Biblical Flood: Actual Event or Myth

OK, so far. There can be no original carbon in a fossil. Fossils are not actually old bones, they are rocks. Minerals over time have replaced the carbonaceous material that was bone, but preserving the shape and texture of the now missing bones (or plant material) quite well. With a half-life of only 5730 years, carbon-14 dating has nothing to do with dating the geological ages! Radiometric dating of elements with much longer half-lives has produced a reliable geochronology.

The only thing in the geologic record which has anything to do with calibrating carbon-14 dating is the coal from the Carboniferous Period. Being ancient, the C-14 content has long since decayed away and that makes it useful in "zeroing" laboratory instruments.

Wait a minute, you just made a hypothetical scenario with a scientist quite properly rejecting a contaminated sample. This happens all the time. How has he operated off of an assumption? It is fairly easy to determine if a sample is contaminated or not.

This is too easy. I presume you are talking about the Creation Evidence Museum in Glen Rose, Texas. The name itself should give you pause. Carl Baugh, the museum creator claims to have evidence of a young earth. Careful examination of the main artifacts they claim show a young earth reveal that they are deceptions, and in many cases, not even clever ones. It is important to note that Carl Baugh is not only at odds with scientists but with other creationists. LINK.

In addition, Baugh and his friends, Don Patton and Clifford Burdick, all claim advanced scientific degrees. However, research has revealed these degrees are fake. It is astonishing how a Christian can fabricate such degrees with no basis in fact. In short, the Creation Evidence Museum and its main operators are built upon willful lies by supposed Christians. Baugh now lists a Doctorate of Theology granted from Louisiana Baptist University. This school is unaccredited, and fits the description of a diploma mill. Thus, more than two decades after claiming his first phony degree, he is still at it.

Many scientists have systematically demolished his "evidence" over the last few decades. Which of Baugh's many claims would you like me to debunk?

Or shall we move on . . .

 

Does the presence of a river in it suggest nothing to you?

Don't take my word for it. There are many websites describing how the canyon was created that you can visit.

Alternatively, there are sites that describe the evidence left behind by huge floods, which are quite different.

 

You didn't consider either site did you? You can't see anything with a blindfold on, Hondo.

Your question makes no sense at all. Water flows downhill, all the way to the ocean. It wears down mountains and carries sediment to the sea where it forms more rock over time.

 

Why should I debate your issues when you simply ignore my responses? Who cited the Glen Rose "evidence"? YOU. I respond. You disregard the response. I find this discussion interesting, but please don't waste my time. Has a scintilla of skepticism entered your thoughts, yet? I am curious.

You're making stuff up! This is an imaginary scenario with a false dichotomy. What article? Did you read where I said that it is impossible to date dinosaur fossils using C-14? Who claims to have done so?

Cite something that has actually been proposed by somebody (preferably a scientist, not an exorcist) and I will consider his evidence.

As to your scenario, is it not obvious that a 100-million year old dinosaur fossil could be found next to a living tree root?