So I went on a cave tour today, and the tour guide lady was talking about how it took 500-700 years for the stalactites and stalagmites to grow a mere 1 cubic inch. So this got me wondering, what is the creationist view on how these are made, and how they fared in the flood.

Blah blah Devil's trying to test our faith in God blah blah blah.

There ya go.

God did it.

The tour guide is obviously an atheist or satanist.

Don't be decieved!!!

You'll burn in hell for this... fucktard!!!

...nothing?? Nobody here knows how Creationists can explain the existance of stalactites and stalagmites?? There are real Christians here, somebody give me a real answer!!

You're crying for another double-barreled dose of God's love, unbeliever!

I didn't read it, but it looks like what you want.

http://tinyurl.com/az8yf

quote:Originally posted by T-BagBikerStar:

...nothing?? Nobody here knows how Creationists can explain the existance of stalactites and stalagmites?? There are real Christians here, somebody give me a real answer!!



Good luck.

"Real" Christians tend to be ignorant and fearful.

And atheists tend to be hostile and brutish.

Although these fantastic features are commonly thought to represent perhaps tens of thousands of years or more of groundwater action,1 there is much evidence that they can form rapidly under certain conditions. For example, Sequoyah Caverns, south of Chattanooga at Valley Head, Alabama, has fast-growing formations. Director of the caverns, Clark Byers, cemented a clear plastic panel in front of some stalactites in April, 1977, to prevent tourists from breaking them off. In less than 10 years the stalactites grew about 25 centimetres (10 inches or one inch per year). On the ceiling of the cave, animal tracks can be seen, and there are fossils of many marine creatures—plus a bird fossil which looks like a chicken. In an interview in 1985, cavern director Byers made no secret of the fact that he believes these fossils are a result of Noah’s Flood.

So how fast can stalactites and stalagmites form?

Bat Cave

In October 1953, National Geographic published a photo of a bat that had fallen on a stalagmite in the famous Carlsbad Caverns, New Mexico, and had been cemented on to it. The stalagmite had grown so fast it was able to preserve the bat before the creature had time to decompose.2

Stalactites many centimetres long are sometimes seen under modern-day bridges and in tunnels. Some stalactites have formed quickly in a tunnel in Raccoon Mountain, just west of Chattanooga, Tennessee. The tunnel was blasted through the mountain’s limestone rock to build a power plant in 1977. Water from the plant’s pump-turbines dissolves the limestone, and stalactites form rapidly.

At Australia’s Jenolan Caves in New South Wales, a lemonade bottle was placed below a continually active stalactite in the ‘Temple of Baal’ in 1954. In the following 33 years a coating of calcite about three millimetres thick has formed on the bottle. The same amount of deposit has formed since development in 1932 of the Ribbon Cave in the jenolan system. At this time pathways were cut through areas of flowstone. Water flowing down the sides of these cuttings over the past 55 years has built up the current deposit.

A photograph taken in February, 1968, shows a curtain of stalactites growing from the foundation ceiling beneath the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC. Some of the stalactites had grown to five feet long (a metre and a half) in the 45 years since the memorial was built in 1923.3

At jenolan Caves and many other places there are examples of stalactites and stalagmites developing from man-made structures. Like the Lincoln Memorial, the jenolan structures contain cement-mortar which is highly permeable, allowing these formations to develop rapidly. The resultant formation is quite powdery and brittle however.

Slow Growth?

The growth rate of stalactites and stalagmites in many caves today is of course quite slow. But even in such caves the current slow rate of growth cannot be guaranteed to have always been this sluggish. Caves and their formations in tropical areas develop much faster than those in more temperate regions because of higher annual rainfall. But many factors, apart from the obvious unknown rate of water drip in the past, influence growth rate.

Stalactites can, and do, grow quickly. A talking point at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the fact that stalactites are growing on the cement wall steps between the university’s Anderson Hall and Gladfelter Hall. Right below the stalactites, some stalagmites are forming. Although only several centimetres high, they have all formed since the concrete stairway of Gladfelter Hall was built in May, 1973.

There are a number of bridges in Philadelphia which have stalactites growing on them. Some are more than a foot long (30 cm), but many smaller examples have also formed. One bridge was built in 1931 by the City of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania Railroad, so all these formations are less than 56 years old.

Formations in the hot water springs in Wyoming’s Yellowstone National Park grow about 2.5 cm (one inch) per year. And there are many examples of rainwater tanks in country areas of Australia that have stalactites growing on them.

Conclusion

Because of the evidence for fast-growing stalactites now becoming available, we can safely conclude that the world’s beautiful limestone cave formations may not have needed countless thousands of years to form. These spectacular formations could have formed quite rapidly in just a few thousand years—a time framework consistent with the view that they were formed during the closing stages of, and after, the worldwide Flood of Noah’s time.

Encyclopedia Americana, Americana Corporation, Danbury (Connecticut), 1978, Vol. 25, p. 570.

Mason Sutherland, Carlsbad Caverns in Color, National Geographic, October, 1953, p. 442.

John C. Whitcomb, Jr, The World That Perished, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1973, pp. 114–115.

~ http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v9/i4/stalactites.asp

Bat in the stalagmite: http://www.incrediblebats.com/finger/fp5.html

How do they explain the caves themselves? Unless God scooped them out along with the grand canyon and all I don't see how you can get a hole in sedimentry rock when it was all laid down at the same time.

http://tinyurl.com/iwpp

I didn't look over it, or even check to see if any of that stuff is valid(I don't like reading creationist science), but I imagine that has what you're looking for(probably more too).

quote:which is currently much lower. Thus, cave formation is not necessarily a post-Flood phenomenon as Strahler thought. It could have formed anytime after the limestone was first deposited in the Flood, since hydrothermal water would be expected to begin moving through the limestone soon after deposition.

I want to see common limestone like that found in the earth form in less than a year out of things found in nature and not a chemistry lab.

I like there article on how antibiotic resistant bacteria are not resistant because of evolution they are that way because of benificial mutation and sexual reproduction.

quote:Conclusion

Because of the evidence for fast-growing stalactites now becoming available, we can safely conclude that the world’s beautiful limestone cave formations may not have needed countless thousands of years to form. These spectacular formations could have formed quite rapidly in just a few thousand years—a time framework consistent with the view that they were formed during the closing stages of, and after, the worldwide Flood of Noah’s time.

Completely wrong, and no wonder since it came from the "Encyclopedia Americana"...

They are quite simply deliberatly speaking of another process, and not the one that does take thousands of years:

"

Claim CD250:

Stalactites can grow very quickly. Some have been observed to grow more than half an inch per year. The largest stalactites and flowstones could have formed in a few thousand years.

Source:

Meyers, Stephen and Robert Doolan, 1987. Rapid stalactites? Creation Magazine 9(4) (Sep.-Nov.): 6-8.



Response:



1. The fast-growing stalactites form via processes very different from calcium carbonate stalactites found in limestone caves. Limestone is not soluble in water. When carbon dioxide (from decaying plants in the soil above the cave) mixes with water, it forms a very weak carbonic acid. This turns the calcium carbonate into calcium bicarbonate, which dissolves. When drips are exposed to air in the cave, a little carbon dioxide escapes from them into the atmosphere, which reverses the process and precipitates a small amount of calcium carbonate. The upper average rate for limestone stalactite growth is ten centimeters per thousand years, with lower growth rates outside of tropical areas.

Fast-growing stalactites, on the other hand, either grow from gypsum through an evaporative process, or they form from concrete or mortar. When water is added to concrete, one product is calcium hydroxide, which is about 100 times more soluble than calcite. The calcium hydroxide absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to reconstitute calcium carbonate.

2. The time for stalactite growth also has to allow for time for the cave to dissolve in the first place, which is a very slow process, sometimes on the order of tens of millions of years. Then the geological conditions have to change so that the cave is no longer under water. Only then can stalactite growth begin.

3. Direct measurement via radiometric dating gives stalactite ages over 190,000 years (Ford and Hill 1999). Other deposits in caves have been dated to several million years old. For example, argon-argon dating of alunite (an aluminum sulfate mineral) gives an age of 11.3 million years for a cave near Carlsbad Caverns (Polyak et al. 1998).

4. Oxygen isotope measurements in stalactites give an indication of outside temperatures. They are consistent with the coming and going of ice ages back at least 160,000 years (Dorale et al. 1998; Wang et al. 2001; Zhang et al. 2004)."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD250.html

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-21-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

"Real" Christians tend to be ignorant and fearful.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And atheists tend to be hostile and brutish.I think this can apply to humans in general regardless of their respective faiths. Mudslinging is unbecoming.

erm.. digital saviour?

As far as stalactits growing on bridges goes i think your mixing up stalactites with barnacles. Its hard to get limestone forming out of seawater with all the salt to slow down the process.

but leave alone the stalagmites... i always wanted to know what the biblical reasoning is behind the carbon dated 65 million year old fossils and the 7000ish year old pyramids. any help with that?

quote:Originally posted by Dead Helmsman:

Originally posted by ArmsMerchant:

"Real" Christians tend to be ignorant and fearful.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And atheists tend to be hostile and brutish.I think this can apply to humans in general regardless of their respective faiths. Mudslinging is unbecoming.



I was pointing out a truth, as a rebuttal to his/her statement of ignorance.

It is not mudslinging, if it is truth, and bears a purpose.

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:



erm.. digital saviour?

As far as stalactits growing on bridges goes i think your mixing up stalactites with barnacles. Its hard to get limestone forming out of seawater with all the salt to slow down the process.

but leave alone the stalagmites... i always wanted to know what the biblical reasoning is behind the carbon dated 65 million year old fossils and the 7000ish year old pyramids. any help with that?

I wasn't personally getting it mixed up. That information came from a Creation website. I do not know how they verify such occurances.

I do, however, doubt that they were barnacles, since they are crustaceans (live animals) and stalactites are a formation of rock.

I think they would notice if the formation on the bridge were a LIVE specimen, as opposed to a non-living specimen.

As far as the dating goes, there has never been a reliable way to test and PROVE what the Evolutionist's claim (millions of years). This is why Evolution is still a theory.

The pyramids were a miracle, but not from God. Man can accomplish some amazing things...don't you agree ?

When you have THOUSANDS of people participating in free forced labor, you can accomplish quite a bit.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



As far as the dating goes, there has never been a reliable way to test and PROVE what the Evolutionist's claim (millions of years). This is why Evolution is still a theory.



More of these dis-honest tactics. This has been refuted time and time again, without so much of a defense from your part, and yet you still come back to make the erroneous claims all over again.

1. There ARE reliable ways of dating:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

Not to mention the speed of light itself which proves the universe is MUCH older than 12,000.

2. Evolution being a theory has nothing to do with lack of evidence, or lack of scientific proof. It is a scientific fact.

digital saviour i wasnt talking about evolution... screw that... it still IS a theory, as is creation. i just wanted to know what the explaination for carbon dated fossils (which are confirmed to be 65 million years old) and stuff like that is

I believe the biblical exsplaination behind all those things is that all dating method besides the Bible are wrong and the earth Universe was really created on Oct 22nd 4004 BC. That is assuming all the numbers in the geneologies are corect, but they apparently have been tranlating the number of the beast wrong all these years so who knows.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I was pointing out a truth, as a rebuttal to his/her statement of ignorance.

It is not mudslinging, if it is truth, and bears a purpose.I'd say both statements were fairly ignorant. You will find examples of brutishness and ignorance on both sides of the fence. Ascribing these traits to one particular group does not lessen their appearance in others. However, having said that, your rebuttal was completely in character. I am no less guilty of pointing out negative traits in others that I also frequently display. It's called being human.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And atheists tend to be hostile and brutish.

You're gay, queerboy.

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

I believe the biblical exsplaination behind all those things is that all dating method besides the Bible are wrong and the earth Universe was really created on Oct 22nd 4004 BC. That is assuming all the numbers in the geneologies are corect, but they apparently have been tranlating the number of the beast wrong all these years so who knows.

so we are supposed to believe that carbon dating (which has never been wrong on any account--tried tested and passed time and time again) is a wrong method? and that the bible which appearently has typos and translating errors (carried on for 6 millenia) is correct? thats slightly sad... how're we supposed to believe that? any better explanations?

You don't just have to discount carbon dating, you have to discount evry kind of dating. Ice cores in Greenland, layers of silt in old deltas, all kinds of radioactive isotope testing, the fact we can see stars that are more than 6000 light years away. Unless God is fucking with us thouse are pretty good reason to start doubting the validity of a theroy.

The Bible is only three or four milenia old, not sure when Job was written but it is suposed to be the oldest. There is a huge gap from creation to recording. Young Earth is betting on the fact that Moses understood and corectly transcribed the exact method God used to creat the universe. And I believe he said himself he is not great with language and had his brother do alot of the talking(I am trusting some guys on coast to coast am I have not confirmed this).

[This message has been edited by MasterPython (edited 06-24-2005).]

What MasterPython mentions doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

You literally have to discount almost every single piece of mathematic, and scientific knowledge we have today.

Geometry and the laws of gravity must be, at the very least, partially discounted since the first estimations on the speed of light (most of which were in fact underestimations of the true speed) completely shatters the theory that the world is 6,000 - 12,000 years old by orders of magnitude -- and they were first found using just that: Newtonian mechanics and geometry!

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

so we are supposed to believe that carbon dating (which has never been wrong on any account--tried tested and passed time and time again) is a wrong method? and that the bible which appearently has typos and translating errors (carried on for 6 millenia) is correct? thats slightly sad... how're we supposed to believe that? any better explanations?

MWUAHAHAHAHAHAH !

~ http://www.talk origins.or g/indexcc/ CD/CD011.html

Here's what I heard: "Excuses...explanations...assertions...AHA ! The Theory of Evolution is still the truth !"

MOST POPULAR EXCUSE FOR WHY IT DOESN'T WORK: Of COURSE the dating method is unreliable, because no one can manage to perform such dating methods properly !

Oh, and let's not forget the trivial detail of "radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older."

*end of sarcasm*

So, it can't possibly be used to date anything older than that with any kind of validity, yet it is used REPEATEDLY to "prove" that things are MILLIONS of years old ?

FALLACY !

You must also take into consider the plethora of factors that make the dating method unusable: "Radiometric dating is predicated on the assumption that throughout the earth's history radioactive decay rates of the various elements have remained constant. Is this a warranted assumption? Has every radioactive nuclide proceeded on a rigid course of decay at a constant rate? This has been challenged by studies involving Carbon (C)-14.

At the temperature or pressure, collisions with stray cosmic rays or the emanations of other atoms may cause changes other than those of normal disintegration. It seems very possible that spontaneous disintegration of radioactive elements are related to the action of cosmic rays and the rate of disintegration varying from century to century according to the intensity of the rays. The evidence for a strongly increasing change in the cosmic ray influx is most favorable especially in light of the decay of the earth's magnetic field..."

Too many unknown variables to say, "we start at point A, and end at point B."

Some clams were dated as having died 50,000 years ago, and they were still alive! Many Middle Eastern artifacts, preserved under ideal conditions, were consistently giving dates wrong by 20%.

A more difficult to deal problem with radiocarbon dating came from Egyptian and Mesopotamian artifacts when the dates were already known. In Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and Sumeria, there are "king lists" of who reigned and for how long. When you have records dated by the scribes, as well as actual mummies and the carbon-14 dates are not off by hundreds of years but by thousands, you either have to throw away every historical record, or else there was a general failure with carbon-14 dating.

Let’s look at assumption 1 again. Solar intensity, the earth’s magnetism, and CO2 concentration all affect the C14/C12 ratio. Libby, who won a Nobel Prize in 1960 for C14 dating, failed to question his uniformitarian assumption, that the ratio had reached static equilibrium. This was the state of affairs with radiocarbon dating for many years.

To "face up" to the absolute age problem, scientists devised calibration scales based on tree rings, lake varves, and ice cores.

Oak trees can live for 200-300 years, and they grow a new tree ring every year. The ring is thick when the winter is short, and thin when the winter is long. Different trees growing at the same time in the same forest have very similar tree ring patterns. So, by comparing many different trees in a forest in South Germany, and performing radiocarbon dating on a large number of samples, a calibration scale was developed. Other researchers did similar work in a forest in Northern Germany. Still others did this in Ireland, and others in England. Finally American researchers did this with bristlecone pine trees in Arizona. Bristlecone pine is both worse and better to use than oak. It is worse, in that the rings are very thin, and roughly 5% of the time the tree either does not grow a ring in a year or else grows two rings. It is better in that an individual bristlecone pine can live for 2,000 years. Anyway, all these different calibrations from around the world agree with each other within about 5%. Using tree rings, the calibration of carbon-14 has been extended back to ~4,760 B.C. (Ralph et al. 1973, Stuiver & Pearson 1986, Stuiver & Reimer 1986, van der Plicht & Mook 1989 and others). Of course, they could all be wrong, but if enough independent studies agree with each other, then being wrong becomes a more remote possibility.

In addition to tree rings, scientists have looked at what are called lake varves in Northern Sweden. Now trees shed their leaves in the fall, and the leaves that fall in a lake form a thin layer at the bottom. This happens annually, and thus very thin annual layers are deposited. By counting lake varves, one has a cross-check for carbon-14 dating similar to tree rings. Lake varve calibration goes back to ~11,000 years.

A third cross-check is ice cores in Greenland. More snow is deposited in summer, when the air is wetter, than in winter. Thus there are annual rings in Greenland ice cores too. However, instead of dating organic matter, carbon-14 dating is performed on the minute amounts of carbon dioxide and methane gas in each layer. This method is less reliable than tree rings and lake varves, but it calibrates back to >15,000 years before present.

So, because of the triple testimony of tree rings, lake varves, and ice cores, carbon-14 dating works assuming:

1. We can measure the ratio very accurately.

2. We know the ways an organism’s ratio is altered.

3. While the atmospheric C14 / C12 ratio has changed, we have calibration scales( ± 5%) back to 4,760 B.C, 11,000 B.C, and more than 15,000 B.C.

~ http://www.biblequery.org/Science/RadiocarbonDatingAndTheBible.htm

When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain ‘bad’ dates.

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

~ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

Basically, the conditions have to be PERFECT in order for this method to work.

Doesn't sound very reliable to me !

~ http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm

~ READ THIS ONE FOR SURE: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 06-25-2005).]

Examples of inaccurate dating: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/dating.asp

I am not trying to say that carbon dating is NEVER right, but that it should not be used to support the Old Earth theory, since it is extremely unreliable.

The statement that it has NEVER been proven wrong is complete BS.

out of curiosity... from the creationist point of view is the entire universe 6000 years old or is it only the earth?

^^ the whole universe.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

MWUAHAHAHAHAHAH !

Here's what I heard: "Excuses...explanations...assertions...AHA ! The Theory of Evolution is still the truth !"

MOST POPULAR EXCUSE FOR WHY IT DOESN'T WORK: Of COURSE the dating method is unreliable, because no one can manage to perform such dating methods properly !

Oh, and let's not forget the trivial detail of "radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older."

*end of sarcasm*

So, it can't possibly be used to date anything older than that with any kind of validity, yet it is used REPEATEDLY to "prove" that things are MILLIONS of years old ?

FALLACY !



How childish.

1. So you have nothing to refute it then? You idea of a rebuttal is to childishly complain that it being used erroneously isn't a good excuse, when it of course is? How pathetic.

That's like claiming that tylenol doesn't work because instead of ingesting it via their mouth, someone decided to cram some up their ass. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



2. Show me it has been used to date something that is older than 1 millions years old.

quote:

You must also take into consider the plethora of factors that make the dating method unusable: "Radiometric dating is predicated on the assumption that throughout the earth's history radioactive decay rates of the various elements have remained constant. Is this a warranted assumption? Has every radioactive nuclide proceeded on a rigid course of decay at a constant rate? This has been challenged by studies involving Carbon (C)-14.

At the temperature or pressure, collisions with stray cosmic rays or the emanations of other atoms may cause changes other than those of normal disintegration. It seems very possible that spontaneous disintegration of radioactive elements are related to the action of cosmic rays and the rate of disintegration varying from century to century according to the intensity of the rays. The evidence for a strongly increasing change in the cosmic ray influx is most favorable especially in light of the decay of the earth's magnetic field..."

Too many unknown variables to say, "we start at point A, and end at point B."

Some clams were dated as having died 50,000 years ago, and they were still alive! Many Middle Eastern artifacts, preserved under ideal conditions, were consistently giving dates wrong by 20%.

A more difficult to deal problem with radiocarbon dating came from Egyptian and Mesopotamian artifacts when the dates were already known. In Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and Sumeria, there are "king lists" of who reigned and for how long. When you have records dated by the scribes, as well as actual mummies and the carbon-14 dates are not off by hundreds of years but by thousands, you either have to throw away every historical record, or else there was a general failure with carbon-14 dating.

Let’s look at assumption 1 again. Solar intensity, the earth’s magnetism, and CO2 concentration all affect the C14/C12 ratio. Libby, who won a Nobel Prize in 1960 for C14 dating, failed to question his uniformitarian assumption, that the ratio had reached static equilibrium. This was the state of affairs with radiocarbon dating for many years.



Equally pathetic.

1. Nobody today claims that the C-14 levels don't vary, they of course do, which is exactly why proper C-14 dating takes that into consideration.

2. The examples you gave are all examples of contamination or the "resevoir effect" which can be avoided with proper use; and which are unimportant since C-14 is not the only method used when dating a specimen. A combination of all possible dating methods are used, and all of them collaborate the findings.

quote:

To "face up" to the absolute age problem, scientists devised calibration scales based on tree rings, lake varves, and ice cores.

Oak trees can live for 200-300 years, and they grow a new tree ring every year. The ring is thick when the winter is short, and thin when the winter is long. Different trees growing at the same time in the same forest have very similar tree ring patterns. So, by comparing many different trees in a forest in South Germany, and performing radiocarbon dating on a large number of samples, a calibration scale was developed. Other researchers did similar work in a forest in Northern Germany. Still others did this in Ireland, and others in England. Finally American researchers did this with bristlecone pine trees in Arizona. Bristlecone pine is both worse and better to use than oak. It is worse, in that the rings are very thin, and roughly 5% of the time the tree either does not grow a ring in a year or else grows two rings. It is better in that an individual bristlecone pine can live for 2,000 years. Anyway, all these different calibrations from around the world agree with each other within about 5%. Using tree rings, the calibration of carbon-14 has been extended back to ~4,760 B.C. (Ralph et al. 1973, Stuiver & Pearson 1986, Stuiver & Reimer 1986, van der Plicht & Mook 1989 and others). Of course, they could all be wrong, but if enough independent studies agree with each other, then being wrong becomes a more remote possibility.

In addition to tree rings, scientists have looked at what are called lake varves in Northern Sweden. Now trees shed their leaves in the fall, and the leaves that fall in a lake form a thin layer at the bottom. This happens annually, and thus very thin annual layers are deposited. By counting lake varves, one has a cross-check for carbon-14 dating similar to tree rings. Lake varve calibration goes back to ~11,000 years.

A third cross-check is ice cores in Greenland. More snow is deposited in summer, when the air is wetter, than in winter. Thus there are annual rings in Greenland ice cores too. However, instead of dating organic matter, carbon-14 dating is performed on the minute amounts of carbon dioxide and methane gas in each layer. This method is less reliable than tree rings and lake varves, but it calibrates back to >15,000 years before present.

So, because of the triple testimony of tree rings, lake varves, and ice cores, carbon-14 dating works assuming:

1. We can measure the ratio very accurately.

2. We know the ways an organism’s ratio is altered.

3. While the atmospheric C14 / C12 ratio has changed, we have calibration scales( ± 5%) back to 4,760 B.C, 11,000 B.C, and more than 15,000 B.C.

~ http://w ww.biblequery.org/Science/RadiocarbonDatingAndTheBible.htm (http: //www.bibl equery.org /Science/R adiocarbon DatingAndT heBible.ht m)



We CAN measure the ratio very acurrately. That very article shows how accurate the calibration is, when different tests, on different trees, on different parts of the world collaborate themselves.

quote:

When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain ‘bad’ dates.

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

[...]

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

~ http:/ /www.answe rsingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp (http: //www.answ ersingenes is.org/doc s2002/carb on_dating. asp)



Again, pathetic.

Would you believe someone claiming that the Dead Sea Scrolls were a fabrication by someone in the 1945s, in a laboratory in New York? Why not? They have been dated with the methods you're strictly against... So what method do Christinas use to date them? That's right, looking at the enviorment where they have been found, and the conditions they were in, to shed light on how old the specimen might be.

That's EXACTLY why the scientists that found the basalt samples thought the dates in 9 out of the 27 were wrong. Because, just as the theory that the Dead Sea Scrolls were made in 1945, the enviornment, the history, the geology, the conditions as well as a myriad of other things just didn't fit.

It's pathetic that these creationists have to result to these dishonest tactics by which they critisice scientists for the exact same things they do.

quote:

Basically, the conditions have to be PERFECT in order for this method to work.

Doesn't sound very reliable to me !



Again, pathetic. Please tell me something that works as intended, when the requirements for it to work as intended are not met? Nothing does. Why? That's a truism.

If the requirements for it to work are not met... guess what... it wont work!

Again, the Tylenol analogy is applicable.

P.S. You still owe me a reply:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/004156-3.html



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

^^ the whole universe.

so then how come we have light reaching us from places like alpha centauri which is 20'000 years old? is the speed of light also measured inaccurately?

aww come onn! it cant be that hard a question?!?

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

out of curiosity... from the creationist point of view is the entire universe 6000 years old or is it only the earth?

The entire "heavens' and "earth" were created at the same time, so...they are the same age. (Genesis 1)

I don't know why it is still being said that the earth is 6,000 years though...it is more like 10,000.

Either way, it isn't millions !

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

so then how come we have light reaching us from places like alpha centauri which is 20'000 years old? is the speed of light also measured inaccurately?

I dunno ask a creationist.

Here's a theory: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_davies.asp

~ http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/405.asp

This is a very good site to study for questions like this: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ16.html

I don't know enough about the speed of light to give an educated response, so I won't.

Sorry !

Where does ten thousand years come from? I know someone added up all the ages to get sisx thousand but what about ten thousand.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Again, pathetic.

Since everything I say is pathetic, you shouldn't care what my response will be.

I gave enough evidence and documentation to sufficiently prove that carbon dating is unreliable, at best.

I don't need to beat this horse...it's already dead.

*hands him the stick*

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

Where does ten thousand years come from? I know someone added up all the ages to get sisx thousand but what about ten thousand.



the 10,000 years (some say 12,000) is an upper estimate. Some say that there are gaps or possible gaps (or family names instead of individuals). so when they say 6k-12k, it is because the theologians aren't in unanimous agreement.

^^^i personally think it's closer to 6000 years. The main reason i lean that way is from the Hebrew calendar.... right now, it is the year 5765. To a lesser degree, i dont think there are gaps that big or a combination of that many gaps in the geneologies).

One more Sarith: http://tinyurl.com/bffcv

quote:Originally posted by Sarith:

aww come onn! it cant be that hard a question?!?



IMO, this is the toughest question. I've seen some possible answers, but, i dont agree with them.

Anyway, one of those possible answers basically has to do with relativity. Relative to earth, the universe is young; reative to the center of the universe, it is old.

I read about this theory in Gerald L. Schroeder's book The Science of God. His book basically is trying to unite 'old earth' creation, 'young earth' creation, and science. Athough i disagree with much of his ideas, he did make some excellent points (both for the light theory, and for his attempting to unit these 3 "schools of thought".



To me, the problem of light-time-distance, and (worm) burrows in successive layers of shale/clay are the only truely tough science questions for creationists.

There are other theories of the L-T-D problem, but to me, they are also lacking. If your interested in reading about them, check out a few of the creationist web sites (my favorite is AiG).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Since everything I say is pathetic, you shouldn't care what my response will be.

I gave enough evidence and documentation to sufficiently prove that carbon dating is unreliable, at best.

I don't need to beat this horse...it's already dead.

*hands him the stick*

Talk about beating a dead horse, I've told you this what, 100 times now? I reply, regardless of how pathetic your responses are, because of the possibility of someone actually believing the bullshit that comes from your mouth.

And no, you most certainly did not give anything to remotely suggest that carbon-dating is unreliable.

It, like everything else, works only when done correctly. It of course wont work when done incorrectly (See Tylenol-Ass example).

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 06-28-2005).]

all the places you guyes told me to look have pretty unsatisfactory answers. the distance of stars can be measured by parallax (the same way your own eyes work) or by red shift (admittedly inaccurate) or by predicting their position based on the gravitational fields of all the nearby stars (ie there cant be two huge stars next to each other cause they'd be attracted and collide and they cant be too far apart cause then one would go flying off on its own).

also the idea that the speed of light was different a long time ago is blatantly stupid cause if light slows down then you get all kinds of relativity screwups. im 14 and i knew that!!

is there by any chance a more plausible answer to this?

i think i just found a loophole in the creationist system... cummon!! someone got to know something about this!!

what do creationists say about the dinosaurs? six thousand years ago teh tyrannus rex roaming?! digisave, pzl!!!

[This message has been edited by SurrealSynthetic (edited 06-30-2005).]

^^ A while back someone posted a link to a creationist site saying that dinosaurs still existed and they were trying to capture some. Unfortunatley it is not there anymore so I can't show you how funny it was.

actually several of the creationist sites people told me to visit regarding the size of the universe actually said "we are uncertain that the speed of light remains the same" and "we do not know if it travelled at the same speed before we began to observe it" What IS it that those people smoke??

Sarith, here's some more links in another thread:

~ http://tinyurl.com/839cc

quote:Originally posted by MasterPython:

^^ A while back someone posted a link to a creationist site saying that dinosaurs still existed and they were trying to capture some. Unfortunatley it is not there anymore so I can't show you how funny it was.

That made me 'lol' for real.

digitalsaviour, nothing on that page deals with the light issue. In fact, im willing to bet that the galaxies and supernovae photographed are more than 6000 light years away. In fact my question is a very simple one. Why can we see stuff more than 10'000 light years away? The light shouldn't have got to us already.

Stalagmites and such: Yes, they can form quickly, but ones that form quickly differ from slow forming ones...observing the differences between the two is what allows scientists to determine whether or not an already formed cavern of stalactites and stalagmites formed quickly or slowly...or even more accurately, which stalagmites formed slowly, and which ones quickly.

LTD: If the speed of light were to vary, then so would time itself based on the definitions of meters and seconds. For a fundamental change in the constant c to take place, a change in all speeds would occur. Essentially, the speed of light is the determining factor in the age of the universe, as it is our closest relation to the concept of time, and is intertwined with all other methods of percieving time...no matter what the speed of light was in the past, the universe in its current state IS atleast 14 billion years old...though if the speed of light differed, maybe 6000 of the years we used in the past would accurately describe 14 billion years of the present...though I doubt it's the case, it's a plausible work around to the LTD problem for creationists, despite it having a teeny weensy hole in it.

Noah's Flood: Anyone who honestly thinks it occured on a world-wide scale is on some sort of drug...it should be well established by now that the punctuation of this story in almost every religion that centered in the fertile crescent and its neighboring areas should hint as to the actual location of it. Quit living in ignorance; to the people of the bible, North Africa and the Middle East were the entire world.

Oh, by the way, this is Hex/OP using my brother's acct.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

And atheists tend to be hostile and brutish.

as far as i know Arms Merchant is infact a deeply spiritual person. IF i remember rightly he has shamanic training.



[This message has been edited by jackketch (edited 07-05-2005).]

no seriously digital_saviour or any creationist... how can creationism be credible if their isnt an answer to a question as simple as this?

quote:Originally posted by jackketch:

as far as i know Arms Merchant is infact a deeply spiritual person. IF i remember rightly he has shamanic training.



Ok...I wasn't implying all of them are this way, as I said "tend to be", which means that some of them are, and some of them aren't.

I am also speaking more specifically about Totse atheist's, since I have a ton of atheist friends, and NONE OF THEM has the gall to talk to other people, especially women, the way these guys talk on here.

We all have our faults...if someone is going to point out mine just for the hell of it, without even considering that they are just as guilty of one thing or another in their life, I am going to point it out for them.

Also, Arms Merchant is much older than the rest of the Totse crowd, so I am surprised he felt compelled to offer such criticism, to be honest with you. Aside from that, what does his spiritual/religious preference have to do with his defamatory remark ?

If none of this applies to your comment, I apologize. *lol* If that is the case, please expound, so that I may understand your point.

SARITH:

I wasn't suggesting that the sites I posted were infallible. I was giving possible scenario's in hopes that perhaps you hadn't heard of one, and would investigate further on your own.

Honestly, why don't you Google it yourself ? That's what everyone else does on here.

You keep asking these questions, claiming they are simple (and yet you have not found a sufficient answer, based on your persistent demand of it being given to you), but you have seemingly put no effort forth to find out the information for yourself.

I am not a scientist. I can only read the articles, and TRY to come to some sort of logical conclusion. What you do with the stuff I post is entirely up to you.

I hope you find the answers you are seeking soon.

quote:Originally posted by Televangelism Rapist:

Stalagmites and such: Yes, they can form quickly, but ones that form quickly differ from slow forming ones...observing the differences between the two is what allows scientists to determine whether or not an already formed cavern of stalactites and stalagmites formed quickly or slowly...or even more accurately, which stalagmites formed slowly, and which ones quickly.

In what way ? Molecularly ? *wonders faintly if that is even a word* I could look it up, but...naaaahhh. Too lazy. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Anyway, do you have any sites I can browse to read up on this obvious difference between slow forming stalagmites and quick forming stalactites ?

Are you saying there are different species of stalagmites ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

SARITH:

I wasn't suggesting that the sites I posted were infallible. I was giving possible scenario's in hopes that perhaps you hadn't heard of one, and would investigate further on your own.

Honestly, why don't you Google it yourself ? That's what everyone else does on here.

You keep asking these questions, claiming they are simple (and yet you have not found a sufficient answer, based on your persistent demand of it being given to you), but you have seemingly put no effort forth to find out the information for yourself.

I am not a scientist. I can only read the articles, and TRY to come to some sort of logical conclusion. What you do with the stuff I post is entirely up to you.

I hope you find the answers you are seeking soon.

im not a scientist either!! im a 14 yr old doing this on a dial-up and paying for every minute of it. google, is a luxury reserved for homework and remains so. that's kinda why i post here... speed up the learning process an all.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

In what way ? Molecularly ? *wonders faintly if that is even a word* I could look it up, but...naaaahhh. Too lazy. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

Anyway, do you have any sites I can browse to read up on this obvious difference between slow forming stalagmites and quick forming stalactites ?

Are you saying there are different species of stalagmites ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

Woops, answered this over AIM and forgot to reply here. Aside from radiometric dating (I'm not even going to bother linking to these...I know the young earthers don't think it's accurate at all), the density of the limestone is higher in slow forming stals, due to erosion and relayering of the deposits over time; it's lower in fast forming stals due to the deposits forming before erosion can make any noticeable effect. Fast forming stals are also usually in caverns under bodies of water, slow forming ones usually in caverns above bodies of water. Areas that collect mineral rich waters also tend to have faster forming stals due to higher concentrations of sediments in the water.

I'm having trouble finding a site backing that info though...I've been away from the intarweb so long that a lot of my resourcing skills have died.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Are you saying there are different species of stalagmites ? http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/eek.gif)

That would make sense. Same with fast and slow growing trees having diferent growth rings. And the word species only really applies to organisms capible of sexual reproduction.

Under the "logic" portion of the definition of the words species: A class of individuals or objects grouped by virtue of their common attributes and assigned a common name; a division subordinate to a genus.

That's the definition I was applying to my use of the word, but fair 'nuf. Your point is made. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)