cut to this following area of our dialogue, and then address your... concerns (um, "complaint" is a legitimate term here; as in "your 'complaint' that I haven't answered your questions". But I'd rather strive for clarity than obfuscation) regarding a "transcendent standard" at the end.

A question for you: do you think it's moral to own animals? If so, please explain to me, you being an atheist, and as if I were an alien from another world, why that is permissible, but owning other humans is not.

I am actually not sure about the morality of owning animals. I own 3 fish and sometimes I feel not so good about it. Considering extraterrestrial life, I extend my moral statement that owning other human beings is immoral to include higher intelligence aliens.

I'm going to have to ask you to clarify here a bit. You are unsure about animal ownership for yourself -- what about for other people? It is immoral for people to own -- and by extension, to eat -- animals? Should vegetarianism be imposed on humans?

As I said, I am not sure about this. I tend to think that it is bad to grow other human beings for enslavement and for food. I would extend this moral approach to all apes and all "higher" sentient extraterrestrial forms of life (if found).

That's fine. Is that based on reason, or on a feeling? If it's based on reason: what is the rationale for not extending this "moral approach" beyond apes?

I would ask you to think about this, because there is an important principle here. What is it about humans that make ownership of them immoral? What is the distinctive characteristic? What is the difference between, say, a man and an ape? Or an ape and a dog? Or a dog and fish? Etc.

Well, one thing is that humans belong to the same species. Another thing is that morals have evolved a lot from the time of the cave age, and from the time of your bible writers. Secular morality (which is the only morality that exists) arrived to the currently held conclusion that it is good to consider all human beings having the same rights, and it is bad to consider that some humans "are more equal than others". Slavery, obviously, interfere with the rights equality for all humans.

A lot of unprovable assertions here. Let's start with the one that is: "humans belong to the same species". So they do. What of it? So do dogs, cats, pigs, sponges (generally speaking, and without getting into picking nits). As an alien form another world, justify to me, on rational grounds, why the human and simian species have rights, but the others don't. Seriously -- is that something you can do? Because I'd love to hear it.

As for morals evolving -- I challenge you to defend that statement. How have they improved (may I assume that "improve" is interchangeable with "evolve" here?) You say that "Secular morality (which is the only morality that exists) arrived to the currently held conclusion that it is good to consider all human beings having the same rights, and it is bad to consider that some humans "are more equal than others"."

But that's not true at all. There are countless forms of "secular morality"; in fact, arguably, one for every secularist ("there's what's right for me, and what's right for you"). Let's say in the form that I ascribe to, might makes right; survival of the fittest is the order of the day; and the strongest prevail at the expense of the weaker. You disagree. Who's right? And remember -- in my hypothetical, I have more guns and money than you.

You mention "higher intelligence" aliens. Is intelligence the defining criteria for determining the rights, and rules regarding, other creatures?

Yes, because without intelligence you are not likely to be able to make rules ... especially for others... (look at the Congress for an example )

Do you understand the implications if that is the case? Do you realize who the Nazis began their racial purification projects with?

Sorry, I lost you here. Can you be more explicit about what you mean? Thanks

.

Gladly. The first people that the Nazis practiced their systematic elimination of, as part of their "racial purification" that culminated in the "Final Solution" (The Holocaust) were those who we now refer to as "developmentally disabled"; who they referred to as the "genetically inferior", "mentally deficient".

If your argument for the value of life, and deferment of rights, is from intelligence -- i.e., apes cut it, cows don't -- how do you justify not taking the rights (including the right to life) of "inferior" human beings? A rational, not emotional, justification, please. Oh -- and bear in mind: Nazism was/is a "secular morality".

I believe I answered all your questions. Now it is your turn.

Ditto.

Thank you. However, there is a couple of unresolved questions still:
1) You hold this notion that I somehow should be aware of that "transcendental standard" for morality that you use instead of your brain. Sorry, I really really don't know what you are talking about.

Sorry. I really assumed you would either be familiar with, or able to discern, my meaning here. By "transcendent standard" I refer to a standard (which is an absolute: a yardstick, not a rubber band) which transcends either of our subjective opinions on morality. Implied in my usage is that this standard also transcends our reality, which is but a subset of a higher, "spiritual" one. And my use of "transcendental" was inadvertent (is that the term I used?). Please accept my retraction of that, and replacement with "transcendent". A subtle, but important, distinction.

2) We still didn't get your position on morality of owning other human beings. The Bible never says it is immoral. You, at one point said that it is immoral, but they started to defend the morality of owning other human beings.
Can you please once and for all answer this question:
Do you think it is moral for humans to own as property other human beings?

I don't think it's moral. But it existed: and still exists. A lot of immoral things do. You are making the mistake of thinking that because the Bible reports something, it condones it. The Bible is, among other things, a magnificent history book. It reports, warts and all. The Old Testament is a documentation of man's need for a Redeemer; the New Testament documents His appearance. Regarding slavery, I urge you to examine the book of Philemon, in the NT. It is a letter form Paul to a slaveowner, pleading on behalf of his runaway slave. Neither Paul -- nor Jesus before him -- was attempting to alter the accepted social order of the time.

Jesus -- and Paul, His Apostle -- were attempting to alter men: individually, fundamentally; to turn them from creatures of God into Sons of God. That, my friend, is TRUE "evolution".

[Star]

Not only is there no evidence, the Bible's claims run contrary to logic and the laws of physics.

Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, are some of the biggest hoaxes in human history.

Nobody familiar with modern science believes this nonsense.

[Volbrigade]

Not only is there no evidence, the Bible's claims run contrary to logic and the laws of physics.

Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, are some of the biggest hoaxes in human history.

Nobody familiar with modern science believes this nonsense.

Well, that settles it, then. Why didn't you just say so, to begin with? Would've saved me a lot of typing... but then my fingers would've been deprived of all that exercise.

LOL.

I think this post is an appropriate one for me to sign off on. I've enjoyed my conversations with most of you -- with one notable exception.

My apologies to Goat -- and, I think, Filthy Tugboat -- I've left a couple of your observations on the table, relative to the coelacanth, the claimed age of the fossils found of the specimen, conjectures about its habit then and now...

I became preoccupied elsewhere. The main point I have to make in that regard is contained in the OP. The claimed age of those fossils -- all fossils -- are subject to presuppositions; uniformitarian ones demand vast ages of slow and gradual uphill increases in information, as I've noted several times, and will now take a hiatus from doing. The same applies to radiometric dating: assumptions are made as to the amount of radiation at onset, and the rate of decay. Where results don't fit those assumptions, they are summarily -- and discretely -- discarded, as with rocks observed to have formed after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, which have yielded "ages" of several millions of years.

The fact is -- and this is especially for any of my Christian brethren who may be lurking here -- the standard, uniformitarian, evolutionist models are void; based, literally on nothing, from which everything sprang, uncaused and unguided. The Bible is the true history of the universe; science has at last advanced to the point of being able to confirm that. There is no mechanism for "uphill" evolution; no transitional forms; no explanation for the lack of erosion between widely-spaced layers of sediment; no explanation for multiple, unbroken, undulating sedimentary layers; no explanation for the discovery of soft tissue in fossilized T. Rex bones; no explanation for the presence of C-14 in "millions of years old" diamonds -- in the context of the evolutionary paradigm that we have all been indoctrinated with.

Science, viewed through the magisterial lens of Scripture, provides answers for all those factors. So -- fear not, and let not your heart be troubled. The source of your faith is sure, and immutable. Today's uniformitarian theories and "facts" are tomorrow's refuse and laughingstock.

And so, I leave it with you, gentlemen. 100% Atheist, I will make an exception in regard to our conversation, since mine was the last post. If you wish to continue our discussion, then I make myself available to it.

[Filthy Tugboat]

2) We still didn't get your position on morality of owning other human beings. The Bible never says it is immoral. You, at one point said that it is immoral, but they started to defend the morality of owning other human beings.
Can you please once and for all answer this question:
Do you think it is moral for humans to own as property other human beings?

I don't think it's moral. But it existed: and still exists. A lot of immoral things do. You are making the mistake of thinking that because the Bible reports something, it condones it. The Bible is, among other things, a magnificent history book. It reports, warts and all. The Old Testament is a documentation of man's need for a Redeemer; the New Testament documents His appearance.

I'm going to have to stop you here, the Scriptures (Old Testament) are not a history book, nor a documentation of man's need for a redeemer or even need of redemption, it's the ancient literature of the Jewish people, a more accurate name is Tanakh.

Regarding slavery, I urge you to examine the book of Philemon, in the NT. It is a letter form Paul to a slaveowner, pleading on behalf of his runaway slave. Neither Paul -- nor Jesus before him -- was attempting to alter the accepted social order of the time.

Jesus -- and Paul, His Apostle -- were attempting to alter men: individually, fundamentally; to turn them from creatures of God into Sons of God. That, my friend, is TRUE "evolution".

Paul and the Jesus in the gospels absolutely would not get a long if they'd ever met. Pauline Christianity changed the very nature of a the religion, without his input, meaning, if the gospels were taken more seriously, the religion would be nothing like it is now. The actual recordings of Jesus (or the supposed recordings of the living Jesus) are at odds with Paul's dreams about the man. Perhaps if Paul did not sell the religion to Rome, Christianity would be more authentic. But instead we have a misogynistic, anti-Semitic mess that has little consistency.

[Volbrigade]

[Replying to post 56 by Filthy Tugboat]

Your post came in while I was editing mine, FT. Two observations:

Your view of scripture is limited, to say the least. "Truncated" is, I think, I better word.

Jesus and Paul did meet. On the road to Damascus.

They got along... rather famously.

[Goat]

Not only is there no evidence, the Bible's claims run contrary to logic and the laws of physics.

Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, the Tower of Babel, are some of the biggest hoaxes in human history.

Nobody familiar with modern science believes this nonsense.

Well, that settles it, then. Why didn't you just say so, to begin with? Would've saved me a lot of typing... but then my fingers would've been deprived of all that exercise.

LOL.

I think this post is an appropriate one for me to sign off on. I've enjoyed my conversations with most of you -- with one notable exception.

My apologies to Goat -- and, I think, Filthy Tugboat -- I've left a couple of your observations on the table, relative to the coelacanth, the claimed age of the fossils found of the specimen, conjectures about its habit then and now...

I became preoccupied elsewhere. The main point I have to make in that regard is contained in the OP. The claimed age of those fossils -- all fossils -- are subject to presuppositions; uniformitarian ones demand vast ages of slow and gradual uphill increases in information, as I've noted several times, and will now take a hiatus from doing. The same applies to radiometric dating: assumptions are made as to the amount of radiation at onset, and the rate of decay. Where results don't fit those assumptions, they are summarily -- and discretely -- discarded, as with rocks observed to have formed after the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, which have yielded "ages" of several millions of years.

The fact is -- and this is especially for any of my Christian brethren who may be lurking here -- the standard, uniformitarian, evolutionist models are void; based, literally on nothing, from which everything sprang, uncaused and unguided. The Bible is the true history of the universe; science has at last advanced to the point of being able to confirm that. There is no mechanism for "uphill" evolution; no transitional forms; no explanation for the lack of erosion between widely-spaced layers of sediment; no explanation for multiple, unbroken, undulating sedimentary layers; no explanation for the discovery of soft tissue in fossilized T. Rex bones; no explanation for the presence of C-14 in "millions of years old" diamonds -- in the context of the evolutionary paradigm that we have all been indoctrinated with.

Science, viewed through the magisterial lens of Scripture, provides answers for all those factors. So -- fear not, and let not your heart be troubled. The source of your faith is sure, and immutable. Today's uniformitarian theories and "facts" are tomorrow's refuse and laughingstock.

And so, I leave it with you, gentlemen. 100% Atheist, I will make an exception in regard to our conversation, since mine was the last post. If you wish to continue our discussion, then I make myself available to it.

The 'ash on St Helen's ' is a magnificent example of the misinformation that certain YEC try to thrust on those people who are ignorant of how radiometric dating works. Steve Austin in specific is rather.. dishonest in his claims, since he reallly should know better.

This is a link explaining the issue at hand.

AS for the C14 in diamonds issue . Here is a link to a paper on the subject (abstract only; article must be purchased):

Taylor and Southon (2007)

Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds

R.E. Taylor and John Southon

<blockquote><b>Abstract</b>

To examine one component of the instrument-based background in the University of California Keck Carbon Cycle AMS spectrometer, we have obtained measurements on a set of natural diamonds pressed into sample holders. Natural diamond samples (N = 14) from different sources within rock formations with geological ages greatly in excess of 100 Ma yielded a range of currents (not, vert, similar110"250 &#956;A 12C&#8722; where filamentous graphite typically yields not, vert, similar150 &#956;A 12C&#8722;) and apparent 14C ages (64.9 0.4 ka BP [0.00031 0.00002 fm] to 80.0 1.1 ka BP [0.00005 0.00001 fm]). Six fragments cut from a single diamond exhibited essentially identical 14C values " 69.3 0.5 ka"70.6 0.5 ka BP. The oldest 14C age equivalents were measured on natural diamonds which exhibited the highest current yields.</blockquote>

What this shows is that the residual C14 is a result of instrument background. The entire Taylor and Southon experiment was designed to measure that residual background in their equipment.

Additional information can be found here.

[Filthy Tugboat]

[Replying to post 56 by Filthy Tugboat]

Your post came in while I was editing mine, FT. Two observations:

Your view of scripture is limited, to say the least. "Truncated" is, I think, I better word.

Jesus and Paul did meet. On the road to Damascus.

They got along... rather famously.

According to... Paul, who then went ahead and used this claim to support his own theology that is distinctly different to that of the Jesus portrayed in the gospels. What I'm sure you do know about Christian theology, I fear you lack in literary study.

[Star]

I met Jesus, too. He told me he never met Paul, and that Noah's flood didn't happen.

I require no evidence, other than my testimony.