@TheScienceFoundation That's the theory, but the whole point of this video is to explain that the parent products are missing entirely in the actual diamonds! Univ of California confirms it. You won't be taught this, but dino bones all have C-14 too. All of them do. Why? This world is young.
How does getting cancer like my brother did with the Urologist messing up the diagnosis and lying to cover his posterior (so that he doesn't lose his license again) a choice on my brother's part?
How was it my brother's choices that gave him barely two years, the last one in awful pain and his last day spent alone, terrified and in horrific pain.
This was a guy who financed the purchase of the homes of three siblings at NO INTEREST, Not even a fee.
@hopeso Your brother was a great guy. I don't know any more than you've told me, but I know that suffering is intricately tied up in the training of God. Some choose to struggle through it with God and learn great lessons. Others choose to blame God and grow bitter, but it's always there for a reason. Almost every character in scripture suffered, especially Jesus. As for me, I was "raised" by three drunkards. This life is temporary; go to the scripture and try to see it from God's perspective.
@hopeso OK, so, you have no serious questions. Well, I think he did, because he began as an adult with the appearance of age. The issue is not addressed. As for God, he is a spirit, not a physical creature, but during the times he visited earth, I suppose he did. Were you to meet God almighty at judgment day is this the question you plan to ask? So, thanks for visiting, no more questions please!
@alyosha24601 It says in the Bible that man was created in the image and likeness of god. That would include a bellybutton a penis and an anus. What does god need these things for?
Also, god could have done anything he wanted and he chose to create horrific pain and suffering and disease. What kind of psychopath would chose to do this kind of thing?
You opted to engage me. You don't have to answer.
@hopeso God is a spirit. The parts of us made in God's image are our souls, our spirits. As for suffering, if you are willing to see these things from God's perspective, things look differently. He wants to use our time on this planet to draw those humans to himself who will choose him, not because he is God, but because his character is what we want. He has asked man to eschew evil, and instead we've embraced it. This is where the mess came from, but he has a plan to make it work for good.
@alyosha24601 Image refers to that which can be seen. IMAGE.
Willing to see things from god's PERSPECTIVE? You suggest that I try to do that when the Bible says that god is unknowable? How in the name of reason can you expect such a thing from any frail human?
God's character is what we want? A god who created creatures subject to cruel and unspeakable suffering? A god who demands that we worship him or ELSE? That unless we do so we will burn with horrific pain for eternity? Are you mad?
@hopeso Well, I'll just try to point out what I can:The Bible does not depict God as unknowable, that is the Qu'ran you're talking about. Two different Gods. // You are blaming God for what HE considers the results of our own choices. In blaming him, you are attempting to do two things: 1) Declare that your creator is evil while you, in contrast, are good and therefore by extension excuse your own conscience, and 2) Keep him at a distance. / So, you are just not ready to learn anything from him
@alyosha24601 And Paul can say ‘how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out’ (Romans 11.33). So God is the great Unknowable and the All-wise One, so that Paul can add ‘for who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has been His counsellor?’ (Romans 11.34). As Deuteronomy tells us, ‘the secret things belong to the Lord our God’ (Deuteronomy 29.29).
The Psalmist declares ‘Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, His greatness is unsearchable’ (Psalm 145.3). For He ‘does great things and unsearchable’ (Job 5.9) which are ‘past finding out, yes, marvelous things without number (Job 9.10).
Go to, holoscience(*)com and get a radical perspective as to the forces driving the Universe. It's NOT gravity, a very WEAK force, but vast, electrical currents spanning light years. Stars are not nuclear furnaces but electrical nodes. Planets, when they get near enough, discharge their excess electrons in massive lighting bolts. This is how the scar on Mars called, Valles Marineris was formed. That geologic marvel has none of the typical features of erosion. Where did the silt go?
@hopeso I'll try to respond to these excellent points: Current cosmology tells us that the universe is finite both in time and in volume. It began 13.7 billion years ago at the big bang but before that there was neither mass, energy, time, nor volume. Everything literally began from nothing. Don't get the idea that science has a viable theory on origins. Past the creation moment BOTH scientists and the religious have only a religious answer, because it is a violation of the first law of (cont)
Yes, the "Big Bang" is just religion in disguise. A scientific expression of Genesis, if you will. There's NO proof that the Big Bang ever happened. New discoveries, such as, the laws of physics are different depending on where and when you are, reinforces this view.
I also don't believe that time exists. We are born or conceived, (big bang) we live, (time) we die, (contraction, or collapse)
@hopeso I have a different take on the Big Bang-it's mentioned several times right in scripture! Isaiah, Psalms, and Jeremiah all mention God "stretching out the heavens" - a perfect, poetic explanation of the expansion of the universe made millenia before anyone knew about it. But it's clear that the earth is young. The problem is our understanding of time. Time changes with varying velocity and mass. God is indeed unknowable, but that's why he gave us the Bible. If you have questions, I'm here
@alyosha24601 Ah, the expanding universe. Most of those proposing such theories seem to have derived them, from the Bible. That doesn't make either view correct. Recent discoveries have found that some regions of space CLOSER to us, are actually OLDER than regions further distant. Also, the expansion is accelerating, not slowing down. This reinforces the theories of the holoscience guys.
@alyosha24601 Well, I don't know if god gave us anything. There were dozens of churches that sprang up after the man they called Jesus was murdered. They all had competing views on the man and his story. The Council of Nicea consolidated the story of Jesus the man, into a unified narrative. I have read that Jesus believed in reincarnation.
Plus, with the Bible going through several translations, all of them containing apparent errors and contradictions, how can anyone be sure of the truth?
@hopeso You've been reading criticism written by the enemies of the Bible. I can add a lot more if you want it! If you'd like to hear what the Bible actually says however, just ask. I have a Masters in Old Testament and have been studying it for 40 years. It has a unified message, a mathematical structure, hidden messages under the text, fulfilled prophecies. It has narrative, poetry, wisdom literature, histories, prophecies, law. It answers all the big picture questions of life. Ask away!
@alyosha24601 Fine. First there was Adam and EVE. They begat Cain and Able. Cain killed Able. Where did the rest of humanity come from? Did Adam and Eve have daughters and more sons so that they could incestuously begat more children? Science says that this interbreeding can't go on for long, horrible, genetic mutations result and the offspring cannot survive.
Criticizing flaws in books like the Bible, the Koran and the Talmud, by scholars, doesn't mean you're an enemy of anything.
@hopeso (cont from below) thermodynamics for a universe to pop out from nothing. The inflation period is a violation of relativity. The point is: science has no answer, and the universe is NOT infinite. It is mathematically impossible to cross an infinite distance, therefore this statement is incorrect: "the UNIVERSE always was and always will be."I believe it is logically more consistent to credit the universe to a creator outside time than to magic, since effects ordinarily follow causes: God.
@Matismatt But, I like comments. I am waiting for someone to explain to me how measurable C-14 can be found in a diamond matrix, then turn around and say that those diamonds are "millions of years old". The truth about the earth is very different than what we are taught in school.
@alyosha24601 Алёша! I am afraid that any attempt to present you with scientific knowledge of the last century or so, will miserably fail to move you away from the old bias ideas influenced and sponsored by people with complete lack of logic.
@Matismatt Perhaps I am biased with no logic, but here what I foolishly thought: The U of CA has verified that C-14 exists in measurable quantities in diamond matrices. New Carbon cannot "seep" into such matrices. Since C-14 has a half life of 5730 years, these diamonds must be younger than 50,000 years. Oddly enough, He and C-14 have not yet even come to equilibrium in the atmosphere - they are increasing. I thus conclude the earth is young. I have 50 other reasons too; I guess I'm just stupid
@alyosha24601 Study that you are referring to, as far as I know, were not conducted through scientific method, did not go through peers review, started with a bias premise, and I doubt were published. Assumption that C-14 is in the diamonds does not support validity of bible. As for why people will prefer to rate your video instead of explaining- it is because we don't want to deal with "magic" and delusions. Tell me the bible is true, and we are done!
@Matismatt This discovery was made by creation scientists, verified at the University of California, then ignored. It is indeed a published peer reviewed paper. Does this prove the Bible? No. Does it prove the earth is young?Yes, if you do not insist on a naturalistic presupposition. As for the Bible, its unique mathematics, internal consistency (over 2000 years), hidden messages revealed by computer, and especially - hundreds of exacting fulfilled prophecies speak for it. Greetings from Canada!
this is all because creation "science" websites do not allow any real science.
they allow only science that conforms to their presupposed notion that the bible is a historical account,and that the earth is 6-10,000 years old,and that there was a world wide flood.
anything that does not fit into that,will be discarded.
the statement of faith says that the bible comes first,and evidence comes second,and cannot contradict the bible in any way shape or form,or it will be discarded.
Of course C-14 is found in diamonds, coal, graphite, etc. Anything with carbon has a chance of having C-14 including us. How does having C-14 in diamonds support creationism?
@xanshriekal Because C-14 is unstable. Fully half of it deteriorates into Nitrogen-14 every 5730 years. The existence of C-14 in the actual matrix of diamonds is proof that the diamonds are relatively young - not "millions of years". This, and several other scientific facts, prove that the "billions of years old" nonsense we are being fed in schools is bogus. If you would like to hear more, just let me know. This is not the only problem with the conventional wisdom by any means.
@alyosha24601 You assume that those diamonds are also billions of years old, and you assume that a large quantity of C-14 exists in a diamond at any given time and you assume that diamond is so stable that carbon cannot diffuse in and out of it under the conditions of intense heat and pressure. Diamonds aren't so stable as to be immutable and they aren't so old that they can't still have small amounts of C-14 in them. And anyways, just because diamonds are young doesn't mean the earth is.
@xanshriekal C-14 dating places a minimum age limit on the diamond saying that it must be at least a certain number of years old, not a maximum. Also, since the half-life of C-14 is, as you keep reminding up, 5730 years, half of the carbon in the diamond would be C-14. Since diamonds are not noticeably radioactive, they must have gone through many half-lives between then and now. So a diamond that is 1/256 C-14 is at least 45,840 years old and most diamonds have much less C-14 than that.
@xanshriekal No, C-14 exists in trace amounts now, It is produced in the atmosphere from Nitrogen. It cannot have ever been in high amounts, unless the sun was incredibly different. The half-life does not yield a maximum or minimum, but a specific date. Diamonds are from deep underground and are found in layers geologists date as "billions of years old". Yet they cannot be older than a few thousand years.
@alyosha24601 I didn't say that large amounts of C-14 existed at any given time. I said that you assumed that diamonds contained a large amount. Your claim is that diamonds are young because they contain C-14 (and therefore, somehow, the earth is young, still not sure how you made that leap). But the less C-14 they have the longer they have been around. In order for your claim of young diamonds to be true, they would have to contain relatively large amounts of C-14.
@xanshriekal I know this is frightening but try to follow: You have made a scientific error. C-14 occurs in only trace amounts on earth, about 1/trillion. Secondly, diamonds are so stable the original carbon cannot exchange out. If diamonds are this young, yes, it means the earth is young. But it's not the only item: c-14 and Helium are STILL not in equilibrium in the atmosphere. The moon has an impossible orbit. The sun's size, sea salt, C-14 in dinosaur specimens, there are many evidences!
@alyosha24601 Diamonds are NOT thermodynamically stable. Over time, diamonds will decay into graphite because the aromatic rings in graphite are more stable than the cyclohexane rings in diamond. The process takes a long time because of the kinetics, but this instability can allow for diffusion (which causes colored diamonds). Additionally, did you know that diamonds will burn above 800 degress C? How can they do that if they are so stable?
@xanshriekal Over time? 50,000 years is a practical max for C-14. Are you saying the geologists are wrong about the age of diamonds? Because if so, that's what I say too! But your argument works both ways, if this exchange is occurring the C-14 is being replaced by C-12 as well. Besides, there shouldn't be C-14 underground, it comes from the upper atmosphere. Let me encourage you to lay down your old earth ideas for just a month and visit the creation websites without a filter. Give it a chance.
@alyosha24601 Perhaps it might help if I say that I began looking at things from a creationist perspective and over time moved to science. As for the age of diamonds, I say that any diamonds that do have C-14 have an incredibly small amount of it around and that does not surprise me nor does it provide compelling evidence for a young earth (certainly not one that is only 6000 years old). With that said, I believe our conversation is over.
@FractalMachine Look, I used to believe in Evolution/Old Earth too until a Chemist set me straight by pointing out that the reaction rates run BOTH ways. In that moment I was shaking & sweating. I know it's hard to absorb but just look at the science. It's not only diamonds, it's C14 in coal, sea-salt accumulation, He and C-14 in the atmosphere (not yet! in equilibium!) decay of earth's magnetic field. If you want to look into the science of it, you'll find a lot.Every dino fossil even has C-14!
Respond to this video... Vardiman, L. 2008. Diamonds May Be a Creationist's Best Friend. Acts & Facts. 37 (6): 6. This quotes the RATE group (Creation Scientists) that made the discovery. And, from Univ of Calif. the verifying paper: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms
Volume 259, Issue 1, June 2007, Pages 282-287. Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds
"Science does not use ''belief'." Ha ha ha ha ha !!! Funny! Really funny! Is that why scientists say the universe come from "nothing"? What kind of science is that?
"It was accepted 150 years ago." That's the problem. The evolution religion came out of a time when we knew nothing of the staggering complexity of life. "Evolution" is really just spontaneous generation. It's nonsense. Life is mindbogglingly complex. Where did the information come from?
Not from Uranium. I'm talking about C-14 embedded within the matrix of diamonds. Evolution is not a science, it is a "scientism". A BELIEF, based on a sacrosanct worldview, that uses scientific language but rejects the results of actual science. Evolution is still rejected today by many scientists, mostly because what we actually OBSERVE is DNA degradation, 100% discrete taxonomy, and extinctions. Evolution's support comes from a presuppositional definition. Just look into the forbidden science!
I see you haven't attempted to refute anything! Folks usually don't. The facts cannot be changed, but they sure are ignored - and there are an awful lot of scientific facts out there that don't fit the model we're being conned with. Trouble is, in schools no one is allowed to hear facts that don't fit "evolution". Why? Because evolution is basically a religious belief - it is not based on science at all. If it was, debate about it would be casually accepted.
14C is only found in diamonds adjacent to Uranium-Thorium series, new 14C is produced by surrounding radiation.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
@TheScienceFoundation That's the theory, but the whole point of this video is to explain that the parent products are missing entirely in the actual diamonds! Univ of California confirms it. You won't be taught this, but dino bones all have C-14 too. All of them do. Why? This world is young.
alyosha24601 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alyosha24601 That's because this 14C is produced by radiation, not neutron absorption.
'You won't be taught this, but dino bones all have C-14 too'
You won't be taught it because it's not even remotely true.
TheScienceFoundation 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@alyosha24601 I still want a source on all dino bones having 14C
TheAggressionScale 1 week ago
How does getting cancer like my brother did with the Urologist messing up the diagnosis and lying to cover his posterior (so that he doesn't lose his license again) a choice on my brother's part?
How was it my brother's choices that gave him barely two years, the last one in awful pain and his last day spent alone, terrified and in horrific pain.
This was a guy who financed the purchase of the homes of three siblings at NO INTEREST, Not even a fee.
Doesn't the bible forbid usury?
hopeso 3 months ago
@hopeso Your brother was a great guy. I don't know any more than you've told me, but I know that suffering is intricately tied up in the training of God. Some choose to struggle through it with God and learn great lessons. Others choose to blame God and grow bitter, but it's always there for a reason. Almost every character in scripture suffered, especially Jesus. As for me, I was "raised" by three drunkards. This life is temporary; go to the scripture and try to see it from God's perspective.
alyosha24601 3 weeks ago
Did Adam have a belly button? Does god?
hopeso 3 months ago
@hopeso OK, so, you have no serious questions. Well, I think he did, because he began as an adult with the appearance of age. The issue is not addressed. As for God, he is a spirit, not a physical creature, but during the times he visited earth, I suppose he did. Were you to meet God almighty at judgment day is this the question you plan to ask? So, thanks for visiting, no more questions please!
alyosha24601 3 months ago
@alyosha24601 It says in the Bible that man was created in the image and likeness of god. That would include a bellybutton a penis and an anus. What does god need these things for?
Also, god could have done anything he wanted and he chose to create horrific pain and suffering and disease. What kind of psychopath would chose to do this kind of thing?
You opted to engage me. You don't have to answer.
hopeso 3 months ago
@hopeso God is a spirit. The parts of us made in God's image are our souls, our spirits. As for suffering, if you are willing to see these things from God's perspective, things look differently. He wants to use our time on this planet to draw those humans to himself who will choose him, not because he is God, but because his character is what we want. He has asked man to eschew evil, and instead we've embraced it. This is where the mess came from, but he has a plan to make it work for good.
alyosha24601 3 months ago
@alyosha24601 Image refers to that which can be seen. IMAGE.
Willing to see things from god's PERSPECTIVE? You suggest that I try to do that when the Bible says that god is unknowable? How in the name of reason can you expect such a thing from any frail human?
God's character is what we want? A god who created creatures subject to cruel and unspeakable suffering? A god who demands that we worship him or ELSE? That unless we do so we will burn with horrific pain for eternity? Are you mad?
hopeso 3 months ago
@hopeso Well, I'll just try to point out what I can:The Bible does not depict God as unknowable, that is the Qu'ran you're talking about. Two different Gods. // You are blaming God for what HE considers the results of our own choices. In blaming him, you are attempting to do two things: 1) Declare that your creator is evil while you, in contrast, are good and therefore by extension excuse your own conscience, and 2) Keep him at a distance. / So, you are just not ready to learn anything from him
alyosha24601 3 months ago
@alyosha24601 And Paul can say ‘how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out’ (Romans 11.33). So God is the great Unknowable and the All-wise One, so that Paul can add ‘for who has known the mind of the Lord, and who has been His counsellor?’ (Romans 11.34). As Deuteronomy tells us, ‘the secret things belong to the Lord our God’ (Deuteronomy 29.29).
hopeso 3 months ago
@alyosha24601 Yes it does.
The Psalmist declares ‘Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, His greatness is unsearchable’ (Psalm 145.3). For He ‘does great things and unsearchable’ (Job 5.9) which are ‘past finding out, yes, marvelous things without number (Job 9.10).
hopeso 3 months ago
Go to, holoscience(*)com and get a radical perspective as to the forces driving the Universe. It's NOT gravity, a very WEAK force, but vast, electrical currents spanning light years. Stars are not nuclear furnaces but electrical nodes. Planets, when they get near enough, discharge their excess electrons in massive lighting bolts. This is how the scar on Mars called, Valles Marineris was formed. That geologic marvel has none of the typical features of erosion. Where did the silt go?
hopeso 3 months ago
@hopeso I'm going to bed now but I will have a look! Thanks!
alyosha24601 3 months ago
You may be right about a much younger earth than current scientific dogma insists.
However,
That doesn't prove anything about some deity creating the earth or universe or any such nonsense.
Ask a religionist, where did this deity, called god come from, and the stock answer is that this deity, always was and always will be.
Ask where did we and the universe come from and the religionist answer is, the deity made it all.
I say, the UNIVERSE always was and always will be.
hopeso 3 months ago
@hopeso I'll try to respond to these excellent points: Current cosmology tells us that the universe is finite both in time and in volume. It began 13.7 billion years ago at the big bang but before that there was neither mass, energy, time, nor volume. Everything literally began from nothing. Don't get the idea that science has a viable theory on origins. Past the creation moment BOTH scientists and the religious have only a religious answer, because it is a violation of the first law of (cont)
alyosha24601 3 months ago
@alyosha24601
Yes, the "Big Bang" is just religion in disguise. A scientific expression of Genesis, if you will. There's NO proof that the Big Bang ever happened. New discoveries, such as, the laws of physics are different depending on where and when you are, reinforces this view.
I also don't believe that time exists. We are born or conceived, (big bang) we live, (time) we die, (contraction, or collapse)
It is said that god is unknowable.
The same could be said for the Universe.
hopeso 3 months ago
@hopeso I have a different take on the Big Bang-it's mentioned several times right in scripture! Isaiah, Psalms, and Jeremiah all mention God "stretching out the heavens" - a perfect, poetic explanation of the expansion of the universe made millenia before anyone knew about it. But it's clear that the earth is young. The problem is our understanding of time. Time changes with varying velocity and mass. God is indeed unknowable, but that's why he gave us the Bible. If you have questions, I'm here
alyosha24601 3 months ago
@alyosha24601 Ah, the expanding universe. Most of those proposing such theories seem to have derived them, from the Bible. That doesn't make either view correct. Recent discoveries have found that some regions of space CLOSER to us, are actually OLDER than regions further distant. Also, the expansion is accelerating, not slowing down. This reinforces the theories of the holoscience guys.
hopeso 3 months ago
@alyosha24601 Well, I don't know if god gave us anything. There were dozens of churches that sprang up after the man they called Jesus was murdered. They all had competing views on the man and his story. The Council of Nicea consolidated the story of Jesus the man, into a unified narrative. I have read that Jesus believed in reincarnation.
Plus, with the Bible going through several translations, all of them containing apparent errors and contradictions, how can anyone be sure of the truth?
hopeso 3 months ago
@hopeso You've been reading criticism written by the enemies of the Bible. I can add a lot more if you want it! If you'd like to hear what the Bible actually says however, just ask. I have a Masters in Old Testament and have been studying it for 40 years. It has a unified message, a mathematical structure, hidden messages under the text, fulfilled prophecies. It has narrative, poetry, wisdom literature, histories, prophecies, law. It answers all the big picture questions of life. Ask away!
alyosha24601 3 months ago
@alyosha24601 Fine. First there was Adam and EVE. They begat Cain and Able. Cain killed Able. Where did the rest of humanity come from? Did Adam and Eve have daughters and more sons so that they could incestuously begat more children? Science says that this interbreeding can't go on for long, horrible, genetic mutations result and the offspring cannot survive.
Criticizing flaws in books like the Bible, the Koran and the Talmud, by scholars, doesn't mean you're an enemy of anything.
.
hopeso 3 months ago
@hopeso (cont from below) thermodynamics for a universe to pop out from nothing. The inflation period is a violation of relativity. The point is: science has no answer, and the universe is NOT infinite. It is mathematically impossible to cross an infinite distance, therefore this statement is incorrect: "the UNIVERSE always was and always will be."I believe it is logically more consistent to credit the universe to a creator outside time than to magic, since effects ordinarily follow causes: God.
alyosha24601 3 months ago
Comment removed
hopeso 3 months ago
Author! You forgot to turn off ratings and comments!
Matismatt 4 months ago
@Matismatt But, I like comments. I am waiting for someone to explain to me how measurable C-14 can be found in a diamond matrix, then turn around and say that those diamonds are "millions of years old". The truth about the earth is very different than what we are taught in school.
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 Алёша! I am afraid that any attempt to present you with scientific knowledge of the last century or so, will miserably fail to move you away from the old bias ideas influenced and sponsored by people with complete lack of logic.
Matismatt 4 months ago
@Matismatt Perhaps I am biased with no logic, but here what I foolishly thought: The U of CA has verified that C-14 exists in measurable quantities in diamond matrices. New Carbon cannot "seep" into such matrices. Since C-14 has a half life of 5730 years, these diamonds must be younger than 50,000 years. Oddly enough, He and C-14 have not yet even come to equilibrium in the atmosphere - they are increasing. I thus conclude the earth is young. I have 50 other reasons too; I guess I'm just stupid
alyosha24601 4 months ago
@alyosha24601 Study that you are referring to, as far as I know, were not conducted through scientific method, did not go through peers review, started with a bias premise, and I doubt were published. Assumption that C-14 is in the diamonds does not support validity of bible. As for why people will prefer to rate your video instead of explaining- it is because we don't want to deal with "magic" and delusions. Tell me the bible is true, and we are done!
Matismatt 3 months ago
@Matismatt This discovery was made by creation scientists, verified at the University of California, then ignored. It is indeed a published peer reviewed paper. Does this prove the Bible? No. Does it prove the earth is young?Yes, if you do not insist on a naturalistic presupposition. As for the Bible, its unique mathematics, internal consistency (over 2000 years), hidden messages revealed by computer, and especially - hundreds of exacting fulfilled prophecies speak for it. Greetings from Canada!
alyosha24601 3 months ago
@Matismatt :-)
Matismatt 3 months ago
......fuck..
SwedishSausageCream 4 months ago
this is all because creation "science" websites do not allow any real science.
they allow only science that conforms to their presupposed notion that the bible is a historical account,and that the earth is 6-10,000 years old,and that there was a world wide flood.
anything that does not fit into that,will be discarded.
the statement of faith says that the bible comes first,and evidence comes second,and cannot contradict the bible in any way shape or form,or it will be discarded.
FractalMachine 5 months ago
Of course C-14 is found in diamonds, coal, graphite, etc. Anything with carbon has a chance of having C-14 including us. How does having C-14 in diamonds support creationism?
xanshriekal 5 months ago
@xanshriekal Because C-14 is unstable. Fully half of it deteriorates into Nitrogen-14 every 5730 years. The existence of C-14 in the actual matrix of diamonds is proof that the diamonds are relatively young - not "millions of years". This, and several other scientific facts, prove that the "billions of years old" nonsense we are being fed in schools is bogus. If you would like to hear more, just let me know. This is not the only problem with the conventional wisdom by any means.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 You assume that those diamonds are also billions of years old, and you assume that a large quantity of C-14 exists in a diamond at any given time and you assume that diamond is so stable that carbon cannot diffuse in and out of it under the conditions of intense heat and pressure. Diamonds aren't so stable as to be immutable and they aren't so old that they can't still have small amounts of C-14 in them. And anyways, just because diamonds are young doesn't mean the earth is.
xanshriekal 5 months ago
@xanshriekal C-14 dating places a minimum age limit on the diamond saying that it must be at least a certain number of years old, not a maximum. Also, since the half-life of C-14 is, as you keep reminding up, 5730 years, half of the carbon in the diamond would be C-14. Since diamonds are not noticeably radioactive, they must have gone through many half-lives between then and now. So a diamond that is 1/256 C-14 is at least 45,840 years old and most diamonds have much less C-14 than that.
xanshriekal 5 months ago
@xanshriekal No, C-14 exists in trace amounts now, It is produced in the atmosphere from Nitrogen. It cannot have ever been in high amounts, unless the sun was incredibly different. The half-life does not yield a maximum or minimum, but a specific date. Diamonds are from deep underground and are found in layers geologists date as "billions of years old". Yet they cannot be older than a few thousand years.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 I didn't say that large amounts of C-14 existed at any given time. I said that you assumed that diamonds contained a large amount. Your claim is that diamonds are young because they contain C-14 (and therefore, somehow, the earth is young, still not sure how you made that leap). But the less C-14 they have the longer they have been around. In order for your claim of young diamonds to be true, they would have to contain relatively large amounts of C-14.
xanshriekal 5 months ago
@xanshriekal I know this is frightening but try to follow: You have made a scientific error. C-14 occurs in only trace amounts on earth, about 1/trillion. Secondly, diamonds are so stable the original carbon cannot exchange out. If diamonds are this young, yes, it means the earth is young. But it's not the only item: c-14 and Helium are STILL not in equilibrium in the atmosphere. The moon has an impossible orbit. The sun's size, sea salt, C-14 in dinosaur specimens, there are many evidences!
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 Diamonds are NOT thermodynamically stable. Over time, diamonds will decay into graphite because the aromatic rings in graphite are more stable than the cyclohexane rings in diamond. The process takes a long time because of the kinetics, but this instability can allow for diffusion (which causes colored diamonds). Additionally, did you know that diamonds will burn above 800 degress C? How can they do that if they are so stable?
xanshriekal 5 months ago
@xanshriekal Over time? 50,000 years is a practical max for C-14. Are you saying the geologists are wrong about the age of diamonds? Because if so, that's what I say too! But your argument works both ways, if this exchange is occurring the C-14 is being replaced by C-12 as well. Besides, there shouldn't be C-14 underground, it comes from the upper atmosphere. Let me encourage you to lay down your old earth ideas for just a month and visit the creation websites without a filter. Give it a chance.
alyosha24601 5 months ago
@alyosha24601 Perhaps it might help if I say that I began looking at things from a creationist perspective and over time moved to science. As for the age of diamonds, I say that any diamonds that do have C-14 have an incredibly small amount of it around and that does not surprise me nor does it provide compelling evidence for a young earth (certainly not one that is only 6000 years old). With that said, I believe our conversation is over.
xanshriekal 5 months ago
@xanshriekal See some of my other creation videos if you're interested in other topics. Bye
alyosha24601 5 months ago
please cite where you got this from that carbon 14 was found in diamonds otherwise this is just a dishonest lie for jesus.
jesus doesn't need you to lie for his ass,and didn't he also command you not to?
FractalMachine 5 months ago
@FractalMachine Look, I used to believe in Evolution/Old Earth too until a Chemist set me straight by pointing out that the reaction rates run BOTH ways. In that moment I was shaking & sweating. I know it's hard to absorb but just look at the science. It's not only diamonds, it's C14 in coal, sea-salt accumulation, He and C-14 in the atmosphere (not yet! in equilibium!) decay of earth's magnetic field. If you want to look into the science of it, you'll find a lot.Every dino fossil even has C-14!
alyosha24601 5 months ago
Respond to this video... Vardiman, L. 2008. Diamonds May Be a Creationist's Best Friend. Acts & Facts. 37 (6): 6. This quotes the RATE group (Creation Scientists) that made the discovery. And, from Univ of Calif. the verifying paper: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms
Volume 259, Issue 1, June 2007, Pages 282-287. Use of natural diamonds to monitor 14C AMS instrument backgrounds
R.E. Taylor, , , John Southon
alyosha24601 5 months ago
"Science does not use ''belief'." Ha ha ha ha ha !!! Funny! Really funny! Is that why scientists say the universe come from "nothing"? What kind of science is that?
"It was accepted 150 years ago." That's the problem. The evolution religion came out of a time when we knew nothing of the staggering complexity of life. "Evolution" is really just spontaneous generation. It's nonsense. Life is mindbogglingly complex. Where did the information come from?
alyosha24601 5 months ago
Not from Uranium. I'm talking about C-14 embedded within the matrix of diamonds. Evolution is not a science, it is a "scientism". A BELIEF, based on a sacrosanct worldview, that uses scientific language but rejects the results of actual science. Evolution is still rejected today by many scientists, mostly because what we actually OBSERVE is DNA degradation, 100% discrete taxonomy, and extinctions. Evolution's support comes from a presuppositional definition. Just look into the forbidden science!
alyosha24601 6 months ago
The radiation comes from Uranium in the ground.
Evolution is Biology, a science. Science does not use ''belief'.
It was accepted 150 years ago.
gregrutz 6 months ago
I see you haven't attempted to refute anything! Folks usually don't. The facts cannot be changed, but they sure are ignored - and there are an awful lot of scientific facts out there that don't fit the model we're being conned with. Trouble is, in schools no one is allowed to hear facts that don't fit "evolution". Why? Because evolution is basically a religious belief - it is not based on science at all. If it was, debate about it would be casually accepted.
alyosha24601 7 months ago
Oh geesh...
SkepticalAaron 7 months ago