Hello again, R&S! Young Earth Creationists, did you happen to catch last Fridays issue of Science magazine?

Channeling creationist in 3-2-1...

"Thought to have been stable?" There go you evilutionists and your assumptions again.

Ow.

That hurt my brain.

--------

@ Boaz - So your answer to this is a lame copypasta? The claims in that are precisely what is answered in the articles.

I'd wager you didn't read the articles, but no one would take the bet.

a properly prepared and concept out question. considering that no one's answering, i will take a shot. a million. We probable advise 'genus', yet we actually do no longer understand what your definitions advise. we don't have a topic telling the version between a poultry and a crocodile, and understand that they are in a position to't mate. 2. There are some person-friendly person-friendly strategies to seem at this. it is not that scientists are not clever (despite if many have agendas), yet they are in a position to be actually fooled by employing an all-powerful deity. perhaps god set up the worldwide just to seem this manner. sure, we are fearful of nuclear weapons and capacity flora. are not you? 3. howdy, once you have basically have been given 6000 years to artwork with, there is relatively no time for speciation to diverse varieties. constrained time (in and of itself) is the proscribing factor right here. We basically won't have the capacity to think of 'billions' of years. It isn't clever to the human strategies or human concern.

.

“It now appears that the C14 decay rate in living organisms is about 30 per cent less than its production rate in the upper atmosphere.” William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 83.

Increasing Amounts of Carbon-14. Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the organic matter being dated was part of a living organism. The assumption, which few realize is being made, is that this ratio has always been what it was before the industrial revolution9—about one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms. Willard Libby, who

received a Nobel Prize for developing this technique, conducted tests in 1950 which showed more carbon-14 forming than decaying. Therefore, the amount of carbon-14 and the ratio must be increasing. He ignored his test results, because he believed that the earth must be more than 20,000–30,000 years old, in which case the amount of carbon-14 must have had time to reach equilibrium and be constant.3 In 1977, Melvin Cook did similar, but more precise, tests which showed that the ratio was definitely increasing, even faster than Libby’s test indicated.

Today, carbon-14 forms in the upper atmosphere at the rate of 21 pounds a year, but in 5,730 years, half of it decays. Therefore, carbon-14 would normally increase from the time of the creation, as shown by the blue line. Before the flood, the blue line levels off as the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere approaches equilibrium—where the amount forming balances the amount decaying. Earth’s lush forests had so much carbon that the equilibrium level was much lower than today. Those forests, ripped up and buried during the flood, became our coal, oil, and methane deposits.

During the flood, carbon-12, released from the subterranean water chamber, diluted the carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans even more. (Carbon-14 could not have formed in this chamber, because it was shielded from the cosmic radiation that produces carbon-14.) If one thought the C-14/C-12 ratio had always been what it is today, one would erroneously conclude that small amounts of carbon-14 in fossils meant much time had passed. Instead, less carbon-14 was in those organisms when they died.

Thank you for the links... I have them open and will have a good post-debate read for tonight. Seeing how science works makes me all tingly with excitement. It is awesome when one more step of progress is taken because it is another piece of knowledge we have.

As far as how Creationists will argue against it... they don't understand science and not one of them will be able to get through that article (nor will they try). They will just say it is science "magic" and that these scientists are just saying this as part of the atheist anti-Christianity agenda. Oh, boo-hoo.

Facts and science will not sway creationists. They have lived with other lies.

For me, i think this kind of science is cools

As to how creationists will argue against it,....

They will bring in some paid for geologist who will claim how these peer reviewed scientists made (huge) errors. Their geologist has to be correct. But when was the last time that geologist published in a respected peer reviewed journal?