To Christians - C 14 dating

catalyst · Post by **catalyst** » Mon Nov 24, 2008 3:32 pm

I have noticed a theme as to what christians "accept" and what they don't as to c14 dating.

Many of them (especially "young earthers) deny the dating process as to carbon dating when it comes to "dating" something outside their own 6000 odd year earth age, however tend to accept this dating procedure when it comes to...for example...the stuff at the Ron Wyatt "institute" as to supposed chariot wheels found..and dated by the same process.

officer2002 · Post by **officer2002** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:24 pm

I am sorry that I have not heard "new earthers" using c-14 for chariot wheels or any other artifacts. Has c 14 been thoroughly tested? Did they kill a flock of sheep or chickens on the same day and disperse them is hot places and cold places, high elevation and low elevation, and wet places and dry places? If there was such a test please tell me.
I want to know. Right now c 14 seems like a religious toy of uniformitarianists.
I am not a "new earther" or "old earther". I believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly. The creation in Chapter 1 of Genesis was spiritual or in other words (maybe we could say) a planning meeting (We learn this in the Book of Abraham). Chapter 2 of Genesis does not have a time table and the Bible does not tell us how long Adam and Eve were on earth before they were kicked out of The Garden of Eden.

catalyst · Post by **catalyst** » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:54 pm

Hi officer2002, nice to meet you.

I am sorry that I have not heard "new earthers" using c-14 for chariot wheels or any other artifacts

Oh there are young earthers out there, and I did reference the Ron Wyatt "institute" as example of this.

Has c 14 been thoroughly tested? Did they kill a flock of sheep or chickens on the same day and disperse them is hot places and cold places, high elevation and low elevation, and wet places and dry places? If there was such a test please tell me.

Well considering c-14 dating depends n radioactive decay, rather than chemical decay/reaction, such a 'test" you are suggesting would be benign. Temperatures, weather conditions or pressures are irrelevant. As you appear to be interested in it, read up on it in your own time.

I believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly.

Translated from WHAT though? Something your pastor(if you attend church) conjured up last week or something "dated" back to ..when and based on what?

Just what assumed valid source are you claiming gives you a "correct" translation and what is your determining OF it being "translated correctly", gauged on??

I want to know. Right now c 14 seems like a religious toy of uniformitarianists.

Well yes they do want to play with it occasionally but ONLY when it supports their personal belief. Something however dated back to 20000BCE is scoffed at by these "conditional" believers in it.

The creation in Chapter 1 of Genesis was spiritual or in other words (maybe we could say) a planning meeting (We learn this in the Book of Abraham). Chapter 2 of Genesis does not have a time table and the Bible does not tell us how long Adam and Eve were on earth before they were kicked out of The Garden of Eden.

Ok, but when do you reckon all the above was actually first written for you to take your own interpretation from the supposed "translated correctly" writings?

officer2002 · Post by **officer2002** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 5:05 pm

catalyst it is good to meet you. In sixteen days I will be away from the internet for 4 months. Hopefully we will get our most important points through to each other before then. My wife's current Sunday School teaching describes himself as a former Athiest. I do not like that description. I like to describe him as someone with the integrity to not believe false doctrines about God but grasp onto the truth when he found it.

Has c 14 been thoroughly tested? Did they kill a flock of sheep or chickens on the same day and disperse them is hot places and cold places, high elevation and low elevation, and wet places and dry places? If there was such a test please tell me.

Well considering c-14 dating depends n radioactive decay, rather than chemical decay/reaction, such a 'test" you are suggesting would be benign. Temperatures, weather conditions or pressures are irrelevant. As you appear to be interested in it, read up on it in your own time.

To believe something that has not been thoroughly tested is faith and not true science. I have heard of living things C-14 testing to be 10000 years old.

I believe the Bible as far as it is translated correctly.

I want to know. Right now c 14 seems like a religious toy of uniformitarianists.

Well yes they do want to play with it occasionally but ONLY when it supports their personal belief. Something however dated back to 20000BCE is scoffed at by these "conditional" believers in it.

"Uniformitarianists" is another name for "Darwinist" or "Evolutionist". In other words a "Uniformitarianists" is someone who believes that the earth and all things on it came about by slow gradual uniform processes, "the present is the key to the past". In Uniformitarianism there is no room for any sudden large event or change. I say C-14 is toy of Uniformitarianists because I have never heard of testing of the Theory of C-14 dating. True science is about learning and testing theories.

The creation in Chapter 1 of Genesis was spiritual or in other words (maybe we could say) a planning meeting (We learn this in the Book of Abraham). Chapter 2 of Genesis does not have a time table and the Bible does not tell us how long Adam and Eve were on earth before they were kicked out of The Garden of Eden.

Translated from WHAT though? Something your pastor(if you attend church) conjured up last week or something "dated" back to ..when and based on what?

Just what assumed valid source are you claiming gives you a "correct" translation and what is your determining OF it being "translated correctly", gauged on??

Ok, but when do you reckon all the above was actually first written for you to take your own interpretation from the supposed "translated correctly" writings?[/quote]

When Moses wrote his writings they were accurate. Since Moses died people added and took away from his writings. The same goes for all of the prophets who wrote in the Bible. The Song of Solomon and some Psalms are not inspired. There are missing books mentioned and named in the Bible which are not in the Bible and contradictions. God lives and gives us new information through his prophets. Joseph Smith was HIS first prophet after centuries of God not having a prophet on the earth. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and recieved revelations about some of the things altered in the Bible after the ancient Biblical prophets wrote and died. Joseph Smith was martyred before he had completed recieving those revelations. God's living prophet now is Thomas S. Monson. God communicates by the Holy Ghost. I have felt the Holy Ghost touch my heart to tell me that Joseph Smith was truly HIS prophet. If you will ask with sincerety you can feel the Holy Ghost too.

If you want to know more reply and/or go to Mormon.org. I look forward to your next post. Happy Hanuka tomorrow.

catalyst · Post by **catalyst** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:51 pm

catalyst it is good to meet you. In sixteen days I will be away from the internet for 4 months.

I hope your time away is for positive reasons.

My wife's current Sunday School teaching describes himself as a former Athiest. I do not like that description. I like to describe him as someone with the integrity to not believe false doctrines about God but grasp onto the truth when he found it.

Interesting theory, officer2002. I will just quote Frances Bacon in reply: ""What a man would like to be true, he preferentially believes." This is the danger that lurks in every search for truth."

To believe something that has not been thoroughly tested is faith and not true science.

Science doesn't claim absolute conclusion. No scientific test can prove anything with absolute certainty, however with c14 dating the tests are done over and over and over and over, then checked and then rechecked again. If the SAME result is determined each and every time, then the results are also peer reviewed and then results including the processes information are published.

Is that thorough enough for you?

I have heard of living things C-14 testing to be 10000 years old.

Seriously? Could you please give examples of this and cite the source?

"Uniformitarianists" is another name for "Darwinist" or "Evolutionist". In other words a "Uniformitarianists" is someone who believes that the earth and all things on it came about by slow gradual uniform processes, "the present is the key to the past". In Uniformitarianism there is no room for any sudden large event or change.

My bad. I had not heard of that new "pc" label before now. I did however highlight part of your comment though as I have found that there IS room and understanding by "darwinists" and "evolutionists" for what I think creationists call MACRO evolution? Example of this is a study done on the anola lizards
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... rward.html or isn't a 6mth HUGE change not "sudden" or quick enough for you?

I say C-14 is toy of Uniformitarianists because I have never heard of testing of the Theory of C-14 dating.

The thing is, there were obviously testings of prior dating methods prior to c14 dating being accepted as the better method. As such I have no cause to think that the same also is not applying to c14 itself, so that science can become even more accurate in their dating processes. Science is all about onward and upward and questioning previous theory.

True science is about learning and testing theories.

I agree and it is evident that science achieves that. I can give example here with medical science. Who would have thought even 50 years ago that limbs or other extremities could be re attached and WORK? It was not until the brilliance of Microsurgeon Earl Owen that this was even contemplated let alone become reality. Since the beginnings of his career though constant "onward and upward" mindset, learning, testing, learning, testing, previous "thought best" theory making way for new and better, have his original techniques even reached the ability to transplant FACES. HE created and "perfected" and in turn has taught other microsurgeons around the world his techniques, which BTW he has no problem with his "taught" techniques being improved and expanded on.

When Moses wrote his writings they were accurate.

And the proof you have to support such claim? Have you seen the original writings of Moses? When in history do you claim they were written and what evidence can you provide to support such claim and also just HOW do you date these writings?

Since Moses died people added and took away from his writings. The same goes for all of the prophets who wrote in the Bible. The Song of Solomon and some Psalms are not inspired. There are missing books mentioned and named in the Bible which are not in the Bible and contradictions. God lives and gives us new information through his prophets. Joseph Smith was HIS first prophet after centuries of God not having a prophet on the earth. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and recieved revelations about some of the things altered in the Bible after the ancient Biblical prophets wrote and died. Joseph Smith was martyred before he had completed recieving those revelations. God's living prophet now is Thomas S. Monson. God communicates by the Holy Ghost. I have felt the Holy Ghost touch my heart to tell me that Joseph Smith was truly HIS prophet. If you will ask with sincerety you can feel the Holy Ghost too.

I am not sure if preaching is allowed in this particular subforum and think it is relegated strictly to the "Holy Huddle".

(any mods please correct me if I am wrong)

I look forward to your replies Officer2002.

As the the Hannakha well wishes... well thanks, I suppose. I am not a Jew though and don't believe in any "god" figure for that matter anymore.

QED · Post by **QED** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:04 am

officer2002 wrote: "Uniformitarianists" is another name for "Darwinist" or "Evolutionist". In other words a "Uniformitarianists" is someone who believes that the earth and all things on it came about by slow gradual uniform processes, "the present is the key to the past". In Uniformitarianism there is no room for any sudden large event or change. I say C-14 is toy of Uniformitarianists because I have never heard of testing of the Theory of C-14 dating. True science is about learning and testing theories.

Wikipedia wrote:The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949.[2] Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He first demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately measuring the age of wood from an ancient Egyptian royal barge whose age was known from historical documents.

Willard Libby won a nobel prize for carbon dating. Do you think this would be possible if it was nonsense? Many, many more tests have been made than this and the margins and sources of error are very well understood. Testing is performed not only to check the soundness of the basic principle of the dating method but also to identify any other factors that could affect the results. This entails a great deal more work than you are probably aware of.

Precisely because Uniformitarianism "leaves no room for any sudden large event or change" it fell from favour when continental drift was recognized in the 20th century. Geology is far more realistic synthesis of earlier theories mostly thanks to modern technology.