CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Since Evolution Finally Admits it Doesnt Know How Life Began ....???
My question is, SINCE admittedly no answer exists in science, then by what reasoning and by what facts do you dismiss the possibility of a Creator?
And by what reasoning and by what facts do you declare religion and faith as irrational? And without merit to explore and weigh as evidence of a Creator. Science has no answer! Yet all its minions think, it is actually confirmed as fact! How dare educators lie to children and treat speculation as facts!!!
It seems it is irrational to close of possibilities of answers and proof of their sourses without really being objective.
So therefore evolution admittingly doesnt know so it assumes. So then how is it scientific to dismiss weighing evidence of a Creator and dismiss proving validations of His Word.
So evoluyion creationists expect faith in an unknown process, while refusing evidence of a Creator.
The Bible is an authority yhat has as much if not even more confirmable evidence of validity as biology. Biology days this part is in this animal and also in another, and in a controlled experiment this minifact is confirmed, an eye can develope on a wing of a fly. So therefore evolution explaims creation.
Yet we have proof the Bible is of supernatural origin, with facts unknown to the writers according to their limitations in advancements, yet it is not allowed to show evidence.
If we are debating origin then shouldnt we validate what is possible. And since lifed origin is unknown than why isnt a Creator possible? And since scripture 8s historical and closer to the date of origin to the first signs of mankind like us is about 6000 years ago, then shouldnt we add it to experiment also?
In Bible Codes, some are far out and take it far out. But some are a signature of Divine Authorship. And these ones are definitely signatures as if He etched His Word with His own hand. Pi found in Genesis 1: 1 and adv math e found in John 1:
1. These aren't spread out, found in difficulty, and in need of twisting. These two adv math codes are found, each found using within one verse. And each one found separately in chapter one of two seperate books, written in two separate millennials, in written in two separate languages.
And the nature of interpretation works with what is there from the ancient text. And the odds of them occurring at any point at all within all 66 books of the Bible is in probabilities of unreasonable proportions. What do you think is the probability of a few of these together found coded in the Bible?
If just musing at first glance, wouldn't you say, " no way?"
I'm not even saying in the whole Bible. What is the probability all these are found in only six books out if 66?
As for me, I dont think a calculation is needed to tell me that is an unreasonable probability in calculations of a snowflakes chance in Hell! Even crazier, pi and e are coded in two different languages, Hebrew for Jews and Greek was a time period of the Gospel's progression out to the Gentiles.
And both verses state "In the beginning," so they each speak of a time period of Creation and in Jesus as the Creator.
And advanced math equations not known yet for 1000s of years to come. In Genesis 1: 1 pi equation is encoded, in creation of the world and universe and in God stitching prophesy into appointed times to bring Creation full circle.And in John 1: 1 in Greek while the Gospel is propelled out to the Gentiles, you find in verse one the equation for e, which is compound interest, multiplying exponentially.
So even the equations found communicate the purpose of the event. And even the Bible Author God, divided these times by purpose as shown in the 1st verses of these two books, Genesis and John.
Then to add to this timetables for dating history is BC and AD. So the Bible notes each beginning with a math equation. Then took the division of time line for dating history. And then add TORH TORH YHWY HROT HROT in the beginning of each of the five books of the Bible at intervals of Bible numbers of importance in the written text throughout every book of seven and forty-nine .
These singuarly are a stretch against reasonable probability, but for all to be right there on the top, not buried or crazy, together all these are proof of God and His Word. All of these together are impossible odds without Divine Authorship.
Together these are more than just an oooh wow, these are against odds of probabilities that are not even be conceivable. Now in contradiction beween the improbability of two faiths. A comparison between Christianity and Evolution as ecplanation of Creation.
So on one hand, Evolutionism states strands of DNA self assembled and mutated and against all odds of occurance and against all odds of science principles and without any evidence of a physical example in front of our eyes, we are told to believe it.
And that it is factual.Then you take just these few pieces of many in evidence, tangible and available to view in everyone's individual hands. With everyone having the ability to test it, and even count out the codes for themselves, and literally proving itself in person from the beginning and in person showing agsinst all odds He not only created, but He put it in writing against all odds to prove it!
You have to be evil or an idiot to at least not step back and say there is more to God and the Bible than I currently think. Maybe I should look further!
It can be under the same standard of proof as biolgy evolution creation.
The proof of God is equal in comparison to the so called proof of evolution.
Since you can't show an eyewitness video of your nothing evolution creator creating than your proof is equal to proving God exists.
So therefore Creation science doesnt have to prove God before solidifying its imput to science as a Creator creating by God's Divine quality.
Creation science can reason its claims on the basis of patterns of evidence indicating a creator through validaing His Word as authentic from its signatures and indisputable truth.
And since the Bible is an account of it, and the Bible has been proven credible in history regardless of lies held by skepics in academia.
And as biology makes connections, and assumptions based on biology connections and builds an explanation, the Bible makes connections and tells explanation.
But also shows Divine authorship, which makes the Bible a credible source. More credible than assumptions made through connections in biology.
The Bible proves Divine authorship by copious amounts of evidence that are actually unreasonble to dismiss. And that Divine Author has given an eyewitness account.
The evidence of the Bible written by Divine Authorship is indisputable when weighed by open reasonable minds that can logically conlude facts from details surrounding the facts.
I'm not sure if your closed minds when shown proof are unreasonable minds by choice of ignorance. Or if you are seared with an unreasonable mind.
I never saw such denial of facts. The new age is educated according to an agends of world views. Facts and truth can't be loud enough or clear enough to overcome facts by selective choice, while blatantly ignoring actual facts.
The proof of God is equal to the so called proof of evolution.
Those aren't competing ideas. Even if your statement were true it is irrelevant. There is just as much proof for gravity as there is for evolution. That doesn't mean that only one if those is true.
Since you cant show an eyewitness video of your nothing creator than your proof is equal.
Evolution isn't about creation. Still. Plus that's a stupid fucking statement. That would mean it is impossible to convict a murderer who wasn't caught on camera.
So therefore Creation science doesnt have to prove God, but can reason on the basis of patterns of evidence indicating aa creator.
That also means that if you prove God you haven't proven creation.
And since the Bible is an account of it, and the Bible has been proven credible in history regardless of lies held by skepics in academia.
Since the Bible has been shown to not be credible despite the lies held by religious nutjobs ...
But also shows Divine authorship,
False. Humans definitely wrote it.
More credible than assumptions made through connections in biology.
Repeatable experiments are less credible than a bible that has gone through countless interpretations? What are you smoking?
The evidence of the Bible written by Divine Authorship is indisputable when weighed by open reasonable minds that can logically conlude facts from details surrounding the facts
They even have you their names when they wrote down the verses in the Bible. You aren't going to convince anyone.
I'm not sure if your closed minds when shown proof are unreasonable minds by choice of ignorance. Or if you are seared with an unreasonable mind.
People with closed minds (religious people) just choose to be ignorant, they don't inherently have unreasonable minds. It's much easier to just say God did it instead of actually learning.
I never saw such denial of facts.
Denial of "facts" is much better than completely ignoring observed data.
The new age is educated according to an agends of world views.
Every country is measured by what religion they follow. Being educated independent of religion would be the opposite of what you are talking about.
Facts and truth can't be loud enough or clear enough to overcome facts by selective choice, while blatantly ignoring actual facts.
I will still continue to be loud with my facts until you stop being selective and stop ignoring my facts. I know it is a losing effort, but maybe your kids will be less selective with their facts.
My post point is regarding steering by the will of some and denying others individual evaluation. Steering is the education today, based on beliefs of skeptics!
People in educational fields should not be permitted to allow their skepticism to dictate what is available in information, and should promote the ability for individuals to decide for themselves, not for the skeptic to rule them!
Evidence that is presented in trials. The evidence is overwhelming. Someone outside of our physical reality wrote it. Before people decide if the Bible is valid or not, a fair trial of the evidence should precede your judgement pf it.
Especially since you put skepticism in writing as though you analized and concluded. Assumptions are a dime a dozen at best.
Many pieces that individually count as evidence, and collectively weigh as a evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
So take pi and e found as 1 plus 1, heavily weighted against odds of mere coincidence
Then take TORH written directionally showing reading both right to left and left to right with YHWY in the mid book.
And these are found in the beginning starting at verse 1 and are at 49 Hebrew letter intervals with YHWH found at 7 letter intervals. 7 is an important highlighted Bible number in every book of the Bible. Jesus says to forgive 70 times 7 which equals 490 !
And we see this 7 and squ root of 49.
And also 490 divisible by 10, Noah was 10th generation from Adam through Seth. Through the flood it was like Baptism, the earth was cleansed.
The prophesy about Noah - He would bring REST (7th day) to our souls. So God used it as a picture and the math shows its related on a string of 7.
Oh, And the day recorded in Genesis when Noah came out of the Ark just so happened to be the date of Jesus' Resurrection! According to the Hebrew calendar of all their Divinely given feasts!
Then fullfillment of precise prophesies throughout history. (over 2000)
And also for the Messiah (over 300)
Prophesies for nations, times, societies, individials, generations, and and peoples ... all pre-written, as displaying all days of mankind as purposely pre-designed, with appointed times that occur as scheduled in the Bible.
Most of which are literally time stamped!
The authentication shown in pre-discovered knowledge. Not just "it sound like" but also has definining of modern knowledge, that took science almost 6000 years to catch up to!
Isaiah Job and Psalms discuss the earth as round.
And Job discusses precipitation and a unique gravitational pull within 2 constellations out of all the known constelations. These are the only two that have a gravitational pull clustering them together by gravity.
Also the book of Enoch discusses Pleiades. Enoch discusses 7 stars stuck in a hole in space. Jesus then calls the 7 churches in Rev. 7 churches in His Right Hand.
Also the 7 churches in Rev identified are represented by 7 original churches, which coincidently are on the 7 mountains of Rome. Which curiously the hills resemble the pattern of the 7 brightest stars out of 10 stars, three are dim total of (10!)
So when God appointed time He connected every star and planet as a directive. Not like the worldly zodiac, but appointed times. Like the star shining over Jesus' birth.
Job 38
31 “Can you tie up the cords of the Pleiades
or loosen the belt of Orion?
32 Can you lead out the constellations of the zodiac in their season
or guide the Great Bear and its cubs?
.
.
Also the zodiac as we know it show each constelation as 12 tribes of Israel and connects each star in the constellation in order from the brightest to the least bright. Each bringing forth prophetic fulfillmemts we see in the Bible.
And these all combined are just samplings and the tip of the iceberg. The evidence shows it is written from an outside source, not by men with ink and paper, but personally by the finger of God!
First off, let's point out that we were talking about carbon dating and you had to change the subject because you know I am right.
Evidence that is presented in trials. The evidence is overwhelming. Someone outside of our physical reality wrote it. Before people decide if the Bible is valid or not, a fair trial of the evidence should precede your judgement pf it.
Imagine a trial where the prosecutor says he has 50 pieces of evidence and never presents a single one. Would you convict?
Especially since you put skepticism in writing as though you analized and concluded. Assumptions are a dime a dozen at best.
Do you reject evolution because of skepticism? It is a very straight forward question that you have avoided answering. I wonder why.
Many pieces that individually count as evidence, and collectively weigh as a evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Every piece of unique evidence for God had always turned out to be evidence for a much more simple natural cause.
So take pi and e found as 1 plus 1, heavily weighted against odds of mere coincidence
Are you trying to be the Johnny Cochran of religious court?
Then take TORH written directionally showing reading both right to left and left to right with YHWY in the mid book.
And these are found in the beginning starting at verse 1 and are at 49 Hebrew letter intervals with YHWH found at 7 letter intervals. 7 is an important highlighted Bible number in every book of the Bible. Jesus says to forgive 70 times 7 which equals 490 !
And we see this 7 and squ root of 49.
And also 490 divisible by 10, Noah was 10th generation from Adam through Seth. Through the flood it was like Baptism, the earth was cleansed.
The prophesy about Noah - He would bring REST (7th day) to our souls. So God used it as a picture and the math shows its related on a string of 7.
This is not evidence. This is ridiculous.
Oh, And the day recorded in Genesis when Noah came out of the Ark just so happened to be the date of Jesus' Resurrection! According to the Hebrew calendar of all their Divinely given feasts!
The Bible used the sane dates. That's a sign of laziness.
Then fullfillment of precise prophesies throughout history. (over 2000)
This is not true.
And also for the Messiah (over 300)
But, but the most important one.
Prophesies for nations, times, societies, individials, generations, and and peoples ... all pre-written, as displaying all days of mankind as purposely pre-designed, with appointed times that occur as scheduled in the Bible.
If the prosecutor from before said that he predicted something would happen then tell you that thing happened is there a reason to believe him?
Most of which are literally time stamped!
All of which never left a single permanent impression on the planet.
The authentication shown in pre-discovered knowledge. Not just "it sound like" but also has definining of modern knowledge, that took science almost 6000 years to catch up to!
If this were true you wouldn't have religious people constantly changing what the Bible teaches based on what science discovers.
Isaiah Job and Psalms discuss the earth as round.
Round and flat. If God was all powerful he could see in 3D.
And Job discusses precipitation and a unique gravitational pull within 2 constellations out of all the known constelations. These are the only two that have a gravitational pull clustering them together by gravity.
This is what I am talking about. No one had any clue he was talking about gravitational pull, since he actually wasn't.
1 - You ignore the evidence. It has been presented, you love darkness therefore you turn a blind eye!
2 - Yes I am very skeptical of evolution. Its unreasonable and illogical. God may be invisible, but His evidence is not! God ordained the laws of nature, and you can tell how mathmatically ordered creation is, is found mathmatically described in every way, as His Word designed it. And we have what He spoke to create it, and His Word even became flesh and dwelt among us.
God digitally designed our physical and spiritual reality. Its sad how unintelligent an unreasoning mind can become. And the irony is they call it educated.
Thats why God says repetitively how people learn and learn but their evil hearts become dumb and dumber!
3 - If you cant reason its a problem you should own, your mind is darkened at your own doing!
4 - Godis judicial if you knew and understood His Word, you would realize your life is on trial, and the outcome is a death sentence. And Jesus came to pay a debt you couldnt pay.
And the Word is set up in such a way it is evidence against you and you will be judged by it unless you repent!
5 - Well it is not ridiculous! TORH HROT YHWY .. Is incredable because it has similar probabilities as creation by evolution, yet it actual visible evidence that can be observed physically before our eyed as proof!!! Unlike evolution, which is not!!!
And the math is shown throughout the Biblle, and oddly as quantum physics shows, every aspect we live in is digitally mastered by the same author!!!
6 - Actually you are wrong. You assume or give me 5 examples! You have none. You live and think as steered cattle! And you assume and call it knowledge. You are a FOOL! But God will save you from your stupidity, if you ask Him to!
7 - Repeat previous answer # 6
8 - You are clueless. Tell me them! Give me 5 examples.
9 - The Bible doesnt change. It is clear there are even appointed times for things to be revealed. But you are one of those dillusional liberal lefts that want to open the playbook up for Isis to see. So unreasonable in the natural proves to be unreasonable in the spiritual also!
Whatever. You have enough to decide to look further, its on you!
1-You think you have presented evidence? Wow, you are beyond help. You have not presented anything.
2-You said that it is unreasonable to dismiss religion based on skepticism and yet you dismiss evolution based on skepticism. This isn't looking good for you.
3-You won't admit anything and you are a child of light. Or are you?
4-That's a fucked up view of your God. I couldn't even come up with a worse view for your religion and I hate your religion.
5-It's ridiculous to speak gibberish and call it evidence.
6- and 7- and 8- what are you referring to. I can give you give examples if you tell me what you are talking about.
9- I never said the Bible changes. You aren't even smart enough to understand what I am saying, how can you claim to be an expert in the Bible? I said you religious fucks interpret the scientific meaning if the Bible once science discovers it. Calling someone a liberal only shows you are a fucking idiot. If you didn't have anything smart to say you would have to resort to some political bullshit.
Evolution asks you to believe that the organisms that existed in our past left traces that they were here on Earth. The Earth actually contains traces of organisms in the ground. You want me to believe the Bible is correct based on the number 7. Which one is more reasonable to look into?
The evidence is much heavier for YHWY as the Creator and His Word as factual, reliable, verified, and proven as the only truth and the work of God the only true dimensional reality, and like pulling the curtain on the science wizard of oz, evolution is a horse of a different color while your house is blown right off of its weak foundation!
The Word of God and God Himself is proven and your man made fictional story is nothing more than a doctrine of demons.
Being carried to Hell by a band of flying evil monkeys!
Why is it that your version of fiction leaves behind traces of changes made to the Earth and your version of non fiction can only be verified with the number 7?
1- I did show evidence that should be provoking thought at the very least, really even nearly convinced by it. But you are to dense to see it's significance. It's a heart problem and a mind problem. And it may be terminal. I hope the kindness of God softens your heart and clears the darkness from your mind, and lead you to Jesus in repentence.
2 - I dont actually dismiss evolution based on skepticism. I reject it based on facts. The fact that God's Word is confirmed and verified and indisputable, and all confirmations are proof right in my hand, then fiction is clear as fiction. It isnt even a question.
The Bible in these last days is as if Jesus is sitting right with us showing it all to us, like never before.
The brighter and more proven His Word becomes in these last days the clearer it all is for us, but the double edged sword divides the elect from the damned, and sharpens the contrast of the increasingly dense unreasoning mind becomes seared as with abranding iron ( mark of the beast.) Just as it is written here in Romans 1
Romans 1
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. ......
.......
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
There is no significance to linking the Bible to the number 7.
2-You are a fucking liar and Jesus hates liars. You are a massive hypocrite and no one should listen to you. The only thing that becomes clearer over time is evolution. That must mean that the Bible was saying that evolution is God's word. I don't claim to be wise, you do. I claim to be knowledgeable. God knew people like you would exist and He told you that you are a fool.
As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.
Revelation 5: 6
And I saw between the throne (with the four living creatures) and the elders a Lamb standing, as if slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God, sent out into all the earth.
Revelation 8:6
And the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared themselves to sound them.
Revelation 10: 3
and he cried out with a loud voice, as when a lion roars; and when he had cried out, the seven peals of thunder uttered their voices.
Revelation 15:7
Then one of the four living creatures gave to the seven angels seven golden bowls full of the wrath of God, who lives forever and ever.
Revelation 15: 8
And the temple was filled with smoke from the glory of God and from His power; and no one was able to enter the temple until the seven plagues of the seven angels were finished.
.
And SEVEN is like 500 more places etc etc etc!
So it is a significant - and look at the properties of the number 7
.
If you start forming all of the obvious fractions - one-seventh, two-sevenths, three-sevenths, all the way up to six-sevenths - something very interesting happens.
If you work out one-of-a-seven (1/7), you get a decimal, 0.142857142857, and that pattern 1-4-2-8-5-7 repeats indefinitely.
Okay, so far so good.
Work out two 7s (2/7), you get 0.2857142857142857, et cetera and you basically get that same sequence, 1-4-2-8-5-7, shifted along 3/7- 4/7' 5/7' 6/7- 7/7
And that's a curiosity, I think… Even more coincindences.
If you have 1000 coincidences in one Book, and each coincidence is compelling in itself, then just maybe ... the Bible may have been Authored by Someone outside of our natural reality.
Both pi and e to the 4th decimal point is in 2 verses
Gen 1: 1 and John 1: 1
What makes this most compelling is their location in the scripture. Not buried deep but sitting right on top Gen 1: 1 and John 1: 1
And both math equations match what God was doing in both Testaments.
Genesis - pi - full circle creation with pre-designed history from beginning to end!
And in John 1: 1 Jesus brought light into the World. And not just for one nation Israel, but for "e" exponential growth out to every nation!
Then God adds both together and brings it back full circle to the final act of adding back to the tree the Jews. They had to reject first, for the Gospel to go out to all nations. Now everything is in line for final prophesies.
And Israel is a key player! How did one small place end up the object for all the world to focus on? Maybe its God finishing what He started!
Fundamental Constants
The Mysteries of Pi and e
by Chuck Missler
A Rabbinical Tradition
The ancient Hebrew sages believed, of course, that God created the heavens and the earth. However, some of them believed that the Word of God was the very template with which He did it. This strikes some of us as simply a colorful exaggeration that goes beyond any direct evidence. There are hints here and there. There are two well-known references to the creation in the Scripture: Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1.
Both Hebrew and Greek use letters as both letters and numbers. So if we read it by its numeric value in these two verses we can find pi and e to the 4th decimal. And both are more precise than you would learn in basic math! They are precise to advanced usage.
To see Hebrew or Greek letter chart go to link and click on the linked word "chart"
This time if you take the numerical value of each of the Greek letters (see chart), and the numerical value of the words, and apply them to the same formula:
Number of Letters x Product of the Letters
. . . . . . . . ÷
Number of Words x Product of the Words
You now get 2.7183 x 1040, the value of e.
.
Note:
The Masoretic Text - is the authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Tanakh for Rabbinic Judaism. However, contemporary scholars seeking to understand the history of the Hebrew Bible's text use a range of other sources.
Rethinking Carbon-14 Dating: What Does It Really Tell Us about the Age of the Earth?
by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. *
Resources › Physical Sciences Resources › Radiometric Dating
Evolutionists have long used the carbon-14, or radiocarbon, dating technique as a “hammer” to bludgeon Bible-believing Christians.
A straightforward reading of the Bible describes a 6,000-year-old universe, and because some carbon-14 (14C) age estimates are multiple tens of thousands of years, many think that the radiocarbon method has soundly refuted the Bible’s historical accuracy.
However, these excessively long ages are easily explained within the biblical worldview, and 14C actually presents a serious problem for believers in an old earth.
14C has been detected in organic specimens (coal, wood, seashells, etc., containing carbon from formerly living organisms) that are supposedly hundreds of millions of years old—but no detectable
14C should be present in specimens that are even a little more than 100,000 years old! Nearly anyone can verify this for themselves using basic multiplication and division.
Radiocarbon Basics
Carbon comes in three “varieties” or isotopes: 12C, 13C, and 14C. Any carbon atom has six protons within its nucleus, but the different isotopes have different numbers of neutrons. In today’s world, only about one in a trillion carbon atoms is a 14C atom.
Cosmic rays (mainly high-energy protons) trigger a process in the atmosphere that changes atmospheric nitrogen into 14C.
However, unlike the other two carbon isotopes, 14C is unstable and eventually decays back into nitrogen. The decay rate can be measured for a large number of these 14C atoms.
Since this decay process slows as the number of 14C atoms decreases, it may be expressed best in terms of a half-life, which is the amount of time for half of any given sample of 14C to decay back into nitrogen.
Thus, after one half-life, 50 percent of the original 14C atoms will remain. After two half-lives, 25 percent of the original 14C will remain, and so on. Today’s measured half-life of 14C is 5,730 years.
Because carbon is expected to be thoroughly mixed throughout the biosphere, atmosphere, and oceans, living organisms (which continually “take in” carbon throughout their lifetimes) are expected to have the same 14C/C ratio as the environment, or about one 14C atom per trillion carbon atoms. Once they die, however, organisms no longer take in new carbon, and the amount of 14C in their bodies begins to decrease.
In principle, this decay rate may be used to “date” the time since an organism’s death. But the calculated dates will only be accurate if the assumptions behind the method are correct.
Smallest Detectable Amount of Radiocarbon
Sensitive instruments called acceleration mass spectrometers (AMS) are used to count the 14C atoms within a sample of material. However, even the most sensitive AMS machines cannot detect fewer than one 14C atom per 100,000 trillion carbon atoms.1 Since the amount of 14C in a sample decreases with time, no radiocarbon at all should be detectable if the sample is sufficiently old.
The concentration of 14C (the number of 14C atoms per total number of carbon atoms) within a sample is indicated using a “percent of the 14C/C ratio in modern carbon,” or pMC notation. If a sample has one 14C atom per trillion carbon atoms, we would say that its concentration of 14C is 100 pMC, since this is 100 percent of the modern 14C/C ratio (one 14C atom per trillion carbon atoms). Likewise, one 14C atom per two trillion carbon atoms would be equivalent to 50 pMC.
Since one 14C atom per trillion carbon atoms is equivalent to 100 pMC, then one 14C atom per 100,000 trillion carbon atoms is equivalent to 100 pMC/100,000 = 0.001 pMC. No instrument on earth can detect 14C in a sample whose 14C/C ratio is less than 0.001 pMC.2
Assuming the initial value was 100 pMC, how much time will have transpired before the 14C/C ratio in a sample drops below 0.001 pMC?
One can estimate this time by dividing 100 pMC by 2 repeatedly until the resulting number drops below 0.001 pMC. We find that about 18 such halvings are required for the pMC value to drop below 0.001 (Figures 1 and 2). (We could “round up” the value of 0.0007 pMC at 17 half-lives to 0.001 pMC, but the 0.00038 pMC at 18 half-lives is definitely below the detection threshold.) Since each half-life is 5,730 years, this means that no 14C at all would be detectable in a specimen that is older than about 18 × 5,730 years = 103,140 years.
Dating Methods in Conflict
But researchers consistently detect 14C in samples thought to be tens of millions of years old. 14C has even been detected in diamonds, which some scientists claim are billions of years old! Radioisotope dating methods involving the heavier, longer-lived isotopes (methods such as uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc.) are one of the main justifications that evolutionists use to argue for such vast ages. Because these radioisotope methods yield age estimates of many millions of years for igneous rocks, it is thought that sedimentary rocks are also millions of years old, as well as the organic remains found within them. Yet this assumption leads to a contradiction: If these organic samples really are many millions of years old, then they should be radiocarbon “dead.” But they aren’t!
Contamination?
Evolutionists have attempted to blame these surprising results on a number of mechanisms.3 They often invoke “contamination” that occurred either in situ (on site in the earth) or during the radiocarbon testing process itself. However, the consistency with which 14C is found in these samples makes it difficult to argue that such results are all the result of in situ contamination. Moreover, diamond is extremely resistant to “natural” contamination by external 14C atoms.
Furthermore, laboratories take great pains to keep contamination to a minimum, and researchers have found that, provided a sufficiently large testing sample is used (in the ballpark of 100 milligrams or so), the amount of such possible lab contamination is negligible compared to the 14C already present within the specimen.
Finally, although contamination can sometimes occur, it should not be assumed in a particular instance unless there are good reasons to believe that it has. And a radiocarbon result that contradicts old-earth dogma is not a good enough reason by itself to invoke contamination!
Assumptions…Assumptions
Instead of arbitrarily blaming these anomalous results on contamination, a far better (and more scientific) approach would be to question the correctness of the assumptions behind radioisotope dating methods.
One of these assumptions is that nuclear decay rates have always been constant. Although 14C decays fairly quickly, heavier isotopes (such as uranium-238) decay much more slowly. Because the present decay rates of these heavier isotopes are so small, the assumption that these rates have always been constant naturally leads to age estimates of millions and even billions of years.
Interestingly, however, some radioisotope methods tend to consistently yield younger age estimates than others, even when the techniques are used on the same rock units.4 Could this be a clue that radioisotope “clocks” might have “ticked” at different rates in the past, and that this variation in “ticking” is different for different radioisotopes?
If so, this would explain the discrepancy between the radiocarbon method and other radioisotope techniques. When today’s rates are used to calculate ages from certain radioisotope ratios, the results indicate that billions of years’ worth of nuclear decay of the heavier radioisotopes has occurred.
But there is evidence that this decay occurred in accelerated “spurts,”5 which means the assumption that decay rates were always constant leads to age estimates that are much too high. This is the reason that 14C is still detectable in these “ancient” organic specimens—the specimens simply aren’t millions of years old!
Furthermore, because the past variations in “ticking” were different for different radioisotopes, 14C did not experience as much accelerated decay as did the heavier radioisotopes. This is why the past episodes of accelerated decay did not completely eliminate the world’s 14C that existed before these episodes occurred.
Thus, although this is still an ongoing area of research,6 the presence of 14C within supposedly extremely “old” specimens is just one of several indicators of past accelerated nuclear decay.7
Why the High Radiocarbon Age Estimates?
Virtually all fossils found within sedimentary rocks are the remains of creatures that perished during the Genesis Flood about 4,500 years ago. Yet a skeptic might point out that the amounts of 14C found in these organic samples are smaller than what one might expect if they are only about 4,500 years old. And 4,500 years is less than one radiocarbon half-life, so from Figure 2 we might expect 4,500-year-old samples to have 14C/C concentrations greater than 50 pMC. Yet the 14C found within organic samples thought to date from the time of the Flood is generally only about 0.1 to 0.5 pMC. From Figure 1, a value of 0.098 ≈ 0.1 pMC corresponds to 10 half-lives, or about 57,000 years. Are these high radiocarbon “ages” a problem for the biblical worldview?
No. First, remember that no detectable 14C at all should be present within these samples if they really are millions of years old. Despite this apparent difficulty for the recent-creation view, this is, in fact, a much more serious problem for the old-earth view!
Second, such large calculated ages are based on the assumption that the 14C/C ratio has remained unchanged for tens of thousands of years.
A global flood like the one described in the Bible would invalidate this assumption. Creation scientists have estimated (based upon the amounts of organic matter thought to be contained within the sedimentary layers) that the carbon in the pre-Flood biosphere may have been 300 to 700 times greater than what is present in today’s world.8 Thus, the 14C/C ratio in the pre-Flood biosphere was hundreds of times smaller than today’s value.
A simple “thought experiment” illustrates why assuming a constant 14C/C ratio yields inflated radiocarbon ages. Suppose a time-traveling scientist journeys to the day before the Flood started (don’t worry; he’ll return before the Flood begins!) and radiocarbon-tests the remains of an animal that has just died. If the pre-Flood 14C/C ratio was 500 times smaller than today’s value, this would be equivalent to 100 pMC/500 = 0.2 pMC. This value of 0.2 pMC is very close to the value of 0.195 pMC found within Figure 1. About nine half-lives would have to elapse for a starting value of 100 pMC to decrease to 0.2 pMC. If the scientist did not realize that the pre-Flood 14C/C ratio was hundreds of times smaller than today’s value, he would calculate the animal’s age to be approximately 9 × 5,730 years = 51,570 years old—even though it had just died! Of course, he would realize that this age was nonsense, because he saw the fresh carcass.
But if a scientist in the present did not have this firsthand knowledge and attempted to date the fossil remains of this very same animal (assuming it was fossilized during the Flood), he would conclude that the animal was 52,000—not 4,500—years old.
Thus, these “inflated” ages are not a problem for the biblical creationist, but the presence of detectable 14C in supposedly ancient organic specimens is a substantial problem for those who believe in an old earth.
If you have the answer before you start looking for the answer you will never find the truth. There are trees alive today that are older than you think the planet is.
You cant dismiss a theory on the basis of skeptisism!
Scientists and biologist and other educational studies should be objective.
Not filtering based on their beliefs, they are not the measure of accuracy since they dont know anything for sure either!! If anything God of the Bible as Creator has way more proof, and can be shown scientifically and mathmatically. Authenticating the Bible as an authority, reliable to interpret history by what was recorded.
Science should not be permitted to exclude evidence on the basis of unfounded critisism, or on individual skepticisms, or on the field specific bias with favor toward atheism or humanism or toward any bias reasonings or "isms."
Science should be neutral not choosing one theory over another because they feel skeptical or they can prove something! They cant prove the other either, so why is it taught as though it were facts??
And since both have no physical proof then both are possibilities. If both are possibilities then both should be investigated as open possibilities.
The burden of proof is not on proving creationists to prove God exists, before considering God to be an option as how creatures came to be as we see they are today.
Because both evolution biology and creation have faith in the process of creation throughout the time period of origin. And proving adaptatation does not answer the presentation of many species.
There are only 20 amino acids building protien in multiple orders to present characteristics which are in common and coded with sequence with spaces as if it were written text. And even when needed code is taken like we see in Bible Code of equidistant letter sequencing.
So then could God who coded the Bible with hidden messages actually have digitalized our DNA and also wisdom and knowledge for living, rewards and consequences, right and wrong, and our days, times, persons, nations, and pre written history fullfilled line upon line, and appointed for specific times?
There is more evidence for Creation and for God , and also identifying Him as the Living God of the Judeo-Christian Bible/ Scriptures.
And the only reason you reject it is a closed mind that refuses to weigh the Bible with the same reasoning skills you would apply in anything measured by abstract data. Including biology evolution.
The reasoning is we see fossils, and dating. Well in dating time as we know it, the first full day recorded is day 5. And also there is a theory dividing
We live in a four-dimensional continuum properly known as "space-time." (This is what Paul seems to imply in his letter to the Ephesians 8) It is interesting that when one takes the apparent 1012 expansion factor involved in the theories of the "expanding universe," that an assumed 16 billion years reduce to six days!
Furthermore, the astronomical timetables now seem to be entirely overturned with the reluctant acknowledgments that the speed of light is not longer regarded as the constant that the high priests of physics had been previously convinced of.
Your statement has all the intelligence of O'Reilly when he said something like: "Tide comes in, tide goes out. You have no answer for that." (Only that gravity actually SEEMS to exist!)(In theory)???
Straw-manning evolution doesn't make your stance any more believable. You are attacking a construct that isn't representative of the sciences stance.
Evolution doesn't have anything to do with abiogenisis. Evolution has to do with the diversity of species.
If I see someone with a bullet hole, see the gun that was used, see the powder burns etc but don't know who pulled the trigger I can still see the evidence that suggests someone was shot. Your stance says despite all the evidence someone was shot, that conclusion can't be right because we don't know who pulled the trigger. Your stance is untenable. Your stance ignores what evolution actually says and you just make something up that is irrelevant.
You appear to be a troll or a crazy person. On the off chance you are neither; If you really want to discuss evolution try starting with something actually claimed by evolution and is relevant instead of your made up straw-man. Here is a link for you to start. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php
The long journey of the advancement of mankind and the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge as well as our awareness of the Universe, of which we are a minuscule part, would never have even started if no one had challenged the superstitious nonsense which forms the basis of all religions.
I agree, science has not produced a rational explanation for the ''beginning of life'', as the concept of the ''big bang'' is, in my opinion almost as fanciful a notion as the various man made religions.
However, science, and not hocus pocus religion will someday come up with the answer.
Let's hope there will a sufficient number of people able to recognise and understand the scientific proof and have the maturity to discard the of the mumbo jumbo which was spawned from the ignorance of the bronze age
Me - So then my question is, SINCE admittedly no answer exists in science, then by what reasoning and by what facts do you dismiss the possibility of a Creator?
And by what reasoning and by what facts do you declare religion and faith as irrational? And without merit to explore and weigh as evidence of a Creator. Science has no answer! Yet all its minions think, it is actually confirmed as fact! How dare educators lie to children and treat speculation as facts!!!
It seems it is irrational to close of possibilities of answers and proof of their sourses without really being objective.
So therefore evolution admittingly doesnt know so it assumes. So then how is it scientific to dismiss weighing evidence of a Creator and dismiss proving validations of His Word.
So evoluyion creationists expect faith in an unknown process, while refusing evidence of a Creator.
The Bible is an authority yhat has as much if not even more confirmable evidence of validity as biology. Biology days this part is in this animal and also in another, and in a controlled experiment this minifact is confirmed, an eye can develope on a wing of a fly. So therefore evolution explaims creation.
Yet we have proof the Bible is of supernatural origin, with facts unknown to the writers according to their limitations in advancements, yet it is not allowed to show evidence.
If we are debating origin then shouldnt we validate what is possible. And since lifed origin is unknown than why isnt a Creator possible? And since scripture 8s historical and closer to the date of origin to the first signs of mankind like us is about 6000 years ago, then shouldnt we add it to experiment also?
Thank you so much for this! I wish more people would look at the evidence for religion. Even if they do a lot of people will just turn a blind eye and say it is false : ( . But come on...how could anyone reject a creator. Nothing can come out of nothing so there must have been a supernatural being that has been there infinitely that everything came out of. I completely agree when you say that the Bible should be experimented on. Then we can finally show that it is logical. It's so sad how so many people don't realize how incredibly advanced the Bible was for its time. They need to start teaching the Bible and religion more and school. It is WAY more important to teach than evolution.
I wish more people would look at the evidence for religion.
So do atheists.
Even if they do a lot of people will just turn a blind eye and say it is false : ( .
People who actually look at the evidence say religion is false and the people who never look at the evidence say religion is true and that they looked at the evidence.
But come on...how could anyone reject a creator.
We live in a world the behaves exactly like a world that has no creator.
Nothing can come out of nothing so there must have been a supernatural being that has been there infinitely that everything came out of.
You are acknowledging that you don't believe that something can't exist without a creator and using the idea that nothing can exist without a creator add your basis for believing in God. That concept does not work on the educated.
. I completely agree when you say that the Bible should be experimented on. Then we can finally show that it is logical.
Why hasn't it been important enough for religious to have already done this at some point over thousands of years?
It's so sad how so many people don't realize how incredibly advanced the Bible was for its time.
It wasn't advanced at all and the people who don't realize this are religious people.
They need to start teaching the Bible and religion more and school.
No, they need to start educating religious people.
It is WAY more important to teach than evolution.
One thing has lead to no advancement for the human race for over a thousand years and the other had only existed for over a hundred and paid off more than the Bible already.