Post Info TOPIC: Carbon 14 in a Diamond and a Dinosaur Bone


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 656
Date: 17:51:49 Dec 11, 2013
Carbon 14 in a Diamond and a Dinosaur Bone
Permalink   
 


 

 

DiamondsAreForever.jpg
What do you get when you Date a Diamond?


I once suggested to someone that we take a man made diamond and, if possible, date it to see what came out the other end. Problem is, of course, at the time, I didn't think it was possible to carbon date a diamond however, in fact it is possible to do just that as the article below shows.


We have no absolutely reliable dates of anything that is over 100,000 years old. Sure there are numerous claims that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago due to radiometric dating of the KT geological boundary. In depth study of the methods and assumptions used show that no method is anywhere near as accurate or testable as tree ring counting and carbon 14 dating. All other dating methods have serious problems and gross assumptions must be made. In addition potassium argon dating has been shown by many to have serious problems.


If,as popularly claimed, dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be one molecule of carbon 14 left in their bones. If as popularly believed most limestone formations are 500 million years old, then there should be no carbon 14 present in them. Yet, when carbon-containing rocks or bones are tested they always contain c14.


Both creationist and evolutionist have taken the one material that cannot be accused of being contaminated and have used supposedly 500 million year to 3 billion year old diamonds to see if there is any carbon 14 in them. Anything that old should not have even one atom of carbon 14. Yet both sides get the same result and that is that 100 million year old diamonds do have carbon 14 in them. This is a serious problem.



http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm



Allosaurus.jpg


Well, until such a time as something decides to carbon date a man made diamond, there is another possibility hinted at above and that is to carbon date a dinosaur bone. Since there is an anomalous result in dating the diamond which has no contamination, then the results of a carefully controlled dating of a dinosaur bone would also not be skewered due to contamination. The individual below had the very bright idea to Carbon Date a Dinosaur bone and, you guessed it, the date was far from millions of years old but only about 10,000 years old - meaning that it 'aged' during the flood about 4000 years because, as the Smithsonian told me in a letter back in 1996, "all man made dating methods are subject to error due to heat and leaching."


"What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age came back with was only a few thousand years old. This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So, what did they do? They threw the results out and kept their theory that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago instead. This is common practice.


I have documentation of an Allosaurus bone that was sent to the University of Arizona to be carbon dated. The results were 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16, 120 +/- 220 years. We didn't tell them that the bones they were dating were dinosaur bones. The result was sample B at 16, 120 years. The Allosaurus dinosaur was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years. The samples of bone were blind samples."


http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html


__________________

Welcome to my World...


Anonymous

Date: 13:24:54 May 15, 2015
Permalink   
 

Many evolutionists are having more and more trouble with the soft tissue being found in dinosaurs as well as the dating problem you mention.  Yet Bible believing Christians would do even better if there would just look at a few more details in their Bible. 

 

In Genesis 1:1-2, it says (KJV), "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.  And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."

 

There is no word for "Was" in the Ancient Aramaic used to write the original for Genesis.  The passive verb "to be" was an invention of the Greeks.  So what words are used in the original here?  For the second "was", there is no word.  "Was" is inserted to make it less choppy.  No problem - translators have to smoothe things out sometimes.  But in the first case, "And the earth was without form, and void", the word used is the word for BECAME [emphasis mine].  It wasn't that way originally. 

 

This changes the meaning of Genesis 1:1.  Think about it.  "And the earth became without form, and void".  Why did it become that way?  Apparently God created things perfect, that's how he does things.  He had something going on at the time of the dinosaurs.  But then, they got messed up.  How did that happen? 

 

God has the same rights as any author.  Since he is trying to cover all the great things he is doing in Genesis 1, he is well within his rights to put bad things in other places.  In the beginning, besides creating the heavens and the earth, he created spiritual beings called angels.  He put them under three heads, Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer.  Lucifer was the greatest of these.  But as it says in Ezekiel 14:12-19, he grew prideful and fell.  He thought he should be worshipped in place of God.  In Revelations, it says he took 1/3 of the angels of heaven with him.  When they were kicked out of heaven, do you think they decided to play 'nice'?  No, they tried to hurt God in the greatest way possible by coming down to earth and ruining what God had going on.  Afterwards, he was no longer known as Lucifer, but as the serpent.  There are other names, too, but none are positive. 

 

To summarize, the account in Genesis in chapter 1 (after verse 1) is the account of God putting things back in order and repopulating the earth.  It is a beautiful and positive narrative about something that only took six days for God to complete.  The apex of this was on the sixth day when he created man and put his spirit in him. 

 

Knowing about this disaster, clearly mentioned in various places in scripture, no one need have a problem with dinosaur bones.  10,000 years sounds about right.  The science and dating fits pretty good.  When they say the earth wasn't created in six days, tell them they are right.  Take the wind out of their sails.  Then show them how their own dating totally proves everything in Genesis without question.  Ouch!  And I don't know exactly how the dinosaurs were destroyed.  But I think a rogue meteor does sound like a pretty good way to do it.  That would also bring about the darkness it mentions being over the face of the deep (the waters) in verse 2.  And it would definitely bring about the ice age that we have much evidence for.  And can you think of a better reason for the huge number of bones for animals that seem to have died out at about the same time?   

 

God knows how science works.  Any Christian should have a healthy respect for science when it is done honestly.  But by the same token, Christians need to work and be honest with scripture.  No one's perfect.  But I believe if more Christians understood how one word, slightly mistranslated, has caused such misunderstanding.  We could make so much headway. 

 



__________________


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 656
Date: 16:35:37 Jul 6, 2015
Permalink   
 

Wrong - you are simply presenting Scoffield's compromise with Evolution.  You need to re-evaluate your man made dating methods.



__________________

Welcome to my World...


Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 Add/remove tags to this thread
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us
Members Login
Google+

Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard