Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Polymath257]

Perhaps the fact that the continents all fit together, even along the pacific ocean, but only on a much smaller planet, and that there is no evidence of tectonic plate subduction. As the earth expanded, cracks formed in the earth's crust. These weak areas where the earth has cracks allowed mantle material to rise to the surface, filling those cracks. As the cracks widened, the oceans basins were formed. None of these ocean basins existed prior to 200 million years ago, and probably more recent than that, assuming that I am correct, and dating methods are flawed, all of the earths continental land masses were all interconnected. That could have only occurred on a much smaller planet, and that planet existed less than 200 million years ago.

We have extensive evidence of sea life from before 200 million years ago. ALL of the paleozoic was before that time. Every trilobite was before then, for example.

Sorry, your imagination doesn't fit the evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay then, what is the decay rate of carbon-14 when it is four times more dense than the carbon-14 we see today?

If you could put enough pressure on a C-14 atom to get it to 4 times the density it is today (good luck!), the rate of decay would hardly change at all. The decay comes from the nucleus. That won't be affected by the increased pressure, which would be absorbed by the electron orbitals.

Edited: of course, at such pressures, you would have just made diamonds.

 

[Jose Fly]

Okay then, what is the decay rate of carbon-14 when it is four times more dense than the carbon-14 we see today?

What do you mean "dense"? Do you mean four times more abundant in the atmosphere?

 

[Sonofason]

We have extensive evidence of sea life from before 200 million years ago. ALL of the paleozoic was before that time. Every trilobite was before then, for example.

Sorry, your imagination doesn't fit the evidence.

Are you suggesting that plastic forms in oceans, because I'm pretty sure there are a lot of plastic bottles floating about in the oceans.

 

[Polymath257]

Are you suggesting that a carbon atom can exist in a singularity? What is the decay rate of carbon in a singularity?

I said nothing at all about a singularity (by which I assume you mean a gravitational singularity--which would be lethal to life).

 

[Sonofason]

If you could put enough pressure on a C-14 atom to get it to 4 times the density it is today (good luck!), the rate of decay would hardly change at all. The decay comes from the nucleus. That won't be affected by the increased pressure, which would be absorbed by the electron orbitals.

Edited: of course, at such pressures, you would have just made diamonds.

do diamonds exist?

 

[Polymath257]

Are you suggesting that plastic forms in oceans, because I'm pretty sure there are a lot of plastic bottles floating about in the oceans.

Huh?????

 

[Polymath257]

do diamonds exist?

Yes, and the decay of the atoms inside of them isn't different than the atoms in any other situation.

Again, carbon dating isn't relevant *at all* for over about 50,000 years. Why is it even an issue?

 

[Sonofason]

What do you mean "dense"? Do you mean four times more abundant in the atmosphere?

The density of the universe is not as it was prior to the Big Bang. You must know that the density of the universe, therefore everything in it is decreasing. This likely accounts for the decrease in the earth's density which has been causing the earth to expand in size. If the universe is currently expanding, then the density of everything in the universe is decreasing along with it. It has to be. If the universe is decreasing it's density, it is likely true that the earth's density is also decreasing, as well the density of every single element that exists within this universe.

 

[Sonofason]

The density of the universe is not as it was prior to the Big Bang. You must know that the density of the universe, therefore everything in it is decreasing. This likely accounts for the decrease in the earth's density which has been causing the earth to expand in size. If the universe is currently expanding, then the density of everything in the universe is decreasing along with it. It has to be. If the universe is decreasing it's density, it is likely true that the earth's density is also decreasing, as well the density of every single element that exists within this universe.

So again I ask what was the decay rate of carbon-14 200 million years ago when the density of carbon was 4 times greater than it is today?

 

[Sonofason]

I said nothing at all about a singularity (by which I assume you mean a gravitational singularity--which would be lethal to life).

Okay, I agree...Carbon 14 could not have existed prior to the Big Bang. The density of the universe was too great to support the existence of carbon. When did C-14 first form then? And what was it's density and decay rate at that time. And what is the density and decay rate of the C-14 today. What is your standard of measurement based on? When will the density of the universe be too weak to support the existence of carbon?

 

[Sonofason]

Huh?????

Simple question really...how do things get into the ocean. Must all that is found in the ocean be considered to have originated in the ocean?

 

[Sonofason]

Yes, and the decay of the atoms inside of them isn't different than the atoms in any other situation.

Again, carbon dating isn't relevant *at all* for over about 50,000 years. Why is it even an issue?

Then tell me please what is relevant over 50,000 years. Lets tear that to pieces as well.

 

[Polymath257]

The density of the universe is not as it was prior to the Big Bang. You must know that the density of the universe, therefore everything in it is decreasing. This likely accounts for the decrease in the earth's density which has been causing the earth to expand in size. If the universe is currently expanding, then the density of everything in the universe is decreasing along with it. It has to be. If the universe is decreasing it's density, it is likely true that the earth's density is also decreasing, as well the density of every single element that exists within this universe.

u

Wow. You really don't understand anything that you are saying, do you?

The in the density of the universe would not change the density of the individual atoms, nor of anything the size of a galaxy, let alone something as small as a planet.

 

[Polymath257]

Simple question really...how do things get into the ocean. Must all that is found in the ocean be considered to have originated in the ocean?

No, but given that fish, trilobites, crinoids, etc, are *sea* creatures, they didn't come from the land, but *were* in the ocean.

 

[Polymath257]

So again I ask what was the decay rate of carbon-14 200 million years ago when the density of carbon was 4 times greater than it is today?

Give evidence that the density of C-14 was 4 times greater than today. Then show how that is relevant to the dating for that time period.

 

[Sonofason]

u

Wow. You really don't understand anything that you are saying, do you?

The in the density of the universe would not change the density of the individual atoms, nor of anything the size of a galaxy, let alone something as small as a planet.

Okay how many Carbon atoms existed at t = 0.0000004 seconds in the timeline of the existence of the universe?

 

[Sonofason]

No, but given that fish, trilobites, crinoids, etc, are *sea* creatures, they didn't come from the land, but *were* in the ocean.

So there are no "sea creatures" like fish that exist in lakes and other land based bodies of water?

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, I agree...Carbon 14 could not have existed prior to the Big Bang. The density of the universe was too great to support the existence of carbon. When did C-14 first form then? And what was it's density and decay rate at that time. And what is the density and decay rate of the C-14 today. What is your standard of measurement based on? When will the density of the universe be too weak to support the existence of carbon?

You have a slight problem with timing here. The Big Bang was 3 times as far back in the past as the formation of the Earth.

To answer your question: the first C-14 would have been formed in the first generation of stars when they started their carbon cycle. Once the stars exploded, the C-14 that was htere would have been dispersed, but the decay rate would have been the same as now. Again, density has no affect of decay rate. Also, the decay rate of C-14 is only relevant for the last 50,000 years.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay how many Carbon atoms existed at t = 0.0000004 seconds in the timeline of the existence of the universe?

*sigh* keep asking irrelevant question, why don't you?

The answer is none. Nuclei of the size of C-14 didn't form until there were stars.