Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

[Sonofason]

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.

I will give you the same evidence that you gave me. see below


" "


oops, you neglected to show your evidence. Why ought I show mine?

 

[Polymath257]

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

it is easy enough to distinguish them.

 

[Sonofason]

*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.

And why is that?

 

[Jose Fly]

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.

What does any of that have to do with C-14 atoms being 4 times as dense less than 50,000 years ago?

 

[Polymath257]

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

You haven't torn *anything* to pieces. You have presented questions showing your complete lack of understanding and putting up a smoke screen.

Again, Rb/Sr, K/Ar, Uranium series.

 

[Sonofason]

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.

How do you know that the density of the universe has no affect on the decay rate of C-14? Please show your evidence.

 

[Polymath257]

And why is that?

As I said before, because no stars had been formed yet. The nuclear reactions of the first seconds only formed the lighter elements. The reason? The reaction cross sections of those nuclei compared to the expansion rate.

 

[Polymath257]

How do you know that the density of the universe has no affect on the decay rate of C-14? Please show your evidence.

I already did. Density doesn't affect the conditions at the nucleus. Radioactive decay is a nuclear process.

 

[Sonofason]

it is easy enough to distinguish them.

So then...if there is no evidence showing that the oceans existed prior to 200 million years ago, how is it that you have evidence of creatures that existed in oceans that did not even exist?

 

[Sonofason]

As I said before, because no stars had been formed yet. The nuclear reactions of the first seconds only formed the lighter elements. The reason? The reaction cross sections of those nuclei compared to the expansion rate.

Hmmm, do you not suppose that the density of the universe at that time would not have supported the existence of these heavier elements?

 

[Sonofason]

I already did. Density doesn't affect the conditions at the nucleus. Radioactive decay is a nuclear process.

What experiments are you referring to?

 

[Polymath257]

Hmmm, do you not suppose that the density of the universe at that time would not have supported the existence of these heavier elements?

Nope, not the reason. The heavier elements have to be built up. There are problems with anything above boron because B-8 is too unstable given the expansion rate. Density has nothing to do with it for something like C-14 (or any of the other nuclei used in dating).

 

[Polymath257]

Enough playing with the mindless for today.....take care everyone!

 

[Sonofason]

Nope, not the reason. The heavier elements have to be built up. There are problems with anything above boron because B-8 is too unstable given the expansion rate. Density has nothing to do with it for something like C-14 (or any of the other nuclei used in dating).

You claim it is not the reason. You claim the heavier elements have to built up...very scientific. Density has nothing to do with it, and you know this because?

 

[Jose Fly]

Sonofason,

Where is your data indicating that C-14 atoms were 4 times as dense at some point over the last 50,000 years?

 

[Sonofason]

What does any of that have to do with C-14 atoms being 4 times as dense less than 50,000 years ago?

I am simply showing that there exist factors in the decay rate of carbon-14 that have not been considered by scientists. If this is true, the results cannot be trusted. Nor could they be considered tested and verifiable.

 

[Sonofason]

Sonofason,

Where is your data indicating that C-14 atoms were 4 times as dense at some point over the last 50,000 years?

Where is your data indicating that it wasn't?

 

[Jose Fly]

I am simply showing that there exist factors in the decay rate of carbon-14 that have not been considered by scientists.

No, you've not shown anything of the sort. You've attempted to extrapolate a general observation about the universe into specific conditions of specific atoms at specific times, and then demanded that everyone else explain it away.

If this is true, the results cannot be trusted. Nor could they be considered tested and verifiable.

The key there being "if this is true". You've done absolutely nothing to establish C-14 atoms being 4 times as dense less than 50,000 years ago.

 

[Jose Fly]

Where is your data indicating that it wasn't?

Logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You are the one making the positive claim, i.e., that C-14 atoms were 4 times denser less than 50,000 years ago. Therefore, the burden of proof for that claim falls upon you.

 

[Sonofason]

No, you've not shown anything of the sort. You've attempted to extrapolate a general observation about the universe into specific conditions of specific atoms at specific times, and then demanded that everyone else explain it away.


The key there being "if this is true". You've done absolutely nothing to establish C-14 atoms being 4 times as dense less than 50,000 years ago.

I most certainly have explained it. Perhaps you weren't listening.
I am being told that the density of the universe has absolutely nothing at all to do with the decay rate of carbon. Yet, it is absolutely clear that under certain densities the carbon atom can't even exist at all. It is clear the universe is becoming less dense, and that would affect every element that exists in this universe. If you do not even acknowledge that density can affect the existence of carbon, how can you begin to understand that it may indeed affect the decay rate of C-14. Now, please show that the density of the universe does not affect decay rates of radiometric isotopes used in dating methods.