Summations Only

In the meantime, STUDY WHAT RADIOCARBON DATING IS AND WHAT IT'S BASED ON (ie, where the C14 comes from and where it DOESN'T)!The Wikipedia article, Radiocarbon dating, would be a good place to start. . Pay particular attention to the section, Carbon exchange reservoir, and its accompanying graphic, "Simplified version of the carbon exchange reservoir, showing proportions of carbon and relative activity of the ¹⁴C in each reservoir". In particular, note in that graphic that it does not include subterranean C14 produced continuously by radiation sources deep underground, because that subterranean C14 plays no role in radiocarbon dating and has nothing to do with the method. That is important because that false creationist "objection" (ie, that trace C14 in coal and diamonds presents problems for radiocarbon dating) is so far the only "objection" that you have presented and it has been thoroughly debunked. Learn something!CAVEAT: DO NOT RELY ON A CREATIONIST SOURCE! Creationists are lying to you. If you do use a creationist source, then verify it thoroughly!You admonish us to "Study assumptions"? We have! Why haven't you done the same? We have tried many times in vain to explain to you what the actual assumptions are, but you have steadfastly refused to explain what your creationist assumptions are! Stop your hypocrisy! Put up or shut up!  ABE:
 

Child.

What the Catholic Church teaches is that sexual predators make the best priests, and bishops, and archbishops, and cardinals, and popes and that the oldest church traditions are cannibalism and vampirism. Go ahead and flush the $1.55.

I knew it ... you're not game to accept my wager.

No. The fact that YOU can't come up with a test doesn't mean anything. It does suggest that you haven't put any thought or research into it.The test is fitting it into the nested hierarchy of all living things. If it fits, that demonstrates relationships to the other organisms that it fits between.If, on the other hand, you try to fit a winged horse into the nested hierarchy, you'll notice that there are no vertebrates with six limbs. You should laugh less. It just exposes your ignorance.

I'll take your bet.In Message 645, you said, "I'm willing to bet you $1.55 that what the Catholic Church teaches is the truth ..."Go ahead and do a DNA test on your next communion wafer. If it has any Jewish ancestry there's $1.55 on it's way to you.(See how easy it is to test hypotheses?)

Though the RCC has had a sordid history regarding molestations and coverups, one must remember that even among the 12 Disciples there was one bad apple. (Judas)Hopefully, the RCC has not exceeded the 12:1 ratio.Their shame is and was in the coverups. It would be as if 11 Cardinals and the Pope defended 1 rotten Cardinal. (which brings up another speculation. Did Judas "go to Hell"?Orrrrrr did Jesus forgive him at a later point in time?)The world may never know.

Idolator! Your behavior and veneration of a totally secular concept known as "Science and Critical Thought" is a thinly veiled attempt to worship human intellect itself. You and your kind won't last long.

I hope you realize that to us normals (as dwise1 calls us) are about as insulted by that word as you would be if you were called a "Little-Endian". (That's a Lilliputian "Little-Endian".) Why would it be "thinly veiled"? Why would it be veiled at all? Human intellect is all we have (and that includes you). What would be more worthy of worship? We're winning now.

Dwise 1, one of the grandkids got sick, and granny had to
to come back home.So here is what I mean by assumptions. Assuming
something to be true is not good science. In fact it is
not science at all.Scientists who believe in evolution are among the most
assuming scientists in the world.When dating dead organisms utilizing the Carbon-14
dating method two facts need to be established.One is the decay rate of C-14.
The other is the starting amount.There is no way to determine if the ratio of C-14 to C-12
in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is
today.If one assumes that the ratio is true, and the assumption
is true, the dating method is valid up to perhaps 75,000
years.If the assumption is not true the method will give
incorrect dates.Since we have no way of knowing the ratio of C14 to C-12
5000 years ago, we do not have the empirical or
observational science necessary for interpretations of
past events.When we lack observational knowledge/science, we are
left with historical science. Historical science can be
highly subjective. Evolutionists rely heavily on historical
science, which involves assumptions.The founder of the Carbon-14 dating method, Dr. Willard
Libby, assumed (ain't this what evolutionists do) the rate
to be constant based on evolution.Then he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be
in equilibrium.By this I mean that the amount of Carbon atoms in the
atmosphere must equal the amount being removed.The Specific Production Rate of C14 per gram is
currently twice that of Specific Decay Rate.Dr. Libby ignored the nonequilibrium state.By Dr. Libby's own estimation it would be 30,000 years
to reach equilibrium.I am not even taking into account the effects of the
worldwide flood, or earth's changing magnetic field.Nor am I taking into account contamination, or any of
the other issues involved with dating techniques.Evolutionists thrive on assumptions, especially false
ones. But, even when wrong no one calls them on it.Evolutionists are the ones who get the grants, and the
ones who run our universities.They can and do distort facts to fit their agenda. I know
this as fact. And nobody is going to change my mind.

quote:

---

When dating dead organisms utilizing the Carbon-14
dating method two facts need to be established.
​
One is the decay rate of C-14.
The other is the starting amount.

---

That’s not exactly true any more. There have been plenty of measurements of samples where the age has been determined by other methods. So we can use those rather than guessing the starting amount.

quote:

---

There is no way to determine if the ratio of C-14 to C-12
in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is
today.

---

Wrong again. We know that it hasn’t.

quote:

---

When we lack observational knowledge/science, we are
left with historical science.

---

Good job we have all that observational knowledge then.You make the mistake of assuming that creationists tell the truth. Maybe you should examine your own assumptions.

And yet you have not shown a shred of evidence to support this lie.

Hi candle2It is expected that the level of C14 in the atmosphere will vary over time principally because the rate of production from solar radiation is not constant, and increased old carbon can be produced by volcanic activity and introduced into the atmosphere.So a means of calibrating is required so a raw C14 date can be converted to a more accurate real date. This is done by dating something by another method, such as known historical artefacts, tree rings, limestone cave deposits, lake and sea floor deposits, dating corals by C14 and Uranium/Thorium dating on the same specimen.
.
Using these methods tables have been published to calibrate raw C14 dates to 55,000 years agoagainst real dates. The result of course is not a straight line relation. In fact there can be a plateau so one C14 date can be a range of actual dates.If this is not an honest investigation honestly reported, then what do you think is actually going on? Who is fooling whom? Who is benefitting?There are over 100 C14 laboratories around the world with the biggest doing 10,000 tests a year. Researchers are content to spend $500 I am told per test. The results are sent in reports to journals to be published and read by other researchers.If the tests are so unreliable, what do you think is going on here? Who is fooling whom? Who is organising things?

Dredge, you ask if my Biblical interpretations are always
correct.No one is infallible.Catholics claim that the Pope is always infallible when
dictating church doctrines.Furthermore, the RCC is adamant in that the Church has
priority over the Bible.When one accepts this premise one depends on others
to tell them what is and is not acceptable to God. And,
they have no scripture to verify or annul what they are
told.My church has opened my eyes to God's plan for
humans, but I always search the scripture in order to
prove or disprove whether they are right or not.God gave us His 10 Commandments. They were engraved
on stone to show their permanence.Jesus says in John 14:15 "If you love me, keep my
Commandments."1 John 5:3 "For this is the love of God, that we keep His
Commandments: and His Commandments are not
grievous."Revelation 14:12 "Here is the patience of the saints:
here are they tha/ keep the Commandments of God..."Revelation 22:14 "Blessed are theythat do His
Commandments, that they may have right to the tree
of life..."Speaking of the 10 Commandments in Deuteronomy 6:8,
God states "And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon
thine hand, and they shall be as frontiers between
thine eyes."This is repeated in Deuteronomy 11:18.We accept God's Holy Commandments with our mind,
and we obey them with our hands. We shake on it.We honor God's Commandments because we love Him,
and we worship Him.Those that worship the beast and its image also accept
his authority with their mind, and they obey with their
hands.Those who worship this false religious system receive a
mark in their hand and/or mind.The RCC deleted God's 2nd Commandment which states:"Thou shall make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in
the earth beneath...thou shall not bow down to them."The RCC worship images, and they bow down to them.
They also worship relics (bones of supposedly dead
saints).They replaced the Sabbath with "Remember to keep Holy
the Lord's Day."In order to still have 10 Commandments, the RCC divided
The 10th.9.Do not covertly thy neighbor's wife.
10. Do not covet thy neighbor's goods.The RCC thinks to change times and laws.

Short vacation! Though I shouldn't talk since I've been incapacitated by a knee injury the past few days. Getting better. True enough about making assumptions, which is why one must examine, test, and verify one's assumptions. And when assumptions are found to be wrong, then acting on that testing by correcting and refining those assumptions that can be corrected and dropping the ones that cannot be corrected.That is what science and scientists do all the time, while it is the creationists who never test their own assumptions and will never ever act upon any of their assumptions found to be wrong.Read my draft HTML page which examines the major differences between scientists and creationists: Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists. A very quick summary is that scientists are trying to discover something, so they take their research seriously. Of necessity, they base their research in part on the research of other scientists (eg, "don't reinvent the wheel", "I stand on the shoulders of giants."), which means that scientists have a strong vested interest in the veracity and validity of that other research, which means that when a scientist publishes the findings of an experiment, other scientists will repeat that experiment to see if they get the same results; IOW, they test each other's work trying to prove them wrong. Science demands it.Case in point was the bombshell news of the discovery of "cold fusion". The moment the paper was published, it was FAX'd out (remember, no Internet back then) throughout the physics community and everybody eagerly read it and repeated the experiments. They found that it wasn't true and they all dropped "cold fusion".In contrast, creationists are not trying to discover anything, but rather they just want to convince others (and more importantly themselves) of their groundless, unverified, and never-tested assumptions. If another creationist comes up with a claim or argument, they never ever even think of testing it for being true, but rather they just blindly believe it and repeat it as long as it sounds convincing (at least to them in their willful ignorance, though not convincing to anyone who knows anything about the subject). They have no need for any of it to be true, just so long as it sounds convincing. And they will only stop using those groundless arguments when they get too much bad press for that argument (eg, moon dust, protein comparisons).Case in point: leap seconds show that the earth's rotation is slowing down at a rate that would mean the mere millions of years ago it had to have been spinning impossibly fast. In reality, 4 billion years ago the earth would have been spinning only twice as fast. The originator, most likely Walter Brown in 1979, didn't understand what leap seconds are nor how they work. Even though the claim was decisively refuted in 1982, creationists keep repeating it -- a Canadian group proved that to 15 creationist sites and none of them repented of that particular lie. See my page on it, Earth's Rotation is Slowing for more information.So you have our roles reversed: scientists test their assumptions (AKA "hypotheses") rigorously in order to eliminate the wrong assumptions, while it's the creationists who make refuse to test their assumptions and instead declare them to be Gospel.What you're doing there is described as "the pot calling the silverware black." More to come.