BLOOD MOON = BLOOD SPILL?

I think whats funny is that they are trying to get us to believe that blood red eclipses are "normal" now.

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by xenongod
Figure 147: Increasing Amounts of Carbon-14. Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the organic matter being dated was part of a living organism.....

and so forth!

As long as that post was, it didn't include EVERYTHING that must be taken into account when discussing carbon-14 dating. See there this liiiittle problem at, oh, the FOUNDATION of carbon-14 dating.

You see, carbon-14 dating is based on how many carbon/carbon-14 isotopes were present at the Big Bang. Once you GUESS that amount, everything else falls into place...plus or minus, oh say a bunch.

The problem is simple: Please PROVE to me that you know how many carbon atoms were present at the very instant of the alledged Big Bang, and how many, if any, Carbon-14 isotopes were there as well.

Just as soon as you prove the answer to those two questions, I'll be glad to give carbon-14 dating consideration.

This data...if you read it all...is based upon theory that Noah and the Great Flood changed the earth's atmosphere...therefore Carbon-14 and 12 had a different composition before that happened...making radiocarbon dating not a reliable way of dating. So...in essence...I agree with you...I don't consider the method as a reliable way of figuring out the age of anything. I personally believe that the earth is a maximum of 20,000 years old....the Great Flood was a very important factor in these changes.

Xenongod,

I was taking YOUR post and adding to the clincher!

I know WE are on the same page.

It's all the l'il-evil-elves and the like, who rote recall something they heard somewhere but haven't a clue the theory behind it, and who have seen a couple of eclipses, therefore we should throw out sacred text, I was talking to

This is respect to red moons

www.southpole.com...

As far as carbon dating....

www.howstuffworks.com...

www.dc.peachnet.edu...

Simply stated red moons are not very special and as far as dating with Carbon 14 it does seem clear it�s being misrepresented.


Any thoughts?

Yes, my thoughts are that the two links (or maybe a link and a half ), prove MY point...and my point, restated is that Carbon-14 dating, whether the flood happened or not, is FOUNDATIONALLY flawed. It has a cyclic dependence on itself to even work, and then, you have to attach to yet another unproven hypothesis...the Big Bang.

It's a bunch of blather.

carbon dating has nothing to do with the amount of carbon 14 at the big bang, in fact if you knew a damn bit of what you were talking about you would know the prevailing theory is that none of the more complex atoms and such were even around until billions of years after the big bang, that is if you subscribe to that THEORY.

the�o�ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, th�r)
n. pl. the�o�ries

An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

The logarithmic time scale of Figs. 1 and 2 illuminates the richness of the earliest moments of our universe. Inflation took place perhaps ten trillionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang; the origin of ordinary matter a hundredth of a millionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang; the birth of the lightest elements three minutes after the Big Bang; and the formation of the galaxies and the heavier elements two hundred million years after the Big Bang.

216.239.41.104...:8YmBL3O3pEMJ:www.er.doe.gov/Sub/speeches/speeches/genesis-lecture1.pdf+big+bang +and+the+formation+of+heavier+timeline+isotopes&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

edit: to be completely honest, the big bang plays no role in whether carbon-14 dating works AFAIK

[Edited on 7-11-2003 by forsakenwayfarer]

Theory should not be applied to the Big Bang hypothesis. And I'm speculating that if you went off and had an original meditative thought on things instead of accepting them as read to you...you would know that.

POINT WELL TAKEN concerning the Big Bang. Yes, I simplified it. So now that you have stepped in and brought the finer complexities I now request that you:

1. PROVE exactly how much time elapsed past the Big Bang until the complex atoms appeared.

2. PROVE the foundational amount of Carbon from the point at which we will "drive our Carbon stake" and start pretending we know how to Carbon-14 date.

I look forward to learning from you.

[Edited on 7-11-2003 by Valhall]

I would not necessarily call it blather, but the truth is we barley know how aspirin exactly works. The facts of life as it were, are actually relegated to very few things, which is a very good reason to keep an open mind.

I remember being told that when the moon turns red, it will mean the world is coming to an end and then later reading about the reality of the phenomenon.

Felt lied to, as clearly it was one of those things that were well understood. As far as carbon dating does remember being told it was absolute (again lied to).

Strange thing is, both were taught to me same year by the same teacher in the same classroom. The funny thing is she would probably feel lied to as well had she actually gone beyond what she had been taught.

Any thoughts?

Oh, while we're at it...could you PROVE the Big Bang hypothesis for me as well, because I haven't been able to find anybody who could yet.

im not going to lie and make myself look like a fool later on, in which i cannot prove any kind of reference point for carbon-14 dating, but it is proven to be accurate up until that 3500 year time period, considering we do know for a fact how old some things are (fossil records, how long ago X animal or X plant lived) and carbon-14 dating has (to the best of my knowledge) been tested on said "facts" and given us a general date that works. let me try and find a link

thats the big problem with all of this "theoretical physics" none of it can be proven, we can look at how things "seem" to be, and how other things react to each other, and make a wild guess at how it was done/is working. sometimes we might be right. most of the time im pretty sure were dead wrong. anyway what does it matter, 10 years from now well all look back and think how stupid all these theories look because "we know how it works now" dont sail off the edge of the world now

Yeah, I know. That's my whole point. At some point we have to get back to the scientific method. That is why I refuse to call several of the modern "theories" theories.

And it seems that there is never any hesitation to throwing these hypotheses on the table to refute other people's beliefs and inclinations. For instance, skadi poopoo'd all over xenongod because he brought forth a document that analyzes the possible effects of a global flood on the carbon-14 availability. That "theory" is as much a "theory" as the carbon-14 dating "theory" There's just about as much scientific method in both of them!

By the way, nice to meet you and look forward to reading your thoughts. WELCOME TO ATS!

The same applies to religion but in that case there is a tendency to kill for what one thinks is right (even today).

As a general rule, its important to look carefully at what someone states is absolute. In the case of physics, if the word theorem is not used your dealing with a theory. But if it is used, that does not mean anything unless you can confirm the reasons for such a conclusion.

Its best to keep an open mind when looking at anything and if your told doing this is wrong, treat whoever is telling you this as someone to disregard.


Any thoughts?

Originally posted by helen670
Hi U.S Patriot
TRUTH???
Is that you?
Dont worry what people tell you....

There is quite alot of things happening........and almost every day we can see that....be it in the weather or the atmosphere...changes are coming.
helen.

And I drink no punch!
Guess I could throw some!!!
helen

There is a certain way people communicate. The way you and I did Helen670, and then the way everyone else here is arguing about science. Science and GOD shall always clash. The others on the board want to be argumentative totally blinding them from the truth.


Like I said. IF YOU DON'T GET, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.

Toltec.........thanks for your input.

Originally posted by Toltec
This is respect to red moons
www.southpole.com...
As far as carbon dating....
www.howstuffworks.com...
www.dc.peachnet.edu...
Simply stated red moons are not very special and as far as dating with Carbon 14 it does seem clear it�s being misrepresented.
Any thoughts?

Thanks, Toltec! I was going to hunt up that stuff today but you saved me the work.

And as for the dating, carbon dating only works to a certain point. Dating is done by a number of different methods, including the geologic column and other evidence. Archaeologists and Paleontologists use several methods to "triangulate" a date.

Originally posted by Valhall
For instance, skadi poopoo'd all over xenongod because he brought forth a document that analyzes the possible effects of a global flood on the carbon-14 availability. That "theory" is as much a "theory" as the carbon-14 dating "theory" There's just about as much scientific method in both of them!

Actually, this isn't true. Carbon dating has been tested (you date something and then check it with other methods (like tree ring dating sequences)) and confirmed. The Creationist explaination relies on Earth *not* behaving consistantly and a deity tweaking and meddling to make things appear to be a certain age.

Originally posted by Byrd
We have had literally *billions* of these "red moons" in the 4 billion year history of Earth.

It's part of having a moon that circles the Earth. Millions of these red moons have also coincided with asteroid showers.

Every time there's a "sign in the sky," Christian hysterics start raving "Apocalypse!" and "Mark of the Beast" and running around, trying to convert everyone to save them from the coming Tribulation. While their intentions may be good, the bare facts are that the Bible was based in an era when comets and other phenomina simply "appeared."

They had no astronomers with mathematical tables and maths such as calculus to help them figure out when the moon and comets would appear and whether or not there would be an eclipse. These things were just magic.

In those superstitious times, a blood-red moon was an Omen Of Something Dreadful. Given that those were dreadful times, something dreadful always occurred after them.

We've known for a very long time that this moon would be red. Astronomers can tell you when the next 200 red moons will occur. These are not unexpected, miraculous phenomina to terrify the superstitious. They're simple acts of physics and nature.

Now, if the moon was supposed to be nice and white and suddenly turned green with orange polkadots, THAT would be some sort of sign.

But red moons are a leftover from the age of superstition. Hopefully we're not entering a new age of superstition when ordinary phenomina are treated like a Great Foretelling.

At this rate, we'll start committing seppuku when our magic markers run out of ink.

[Edited on 7-11-2003 by Byrd]

Actually this one would be an Islam prophecy, not Christian.
freerepublic.com...

"It's believed that this Mahdi will appear during a Ramadan with both a Solar and a Lunar Eclipse. This double Ramadan eclipse will occur this year, for the first time since 1786, and won't occur again until 2155."
www.central-mosque.com...

As far as ancient astronomy goes, the Myans had it figured out as did others around the world.

www.dc.peachnet.edu...

A tragic and startling message was delivered...and the Moon split!


Saudi Suicide Attack Kills Up to 30, Qaeda Blamed

Speaking of Blood Red Moons, I saw one this morning. Awesome sight.