Evolutionist, answer please...?

Question

Did you know that according to science (go do your own studies) you cannot carbon date anything older that 40 000 years. So how do sites like "talkorigenblablabla" say they have carbon dated things to be millions of years old. See, these are the things that bothers me about evolution. I have search the internet till I got blue in my face, but have not come up with any evidence. They ALWAYS use assumptions in their reasoning and theories. So please, any scientists here that can help me with a good website or book or something (without using assumption) that can give me more correct info on evolution, from the big blang to how I got here, typing on my keyboard, wondering if evolution isnt a lie from satan

Answer 1

You are right, carbondating goes back only 40k - 60k years.

However, radioactive carbon (C14) is not the only element that can be used for dating. Uranium-Lead testing, for example, has a range of 1 million to 4.5 billion years. Potassium-Argon is useful for dating rocks older than 100,000 years.

Check it out for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Interestingly enough, talkorigins has a page specifically devoted to this question, and specifically answers the very questions you ask, describes frankly the strengths and weaknesses -- without assumption, and specifically addresses the circular logic you describe: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

Still further, your question seems to imply evolution has something to do with the big bang. The two concepts are wholely unrelated. Big Bang is a theory describing the earliest moments of the universe and how the macro-scale universe and its structures arose. It has NOTHING at ALL to do with the beginnings of life or its changes after its beginnings. Evolution does not discuss the origins of life itself. It "assumes" the existence of life and decribes how that life changes. And sadly, you managed to avoid tying in the third one in your mish-mash, abiogenesis, a very well studied field of research which specifically inquires into the origins of life itself. The three have little to nothing to do with each other's questions.

Answer 2

firstly it's between 40,000 to 60,000 years is when they get an accurate picture, after that all they can say is "older" than that date. This is because of the half life of carbon 14 reduces over time, so the means which ist is measured depends on it's radioactive decay, so at a certain point the carbon 14 will have decayed to the point that it is no longer detectqable by current scientific methods.

However, Potassium 40 is a material present in substances including rock and fossils that can accurately date materials up to 1.3 billion years ago. In fact carbon dating is not used outside of archeology that deals with human history. Potassium 40 degrades into argon, which is substances such as rock or fossils becomes trapped in bubbles. In fact the older the substance the more accurately it can be measured because of the longer half-life.The only process that can mess up the validity of potassium argon dating is by volcanic activity, extreme heat causes the argon to escape and when it cools it starts all over again, which can result in objects being dated as sooner than when they were created. But, in objects of interest such as fossils the volcanic activity would have destroyed the evidence and rendered it worthless from a scientific perspective. Fossils are not bones strictly. There are rock deposits where t he calcium in bones has been replaced over time by rock, hence the shape and structures of skeletons, but the material itself is rock and can be dated using these methods.

Also remember that evidence for evolution is found not just in the fossil record but in analysis of our own DNA compared with other animals and plants.

Answer 3

Jeanne,I am not an Evolutionist,but I,too,have been doing a lot of research on Evolution,and I have found that MANY scientists,including the Atheistic scientist,are now starting to admit that their initial theories on evolution are extremely flawed.They are now saying that the evidence of a Creator is required to explain the universe.
Professor Anthony Flew ,a decades long Atheist and Evolutionist, himself said that he "has to go where the evidence leads."
Here is a good website to go to for answers:
www.godandscience.org

Other qotes from Flew are as follows:

"It now seems to me that the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."
"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."
"It seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence is now much stronger than it ever was before."

There are only two possibilities for the existence of life:
1. Chance assembly of life from chemicals
2. There is a Creator who designed biological systems
Science is proving with every study it now does on evolution that indeed there was and is a Creator.Satan has and will continue to try and deceive people with the Theory of Evolution,but science is proving little by little through that very theory that it is impossible for the universe and all that it entails to have just "appeared" on it's own,and that there had to have been a Divine Being to create it and all it's complexities. Science has opened it's mind to that fact.Why can't others?

Answer 4

Another creationist straw man This time it's carbon dating which makes a change from Darwinism. The limitations of carbon dating are well known and no scientist, including those who are cited on talk origins, claims that it is infallible especially for dates in excess of 20 000 years. From that point on its reliability diminishes but it is still of some use. The following is a response from Talk origins exposing your falsehood.

Answer 5

First, you are confusing two seperate things. Evolution and the Big Bang are two seperate things. Evolution does not try to explain the origins of life. Secondly, you are right about carbon dating but there other far more accurate methods used to date fossils. Check out the following websites.
en/wikipedia/wiki/radiometric_dating
www.talkorigins/faqs/dating.html

Answer 6

"Methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things the of the faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are" (CCC 159). The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp

Truth Cannot Contradict Truth
Address of Pope John Paul II to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (October 22, 1996)
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_jp02tc.htm

Scientific Materialism, Intelligent Design, and the
Cosmological Argument
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ15.HTM

just for fun: http://www.doxa.ws/Menues/DoxaScience_menue2.html

Bottom line: atheistic evolution is a lie from Satan, but if God chooses to use evolution in the creation of man because it is more sensible, that is up to Him, and let the scientists stick with science, and not turn it into a religion such as atheistic evolution.

The reason some Christians must convince the world that God is confined to magical creationism has nothing to do with the truth, but the problem they find themselves in by refusing to let go of the divisive 400 year old heresy of sola scriptura.

Answer 7

Practicing Religion. Practicing medicine. Practicing Science. See the relativity?

Answer 8

I seriously doubt you can find references to anywhere in talk.origins where they claimed to use carbon dating millions of years old. They likely refer to other radiometric dating techniques. I challenge you to find and post one instance of carbon dating in a reputable source ( not creationist crap) used to date anything millions of years old. Or are you just lying as so many of your creationist brethren do so regularly on here?

Answer 9

there are othjermethods that are more accurate than carbon dating. most scientists don't use carbon dating any more becauseit isso inacurate. they test for things like deuterium now since it has such a long lifespan and is found in all things

Answer 10

Evolution is a lie from satan. Hmmmmm. Evolution is a lie from satan.

I'd like to invite you to the 21st century. And no, I'm not a witch.

Edit: I just realized who you remind me of: the crazy mother in Carrie (They're all gonna laugh at you! They're all gonna laugh at you!)