Question for all the atheists on here

[Polymath257]

Why?
Do you even know that C14 is the best evidence that the Biblical description of long life?
Do you know it actually prove that the Atmosphere was very moist less than 4 000 years ago?
Do you know that the equlibrium of the Atmosphere in Biblical dating is 100% in sink with dating C14 / C13 ratios and is evidence that charcoal findings, and other organic material dated to 10 000 to 40 000 years actualy give dates of 4 to 5 thousand years?

No, I don't know those things. Because they are false.

 

[Polymath257]

Easy,
if the Atmophere was moist, C14 would not form.
If C14 / c13 is less in ratio than now, the dating would seem exponentially older.

How would a moist atmosphere prevent the formation of C14?

 

[Polymath257]

Obviously you also never read the Bible, else you would have known about those points.
You see, this is how I determine if any critisizer of the Bible actually took the time to see what the Bible says.
And I got you solid on this point.
if I were to critisize the theory of Relativity without first studying what Einstein wrote, I will be an idiot.
Now why do you make yoyurself guilty of such behaviour?

I'd love to see the verses you tortured to get your claims.

 

[Polymath257]

I said Atheism is a religion for believing God does not exist.
Theism is a religion for believing God does exist.
and obviously Theism is a collective word including all different religions.

Atheists simply have a lack of belief in God. Some (the hard atheists) go further and deny the existence of God.

I, for one, am open to evidence, but it has to be high quality evidence clearly distinguishing God/no God scenarios.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, C14 depends totally upon the equlibrium of the creation of C14 from N14.
If the Atmosphere was not yet in equlibrium, due to huge ammounts of moisture in the Atmosphere, C14 would be non existant, or very shallow.
If somethin occured and the Atmosphere cleared this water moisture, N14 will be exposed, and C14 production would incease untill the ammounts of C14 / C13 ratios in plants equals the atmosphere.

Except that doesn't happen. The amount of water in the atmosphere won't affect C14 production. There is no 'screening' effect by water on cosmic rays.

Now, if the Bible say the atmosphere did not have a rainbow untill 4 500 years ago, it would give me the answer that equlibrium was only reached about 500 years after the flood.

Nonsense in so many ways. First, according to the Bible, the first rainbow was right after the flood, not 500 years after.

Second, rainbows will form even in humid atmospheres if there are raindrops formed.

This supplies us with a scientific fact, atheists dont want to know about,

Nope, that is NOT a scientific fact. it is religious speculation. You really should learn the difference.

that C14 / C13 tests will show something that lived 4 500 years ago as having an age of excess of 20 000 years.
Something living 3 000 years ago will test very close to that date because of, yes, equlibrium.

And that effect is non-existence. Your theory is disproved.

Now why do I say C14 is important?
Because if not for this radiation, one will live very long.
If you can reduce your C14 intake, you can live to be 200 years old with a very healthy body.
funny that the Bible chronology corresponds with the graph if considering C14/C13 ratios.

Complete fantasy.

For one, you have failed to explain away all the other types of radioactive dating. You seem to be unaware that the level of C14 is too small to have an effect on aging (the potassium in stone walls produces more radioactivity than C14).

Please give a reference for those C14/C13 ratios. It might be amusing to see how you misinterpreted the facts.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Except that doesn't happen. The amount of water in the atmosphere won't affect C14 production. There is no 'screening' effect by water on cosmic rays.

Well, I did have a hard time to find any evidence that C14 will be created in an moist atmosphere, and also on the path any C14 will have to follow in a moist environment to enter into plantmaterial and eventually into human and animal.
What I did find is that C14 in water will not have any effect on plantlife or humans, simply because C14 needs to be absorbed by plants through photosynthesis.
Please assist in any evidence that C14 will be created in water or Moisture such as mist or steam.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Nonsense in so many ways. First, according to the Bible, the first rainbow was right after the flood, not 500 years after.

You missed out on what I said.
Now, if the Bible say the atmosphere did not have a rainbow untill 4 500 years ago, it would give me the answer that equlibrium was only reached about 500 years after the flood.
I said equlibrium will be reached 500 years after the flood.
It is a scientific fact that if cosmic rays were to start to have an effect on the outer limits of the Atmosphere, it might even take 700 to 1 000 years to reach an equlibrium where C13 and C14 ratio is as it is today. I work on the worst scenario of 500 years.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I did have a hard time to find any evidence that C14 will be created in an moist atmosphere, and also on the path any C14 will have to follow in a moist environment to enter into plantmaterial and eventually into human and animal.
What I did find is that C14 in water will not have any effect on plantlife or humans, simply because C14 needs to be absorbed by plants through photosynthesis.
Please assist in any evidence that C14 will be created in water or Moisture such as mist or steam.

The C14 is created in the upper atmosphere, well above any weather. The amount of water in the atmosphere won't affect the production rate.

Once created, it acts chemically just like C12 and C13 (the stable forms of carbon) and enters into plants primarily through CO2 (carbon dioxide), which plants need to survive.

Again, the amount of water in the atmosphere (the humidity) won't change that requirement, it won't change the rates of diffusion, it won't change the C13/C14 equilibrium, won't change the production rate, and it won't affect how the C14 is used by plants and animals.

Once again, C14 is chemically the same as the stable forms of carbon, so is processed by plants in *exactly* the same way. if ordinary carbon can get through, so can C14.

 

[Polymath257]

You missed out on what I said.
Now, if the Bible say the atmosphere did not have a rainbow untill 4 500 years ago, it would give me the answer that equlibrium was only reached about 500 years after the flood.
I said equlibrium will be reached 500 years after the flood.
It is a scientific fact that if cosmic rays were to start to have an effect on the outer limits of the Atmosphere, it might even take 700 to 1 000 years to reach an equlibrium where C13 and C14 ratio is as it is today. I work on the worst scenario of 500 years.

And why would the cosmic rays just start having an effect at that point? They were certainly there prior to that. There is no reason why the humidity would affect production rate.

The only real consideration is the amount of radiation produced by the sun, which *can* affect the rate of production of C14.

Your whole scenario is fantasy that is not supported by the actual science surrounding C14 dating. Clearly, you don't understand even what C14 is, how it is made, how it gets into plants and animals, and why it isn't affected by things like humidity.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Second, rainbows will form even in humid atmospheres if there are raindrops formed.

Nope, I have never seen a rainbow in a foggy weather.
You might see it from a distance where Sunlight envelops the fog, but not if you are covered by it.
I am not talking of some small weather pocket pal, I say the whole atmosphere was fog.
I also say the whole earth was a soft collection of mud and it was more marches than dry land we know today.
Therefore, no rainbow

 

[SA Huguenot]

And that effect is non-existence. Your theory is disproved.

Awww, come on.
You know well that if there was no c14, to start off with, and an animal lived in such an environment, and died, he would have no c14 in his system.
Such a bone will test in excess of 50 000 years because you are testing C14 / C13 ratios.
And as you yourself know, after about 6 halflife cycles, there will be no C14 left to find.
In both cases, a very old age will be tested.

if you do not know the above scientific facts, I suggest you sharpen up on it.
To say that such an effect is non existant, is a huge error.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Atheism is a religion, dawkins is your priest, and Marx your philosophy and darwin your god.

Yeah, atheism is a part of my religion, just like it is for Buddhists and Jains. But I do not know Dawkins, and I do not want communism in my country, As for Darwin, sure, he was a great researcher. I respect science.

My God explained 3 400 years ago .. .. we can not measure the cosmos, can we?

Now, that is sure an interesting God. I would like to know more about him. But you have not given references as to where he said that. That would have been more useful.

 

[Phaedrus]

1.I thought air had no matter to it.

Have you not paid attention in any science classes in school? I ask, because theists tend to be surprisingly ignorant of science despite having taken the classes throughout their education.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Complete fantasy.

For one, you have failed to explain away all the other types of radioactive dating. You seem to be unaware that the level of C14 is too small to have an effect on aging (the potassium in stone walls produces more radioactivity than C14).

Please give a reference for those C14/C13 ratios. It might be amusing to see how you misinterpreted the facts.

Shaacks pal, Carbon 14, along with potassium 40, accounts for almost all the natural radioactivity of our body.
However, C14 is absorbed into every cell in your body and over your lifetime ages you off.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Yeah, atheism is a part of my religion, just like it is for Buddhists and Jains. But I do not know Dawkins, and I do not want communism in my country, As for Darwin, sure, he was a great researcher. I respect science.
Now, that is sure an interesting God. I would like to know more about him. But you have not given references as to where he said that. That would have been more useful.

All in the Bible, but not here on this post now.
I might lateron open another.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Yeah, atheism is a part of my religion, just like it is for Buddhists and Jains. But I do not know Dawkins, and I do not want communism in my country, As for Darwin, sure, he was a great researcher. I respect science.
Now, that is sure an interesting God. I would like to know more about him. But you have not given references as to where he said that. That would have been more useful.

Tell you what.
You opened an opportunity for me to demonstrate what my God says about how he created everything.
I will work on a concise point for point description and will open a thread next week just for you.
it was due to these descriptions that I left the idea that I am an Atheist, and studied the Bible in depth discovering jesus Christ the Creator.
But dont let me sound as one who wants to make you a Christian.
It is only my point of view, and I embrace all critisizm against my belief.
No, I actually expect it.

 

[Phaedrus]

Tell you what.
it was due to these descriptions that I left the idea that I am an Atheist, and studied the Bible in depth discovering jesus Christ the Creator.

Ironically, most atheists make the claim that reading the bible was what made them atheist. Myself included. I read it critically, using the honed thinking skills I learned in school, and the end result was that the entire thing was a terrible work of fiction.

 

[Audie]

Ironically, most atheists make the claim that reading the bible was what made them atheist. Myself included. I read it critically, using the honed thinking skills I learned in school, and the end result was that the entire thing was a terrible work of fiction.

I never was a Christian, so when I read the bible I
did not much know what to expect.

Overall, my impression was along the lines of
good grief, what a weird and wildly overrated book.

As with the BOM, which I also read along with
"Joseph Smith Tells His Own Story" (available
from those fine young men who knock on the door)
I do not think it would be possible for anyone to
come to it cold, read it objectively, and then take it seriously.

 

[Shad]

If you lift your hand up and put it into the air.You will notice there is nothing inside of the air your hand is touching.

"Air" is actually something and a horrible definition to use. More so this ignores quantum reality. Other poster have referenced other things in the air that isn't actually what people consider air.

So how can everything come from nothing when talking about the milky way galaxy?

You are imposing and projecting your religious argument as creation ex-nihilo is that of religion not atheism.

 

[viole]

No, that is an Agnostic.
Atheists believe there is no God.
They have no evidence to prove otherwize, therefore they believe.
Atheism is a religion, dawkins is your priest, and Marx your philosophy and darwin your god.

Well, at least we have evidence that they existed.

Ciao

- viole