Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating

Well, it's always possible to conjecture anything. We can certainly imagine that the Earth is young and that God did a series of miracles the cumulative effect of which was to fake the appearance of age.Or indeed if it better suited our religion we could imagine that the Earth is trillions of years old, but God did a series of miracles to make it look younger than it actually is.All we can do --- all scientists can do --- is report on the age of the Earth if the Earth is not a lie. If it is, and if the lie was constructed by an omnipotent being, then there would be nothing to say about that except that he has successfully deceived us.

Good point, Dr. Adequate. This is why, if I can, I try to find hypotheses that would involve no deceiving on God's part but perhaps previous misunderstandings on our part.I'm a Christian, yes. But I'm not wholeheartedly devoted either to uniformity/naturalism or to strict Creationism (whether of the Young Orb or Young Universe, or mid-life Spaghetti Monster, or whatever kind). I can go either way, philosophically. This is why I'd like to believe that I'm pretty objective about the matter than otherwise would be. There are reasons why strict Creationism is emotionally attractive to me and there are reasons why a hands-off God (scientifically) is emotionally attractive to me. But considering that accepting Creationism is much more intellectually taxing (even if only because of the availability of information from the one viewpoint and a dearth of information from the other viewpoint), I try to sustain this one in my mind....both because it is intellectually challenging, and therefore satisfying, to do so and because Creationist arguments necessarily imply the opposite as their counter-arguments (to study Creationism, given our current pedagogical/political milieu, is automatically to study the other arguments too - unless one is dealing with backward, intolerant fundies - whereas to study the "Other Side" doesn't necessarily imply a study of Creationism).

morningstar2008 seems to be looking for a radiocarbon dating topic, and this seems to be as good as any.Adminnemooseus

Calibrated Thinker writes:
What repeatable, verifiable evidence can you provide that confirms the accuracy of any of the radiometric dating methods currently used today.I feel quite sure that we will have to agree to disagree on the veracity of dating techniques, but if you wish to go through the usual arguments, I can oblige but it is likely going to a repetition of the same debate.I live in a coal mining town in Australia and see first hand a massive volume of evidence for a massive flood event on a whole planet scale. Interestingly atop and below each coal seam are leaves sticks and twigs that are still wood, and look very much like leaves and twigs that you find on the forest floor when bush walking. Obviously the temperature was insufficient at the margins to convert this material to anthracite as is the case only centimetres away.
By the way these coal seams are about 150 metres to 200 metres below the surface under a range of sedimentary strata that all have knife edge boundaries in the horizontal plane. My point being that this is typical of rapid deposition. Interestingly enough these are dated by radiometric methods as being late Permian 255 Ma. Amazing that sticks and leaves have lasted that long without deterioration don't you think. The seams are exposed in huge open cut pits.The RD age doesn't fit the logical explanation that the coal and the sticks aren't as old as many would like make out. This is not hearsay, I'm talking about what I see with my own eyes.
It is the interpretation that dictates the result. ...Go for it, the dialogue could hopefully prove to be stimulating.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Edited by morningstar2008, : No reason given.

Hi MorningStar2008, two questions:

1. What exactly is your problem with radiocarbon dating, besides that you reject it?
   ​
2. What language is that at the bottom of your posts?

--Percy

That is a bold assumption, considering you cannot even identify the language Morningstar is using. (I think you have got confused by his poor quoting/formatting.)

RAZD has a couple of threads on the correlations among the various dating techniques. Your question is answered in detail there. Here is a link to one:EvC Forum: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 There is no debate. Instead we have creationists denying a branch of science because they choose to believe old tribal myths instead of the evidence all around them. Coal and all the rest of the ancient-age explanations for the flood are nonsense. Biblical scholars place the flood some 4,350 years ago, during historic times. Attempts to place the flood during the Permian, at the K-T boundary and all sorts of other silly places is a sign of desperation on the part of creationists. What that is really saying is that evidence of a flood couldn't be found where it was supposed to be, 4,350 years ago. Science forms an interlocking picture of the world around us. In order to overturn this model, you have to come up with an equally explanatory alternative. You don't get to cherry pick little factoids here and there.The easiest explanation for your sticks and leaves is that they really are as old as the dates show, whether you want to accept that or not.By the way, radiocarbon dating--the subject of this thread--only extends back about 50,000 years into the past. You are mistakenly including other forms of radiometric dating in your post.

Percy . .
------------------------------
Percy What language is that at the bottom of your posts?
-------------------------------
.
Russian
---------------------------------
Percy What exactly is your problem with radiocarbon dating, besides that you reject it?
---------------------------------
‘ . Calibrated Thinker 100% . . Message 339 EvC Forum: Seashells on tops of mountains. . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . .

Google Translate doesn't recognize your message as Russian, plus your text doesn't look like Russian. Russian looks like this: Or maybe you're having character set problems?Since translators don't recognize the language you're using I have no idea what you wrote, and in any event, on this board we use English.--Percy

Or maybe you're having character set problems?Since translators don't recognize the language you're using I have no idea what you wrote, and in any event, on this board we use English.
_________________________
. Russian .
.
. .
. . .Edited by morningstar2008, : No reason given.

Hi MorningStar,We already know you understand English, so now you're just being trollish. Please respond in English.Coal layers are not dated using radiocarbon dating. Are there any specific problems with radiocarbon dating you'd like to describe?--Percy

Of course I understand. Still, the translator of any moves. Though with the mrakobesnymi distortion. And I certainly understand what you asked me about whether I have a decision about dating. Of course, I have an option. But if I now without preparation you'll post it, you'll find me for a madman. On this, I gave you for only the direction of preparation, namely the link where I explained the movement of water and the possible reasons for this movement.
I want to convey to your ear that is logically equivalent, and this is something where water naturally begins to be born there. I hope this fact nor who would refute. Take the first time charcoal and chalk. The coal seams lie below the chalk. And if you have read my link Message 339 EvC Forum: Seashells on tops of mountains. where I explained that water flows down into the cracks and crevices. The old reservoirs are drying up. It follows that Mel was dry at a younger age. But that's why carbon dating method that does not see, I cannot say. Well, except for one option. Mel defies aging. He was among the causes will look always young and sensibly. (A) coal did not pass the handle that was Mel.
But while I can't explain. This I can make a mistake. You have to understand me. Russian Science never was at a height. The whole world knows this. They only pretend that everything is wonderful, but the only that can it look what Uncle Sam will propose http://static.newsland.ru/news_images/884/884292.jpg All great discoveries were made not in Russia. Tips only skillfully copied world achievements.
http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/...702.0/0_8000d_eaab117d_XXL.jpgEdited by morningstar2008, : No reason given.

Probably no point in asking this, but what kind of evidence for anything on a planetary scale could you possible see in Australia?ABE:Obviously if something happened on a global scale, then it also happened in Australia, but what would constitute evidence that something seen in Australia alone was a planet wide event? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi Percy I took that stuff to be text character sets that appear on morningstar2008's text translator as russian. Not having access to his\her translator program means we see the background ascii text.Presumably, "" is the ascii text from the translation program for the russian word for Australia ... and that might make a fun start for attempting to decode the other text ... if one were really interested.The bigger problem I have is with the syntax and paragraph breaks.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : aussi

You've made the same mistake as Percy.
The statement you are asking about is from Coyote's opening post and is actually authored by Calibrated Thinker.