LDS Freedom Forum

justme wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 9:00 am Quick question. Is oil and other fossil fuels really fossils? If so how old are they? If all fossils are only around 5000 years old does that mean oil is also? If so why doesn't it contain carbon 14 since the half life is around 5000 years old?

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 9:17 am

justme wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 9:00 am Quick question. Is oil and other fossil fuels really fossils? If so how old are they? If all fossils are only around 5000 years old does that mean oil is also? If so why doesn't it contain carbon 14 since the half life is around 5000 years old?

I personally think that at a bare minimum you can date everything on earth from about 13,000 years ago going forward and that is a bare minimum since we have no idea what the real timeline is. Radiocarbon dating (my opinion again) is worthless due to too many factors that could and do impact it, it's unreliable and not a good basis for figuring out what God did nor when He did it. Not really being able to figure out what the atmosphere was like is one of the monumental challenges to the radiocarbon dating theory and all the work that has been done to figure that out and the results of it I question greatly. Way too many holes, again, to say with certainty "this happened then" instead of "we think this may have happened then." The arrogance of the belief in radiocarbon dating is truly bothersome, it is a religion in itself.

Alaris wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 1:51 pm

Rand wrote: ↑May 2nd, 2019, 1:41 pm

justme wrote: ↑May 1st, 2019, 2:00 pm Cheetos, please forgive my abrupt snarkiness.
I jump the gun when I see the word believe with respect to science.

In what regard, that the person "believes" science, or that the person does not "believe" science?

Scientists will be the first to admit that they're just beginning to crawl like a baby when it comes to understanding the Universe. On the other hand, they'll behave that treating current scientific understanding as anything other than gospel is preposterous which is very large and spacious building-y. Don't fall for it. They're right about the baby crawling aspect - the mocking & vehement rejection of anything that doesn't fit the current day models, or anything that tries to introduce God into the equation, well you can know with a perfect knowledge as the day is light and the dark is night who is the source of that large and spacious attitude.

justme wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 10:22 am

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 9:17 am

justme wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 9:00 am Quick question. Is oil and other fossil fuels really fossils? If so how old are they? If all fossils are only around 5000 years old does that mean oil is also? If so why doesn't it contain carbon 14 since the half life is around 5000 years old?

I personally think that at a bare minimum you can date everything on earth from about 13,000 years ago going forward and that is a bare minimum since we have no idea what the real timeline is. Radiocarbon dating (my opinion again) is worthless due to too many factors that could and do impact it, it's unreliable and not a good basis for figuring out what God did nor when He did it. Not really being able to figure out what the atmosphere was like is one of the monumental challenges to the radiocarbon dating theory and all the work that has been done to figure that out and the results of it I question greatly. Way too many holes, again, to say with certainty "this happened then" instead of "we think this may have happened then." The arrogance of the belief in radiocarbon dating is truly bothersome, it is a religion in itself.

All scientists will willingly admit that the margin of error in radiocarbon dating is not zero. I guess one could insist that they won't accept anything unless the error is absolutely zero but I can't fathom that world view. Good luck. The currently accepted half life of carbon 14 is 5768 plus or minus 40 years. You can nitpick about 40 years if you like but it is definitely not thousands or millions of years. This has been tested independently and repeatedly against known objects and the result falls within the margin of errors.

True there are limits. It applies to organic materials. And since the half life is about 5000 years it is no good for things more than 50,000 years old (since after 10 half lives you have less than a thousandth remaining). But fortunately there are other isotopes that can be used without the organic restrictions nor the short half lives. When Henry Eyring used to debate Joseph Fielding Smith about the age of the earth he used, if I remember correctly, argon dating methods that applies to rocks and have a half life of over a billion years.

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 5:56 pm

justme wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 10:22 am

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 9:17 am

justme wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 9:00 am Quick question. Is oil and other fossil fuels really fossils? If so how old are they? If all fossils are only around 5000 years old does that mean oil is also? If so why doesn't it contain carbon 14 since the half life is around 5000 years old?

I personally think that at a bare minimum you can date everything on earth from about 13,000 years ago going forward and that is a bare minimum since we have no idea what the real timeline is. Radiocarbon dating (my opinion again) is worthless due to too many factors that could and do impact it, it's unreliable and not a good basis for figuring out what God did nor when He did it. Not really being able to figure out what the atmosphere was like is one of the monumental challenges to the radiocarbon dating theory and all the work that has been done to figure that out and the results of it I question greatly. Way too many holes, again, to say with certainty "this happened then" instead of "we think this may have happened then." The arrogance of the belief in radiocarbon dating is truly bothersome, it is a religion in itself.

All scientists will willingly admit that the margin of error in radiocarbon dating is not zero. I guess one could insist that they won't accept anything unless the error is absolutely zero but I can't fathom that world view. Good luck. The currently accepted half life of carbon 14 is 5768 plus or minus 40 years. You can nitpick about 40 years if you like but it is definitely not thousands or millions of years. This has been tested independently and repeatedly against known objects and the result falls within the margin of errors.

True there are limits. It applies to organic materials. And since the half life is about 5000 years it is no good for things more than 50,000 years old (since after 10 half lives you have less than a thousandth remaining). But fortunately there are other isotopes that can be used without the organic restrictions nor the short half lives. When Henry Eyring used to debate Joseph Fielding Smith about the age of the earth he used, if I remember correctly, argon dating methods that applies to rocks and have a half life of over a billion years.

I am not nitpicking I am saying that to me it is meaningless and useless. I don't care what scientists willingly admit. I don't care about the currently accepted half life of carbon 14. I don't care about radiocarbon dating because to me it is a sham and pretty much a lie since what is or was in the atmosphere cannot be known even with samples from the ice, whether the thing being tested was contaminated cannot be known. It's unreliable and that is just the fact of it.

justme wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 6:49 pm

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 5:56 pm

justme wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 10:22 am

Craig Johnson wrote: ↑May 3rd, 2019, 9:17 am

I personally think that at a bare minimum you can date everything on earth from about 13,000 years ago going forward and that is a bare minimum since we have no idea what the real timeline is. Radiocarbon dating (my opinion again) is worthless due to too many factors that could and do impact it, it's unreliable and not a good basis for figuring out what God did nor when He did it. Not really being able to figure out what the atmosphere was like is one of the monumental challenges to the radiocarbon dating theory and all the work that has been done to figure that out and the results of it I question greatly. Way too many holes, again, to say with certainty "this happened then" instead of "we think this may have happened then." The arrogance of the belief in radiocarbon dating is truly bothersome, it is a religion in itself.

All scientists will willingly admit that the margin of error in radiocarbon dating is not zero. I guess one could insist that they won't accept anything unless the error is absolutely zero but I can't fathom that world view. Good luck. The currently accepted half life of carbon 14 is 5768 plus or minus 40 years. You can nitpick about 40 years if you like but it is definitely not thousands or millions of years. This has been tested independently and repeatedly against known objects and the result falls within the margin of errors.

True there are limits. It applies to organic materials. And since the half life is about 5000 years it is no good for things more than 50,000 years old (since after 10 half lives you have less than a thousandth remaining). But fortunately there are other isotopes that can be used without the organic restrictions nor the short half lives. When Henry Eyring used to debate Joseph Fielding Smith about the age of the earth he used, if I remember correctly, argon dating methods that applies to rocks and have a half life of over a billion years.

I am not nitpicking I am saying that to me it is meaningless and useless. I don't care what scientists willingly admit. I don't care about the currently accepted half life of carbon 14. I don't care about radiocarbon dating because to me it is a sham and pretty much a lie since what is or was in the atmosphere cannot be known even with samples from the ice, whether the thing being tested was contaminated cannot be known. It's unreliable and that is just the fact of it.

Fair enough. We all have our free agency. Henry Eyring never did convince Joseph Fielding Smith either. I know which side I am on and am perfectly comfortable with it.