When did 'LIFE" begin? (Science in relation with the Biblical description)

[Baruch]

He seems to think that's the only dating method available. He might want to try OkCupid...

If you read him carefully, he wasn't going to bother to deny the other dating methods, because he isn't into us, won't date us ;-)

[sdelsolray]

He seems to think that's the only dating method available. He might want to try OkCupid...

Or ice cores, some of which go back over two million years.

Mousedroppings Mousetrap is demonstrating the standard creationist tactic of ignoring evidence that contradicts or refutes his preconceived conclusions. 

Of course, his disingenuous pretense of being all "sciency" along with his 'Just wait, I'll get to that' stall game (in his 'Origin of the Universe' thread) are mere ploys to inject personal need to control the conversation and seek attention.

[Hydra009]

What is this obsession with Carbon 14?

Creationists think that debunking radiometric dating gives them license to say that the Earth is whatever age they want it to be.  Also, they seem to think that it'll hurt evolution and thus atheism and give Christianity scientific credibility.

"If only it weren't for radiometric dating, I'd be a Christian!" - today's youth

[Draconic Aiur]

And we will get there. (Stromatolites)
Thanks for telling me that Radio carbon testing can not go further than 6YK!
This will be news to every scientific journal.
The last time I saw developments on C14, was an age of up to 45 000 Years!
Please come beck with proof and tell me that C14 can not surpass 6 000 years, so I can apologize to everyone.

https://www.environmentalscience.org/chronology

As technology advances, so do our methods, accuracy and tools for discovering what we want to learn about the past. All dating methods today can be grouped into one of two categories: absolute dating, and relative dating. The former gives a numeric age (for example, this artefact is 5000 years old); the latter provides a date based on relationships to other elements (for example, this geological layer formed before this other one). Both methods are vital to piecing together events of the past from the recent back to a time before humans and even before complex life and sometimes, researchers will combine both methods to come up with a date.

C14 can surpass 6,000 years old to 62,000

[Jason78]

He seems to think that's the only dating method available. He might want to try OkCupid...

I suppose when all you have is a C14 sampling kit, everything looks like it has a half life of about 5,730 years.

[sdelsolray]

There are basically 2 types of very old life forms available to test to determine how old life can be.
1. Ancient organic material such as charcoal, bones, wood, seeds, and anything that once was a living organism.
2. Fossils. A fossil does not contain any organic matter anymore, but the cavity where the living organism once were engulfed in sediment, was replaced by crystallization of sediment similar to what one makes a cast with the use of say, Gypsum. this 'cast' is the exact replica of the once living creature we can now study.

Now, the first testable type, the organic material residue of a once living life, form is the one I will discuss first.
I will then follow up on fossils.

I am not going to explain how radio isotope testing work, on the premise that people on this forum should know these details, seeing that they make claims that Life is older than 6 YK.

Let me start this investigation with determining if C14/C12 ratio in old organic matter is correct in dating bones, charcoal etc. as being older than 6 YK.
The best examples is charcoal from ancient sites in Sumeria, Turkey (Goble Tepe etc.) dating in excess of 10YK, or even Coal deposits dating to more than a few hundred thousand years to a few million years.

So how do science determine these ages?
And what does the Bible say about Life in scientific terms, such as people that almost turned 1 000 years old?

You capitalize the word "Life".  It must be an important word to you.  Your title to the thread contains the term 'LIFE".  Yes, a quite important word.

Perhaps, before going any further, you would take the time to seek consensus as to the definition of "life".  Once done, further discourse should be simpler and clearer.  Put another way, without an agreed definition to the term "life", it is highly likely that folks have a hard time discussing "When did 'LIFE' begin (the title of your thread - your words).

I realize this will likely make you do some hard work, quite possibly work you have never done before, and for which you have no creationist whore website from which to cut and paste your answer.  Nevertheless, a definition of the term "life" is needed before proceeding further.

[Hakurei Reimu]

So how do science determine these ages?

By dating the rocks. The rocks may be dated by a number of methods, including radiological dating of other isotopes. After all, a fossil can be no younger than the rock it's found in.

<snip a bunch>
First, If the Atmosphere was very high in water containing vapour, as the Bible describes, and as I showed by the use of the Nebular theory, then the N14 would not have had any cosmic radiation at all!

Numbers, please? How much water "shielding" would it take to reduce C14 production by any significant amount, and how would this affect the atmosphere and life in it. See, water is actually a rather potent solvent, especially at high temperatures and pressures. It's one of the reasons that life does so well in it: the solubility molecules in water is second to none.

Could humans breathe your supersaturated atmosphere and survive? After all, if you evaporate a lot of water into the atmosphere, it has to come at the expense of something else. Like, oxygen.

And where did it all go, once the event that happened 4000 years ago was over?

No answer? Typical.

Good grief, your water vapor shield isn't even a new idea. It was proposed by Kent Hovind to explain how the ancients could be old, and explain where the water of the Flood came from. He can't provide any numbers either, even though he supposedly taught science. I shudder to think the kind of "science" he was teaching his students. He also couldn't tell you shit about where all that water went when it was done. (Obviously, not into the atmosphere.)

Anyway, your claim of high shielding and thus the invalidity of C14 dating past 4000 y hinges on not only making it physically plausible, but also on establishing this water shield thing was even a thing. There is no historical or geological evidence that any flood ever happened. The Chinese, after all, was civilized right though this period and would have noticed a worldwide flood.

There's also another point. You claim that there was no radiation prior to 4000 years ago. Well, one of the things that would affect was the genetic clocks around the world. By your argument, no genetic clock would be moving until your flood event happened, and then they all started at once. But this is not what we see. We were able to trace the human mitocondrial DNA and Y chromasomes to build up a human family tree since our ancestry in Africa, and we can trace our origins far past 4000 years. And we have historical events to calibrate our clocks.

See, this is the thing you don't seem to understand. Our C14/C12 clocks are calibrated against other clocks. For instance, it is calibrated against the dendrochonological sequence. Our dendrochonologies for the oak and pine trees in central Europe are fully anchored back to 12,460 years, and our C14/C12 curves up to this point are calibrated against this data.

And guess what! There's no significant event at 4000 years ago when our C14/C12 calibration goes all wierd. Nor, for that matter, was there any point when dendrochronologies go all wierd either. No sudden jumps as you claim. So, your water vapor shield is just so much fiction, as well as the flood where it all came out of the atmosphere.

In the Bible, 4000 years ago was the most stupendous event in the history of the world, second only to the event that created it.

In the real world, 4000 years ago, it was Tuesday.

[Draconic Aiur]

"When did life began?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuCn8ux2gbs

[Hakurei Reimu]

Okay, I decided to take a stab at figuring out how much water the air would need to be soaked in to have remains that are actually 4,000 years old appear 40,000 years old.



The claim is that objects dated older than 4,000 years are giving an anomalous result due to ¹⁴C not being produced as much in the time prior to 4,000 years ago. (Never mind the fact that we have calibrated C-14 dating to other clocks not based upon C-14 and found no such anomaly. Let's ignore that for the moment.)

The first thing to note is that the ratio ¹⁴C/¹²C is what controls how C-14 dating give their answers. The amount of ¹²C in the atmosphere has pretty constant for the last 6,000 years (only really changing drastically recently). Thus, the only knob we have to adjust here is the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere.

¹⁴C has a half-life of h = 5,730 years. In order to get our anomalous result, we have to get the same result from a 4,000 year old sample as we expect from a 40,000 year old sample. If we let N be the current abundance of ¹⁴C in the current atmosphere and M be the past abundance of same, then

   N 2^{-40,000 years/h} = M 2^{-4,000 years/h}

A little algebra brings us to M = N/77.85. That is, the amount of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere at 4,000 years ago has to be 1/77.85-th the present value. To have a stable level of M abundance, a certain production rate R is required: each decay of ¹⁴C must be matched by a production of ¹⁴C, so the production of ¹⁴C is simply the negative of its activity, A = λM = R (where λ is the decay constant of ¹⁴C). If we let P be the current production of ¹⁴C, then

   R = λM = λN/77.85 = P/77.85

This is a rather straightforward result, and beggars little mathematical argument.

In general in neutron absorption, the rate of reaction is

   R = NΦσ

where N is the density of ¹⁴N available for reaction, Φ is the neutron flux density, and σ is the neutron-nitrogen cross section of interaction. There's nothing to be done by σ, for that is characteristic of the neutrons' energy and nitrogen-14. We can't do much about N either, because that is pretty constant, too â€" the amount of nitrogen-14 that remains available to react does not change to any appreciable degree, at least not without subtracting out some of the nitrogen.

Thus, the neutron flux density, Φ, seems to be the only point of control in this example, and an attenuation by a factor of 1/77.85. I'll take a shortcut here and say that the water shield must absorb 76.85 times more neutrons than the nitrogen (and nitrogen absorbing the last 1/77.85-th part). Believe me, this will be bad enough without going the full treatment.

The total cross section of absorption of the water vapor shield must be 76.85 times that of the total cross section of ¹⁴N in the atmosphere. ¹H has an absorption cross section of 0.2 barns, and ¹⁶O has a cross section of 0.0001 barns. Since ¹H dominates oxygen in absorption cross section, the water molecule as a whole has an absorption cross section of ~0.4 barns. Unfortunately, the ¹⁴N cross section with the same neutrons is 1.81 barns. To have 76.85 times the total cross section of the nitrogen, the following equation must be satisfied:

   Wσ = (76.85) NÏ,,

where W is the number density of the water vapor, N the number density of nitrogen-14, σ the absorption cross section of water, and Ï,, the absorption cross section of ¹⁴N. Putting this all together, we get W/N = 347.75.

Yes, that means that the water vapor must outnumber the nitrogen component of the atmosphere by 347.75 times. That is, each nitrogen atom must have 347.75 water molecules around it to shield it from transmutation. Since the molar mass of ¹⁴N is 14 g/mol and the molar mass of water is 18.01528 g/mol, the water would outmass the nitrogen in our atmosphere by 447.48 times. Since the weight of our normal atmosphere is 1.03 kg over each cm² of area, and nitrogen forms 75.52% by mass, the mass of our water vapor shield over each cm² of area is 348.08 kg. This gives us a partial pressure of water vapor of 34.111 MPa.

This is above the critical point of water at 374 °C and 22.1 MPa. You cannot have an atmosphere with this much water vapor in it. It's either a compressible liquid (below 374 °C), or it's a supercritical fluid. There would be no distinct oceans, but a supercritical atmosphere with smooth transitions between low and high density.

It would also be hostile to all known forms of life. Supercritical water is a frighteningly superb solvent.

Yikes!

So, no. I'm afraid this particular idea is DOA.

[Mousetrap]

How kind of you to teach us stuff we already know, but in a shoddy and clearly faith-addled way that makes a mockery of actual education.

Pleasure is mine.

[Mousetrap]

That pretty much says it all.  There are crazy and stupid people in the world, and any Creation site will collect them like bears to honey.  You can't stop them, they are immune to facts that they don't like and I'll bet they might even vote Republican (only because they don't know there are actually other crazier parties "out there").

Sorry, I meant to say Creation.com
But perhaps you could tell me what is wrong with these scientists' credentials?
Do you perhaps have the courage to debate with one of them?
https://creation.com/who-we-are

Or perhaps you would like to look at R.A.T.E?
Atheists would wish to have a collection of scientists such as these to disprove a deity.

There exists not a single atheist scientist that would even attempt to discuss radio isometric testing with them.
http://www.icr.org/research/team
Perhaps you would like to be the first?

LOL!

[Mousetrap]

currently he's thinking because of all the shit he wrote out and people responding to them, that he's managed to plant a seed in peoples heads about his beliefs.

reality is, we're laughing at him and he's not been banned yet because its entertaining to watch him try.

And dont forget I have you thinking like never before.

[Mousetrap]

When did life begin? Well, I got a little bored last Tuesday, so I thought, "Why not?" I also planted some evidence that the world has been around for longer than just last Tuesday because I like to fuck with people. Can you prove me wrong? If you can't, my claim is just as valid as your claim that I did not create life last Tuesday.
Again, a Straw man which you build and destroy thinking you destroyed the Bible.
Last week Monday you were on this forum, alive and well.

[Munch]

And dont forget I have you thinking like never before.

not really, your not the first drive by theist that come here. If anything it just proves you guys have nothing really new to offer.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

not really, your not the first drive by theist that come here. If anything it just proves you guys have nothing really new to offer.

And that Mousetripe is full of himself.