[Unfalsifiable]

"Carbon dating" says the greasy teenage atheist, wearing cheap chinos his Mom bought him and a $15 rock band T-shirt he bought along side his buddies at a local festival; it makes him "stand out".



Yes, this is the process that supposedly determines the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon, a radioactive isotope of carbon.



Here's a little lesson in logic, you dollar store deodorant smelling oik. If the Earth was created at any given time, the cells that make up any given thing were present at that point of creation; because matter cannot be destroyed. Over time, that cell might be part of a baseball bat, then as that degrades the cell might become part of Chevrolet auto-mobile or maybe even a hunting rifle. Upon that we can all agree.


It follows necessarily, therefore, that those cells will ALL HAVE THE SAME CREATION DATE; just as the KJV says in Genesis. Yet "Carbon Dating" tells us they can pinpoint the starting point of any object in the world? Ridiculous, makes no sense. Stop talking about it.

[Basilissa]

I totally agree. All these scientists who keep talking about the C14 "half life" (very conveniently placed very close to creation date - coincidence? I think not) are clearly delusional: how something that is not alive, possess a half life? A human, a dog, even bacteria have their half lives, but an atom doesn't eat, doesn't poop, doesn't reproduce, therefore, it cannot be alive, not even half way!

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

A human, a dog, even bacteria have their half lives, but an atom doesn't eat, doesn't poop, doesn't reproduce, therefore, it cannot be alive, not even half way!

And it can't date anyone, either.

For that matter, how do we know that atoms even exist. The same scientists who talk about atoms talk about evolution and mask wearing, and we know those are false doctrines.

[Ezekiel Bathfire]

It is surprising that science so-called has not realised that Carbon is Carbon is Carbon. (Well, it is not surprising really - the "choose to ignore" the obvious.)

If Carbon started out as Carbon 14, and it did degrade in some way, then because every bit is, by definition, identical and it all started out at the same time (big bang or Creation), then every bit of it would degrade at the same rate, so at any given time in the 6,000 - odd years since the "big bang" there would have been Carbon 14, Carbon 13¾, Carbon 13½, Carbon 13¼, etc.

So the question is if Carbon is all the same, how can it measure time?

[Johny Joe Hold]

My problem with carbon dating is it is done in a "lab" somewhere. That is the same thing as saying it's done behind closed doors. I don't trust liberal universities to do anything but kick God, Jesus and our Bible around at every opportunity.

I'll stick with the timetable God laid out in the Bible.

[Basilissa]

Originally Posted by Ezekiel Bathfire

It is surprising that science so-called has not realised that Carbon is Carbon is Carbon. (Well, it is not surprising really - the "choose to ignore" the obvious.)

Yes!! And the only important kind of carbon is valued by carat weight, clarity, and color.

[Dr. Anthony J. Toole]

Originally Posted by Basilissa

Yes!! And the only important kind of carbon is valued by carat weight, clarity, and color.

Also known as lignite, subbituminous, bituminous and anthracite.

[realDonaldTrump (Quarantined)]

Evolution? I don't know. If man evolved from the Apes, then where did Woman come from? And why are there still male apes? No evolutionist can answer that! NOT one, and I've asked them. OK?

[handmaiden]

Wait--I thought that ALL LIFE was made from carbon. At least that's what those sciency-types tell us.

So, who am I allowed to date--that silicone lump creature from Star Trek?

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Originally Posted by handmaiden

Wait--I thought that ALL LIFE was made from carbon. At least that's what those sciency-types tell us.

The same people also tell us we are descended from apes. So did apes breed with pieces of coal, or what?

Seriously, do they think we are that dumb?