Quote:
Originally Posted by juropilot
No evidence ? WHAATT?
Seems you are loosing ground and need to move on to something else. All I said so far is that the carbon dating is unreliable. So save your unrelated arguments for later. You accused me of babbling before, yet that is exactly what you are doing right now.
We are talking carbon dating right now. Either back up your claims, or admit that at the very least you cannot come up with anything else.
After that, we can move on to something else. That is if you want.
|
Since you seem to not listen to logic I will put it in plain quoted english for you.
"Henry Morris argued that if we started filling up our empty barrel it would take 30,000 years to reach the equilibrium point. Thus, he concluded, if our Earth were older than 30,000 years the incoming water should just equal the water leaking out. That is, the equilibrium point should have long since been reached given the present rate of carbon-14 production and the old age of the earth. The next step in Henry Morris' argument was to show that the water level in our barrel analogy was not in equilibrium, that considerably more water was coming in than leaking out. To that end, he quoted some authorities, including Richard Lingenfelter. Having accomplished that, Morris concluded that the barrel was still in the process of being filled up and that, given the present rate of water coming in and leaking out, the filling process began only 10,000 years ago.
It's a great argument except for one, little thing. The water is not coming out of the hose at a steady rate as our model assumed! Sometimes it slows down to a trickle so that much more water is leaking out the barrel than is coming in; sometimes it goes full blast so that a lot more water is coming into the barrel than is leaking out. Thus, the mere fact that the present rate of water coming in exceeds that of the water leaking out cannot be extrapolated back to a starting time. And, that destroys the entire argument."
"Lingenfelter actually attributed the discrepancy between the production and decay rates to possible variations in the earth's magnetic field, a conclusion which would have ruined Morris's argument. Henry Morris chose not to mention that portion of the paper! Creationists don't want their readers to be distracted with problems like that -- unless the cat is already out of the bag and something has to be said."
How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Radiocarbon Dating
Here are some excerpts to address your equilibrium question you posed to me. I suggest you read the whole paper because it address all of the creationist arguments against carbon 14 dating. Good day
"Once again, Dr. Hovind has relied on bad data. If you get your information from a creationist source, you'd better triple-check it! Errors get handed down in the creationist literature like the family jewels!"