Yes, Atheists do have their own years. Any "millions of years" is something that exists in their imagination.
One of the problems that I have with this is when I look around me in the world of science and I see tens of thousands of scientists who all agree on the “millions of years”. In that group are a huge number of faithful Christians, Moslems, Hindus; Buddhists, etc. Sorry, but I am not buying into you portraying this as an atheist –creationist dichotomy. For most of the scientific world, and much of the religious world it is the Creationists, not the atheists, that are living in denial of the science.
If you will stay focused then sensible talk is possible.
I see. You are the one that pre-emptively declared atheists and humanists as not being smart enough to understand real years, but you want me to stay focused. Did I understand your major field of study was “hypocrisy”?
Are old-age Christian scientists dumb? Perhaps, perhaps not. I can't say without knowing them.
Maybe you really don’t know who Isaac Newton was, or who Lord Kelvin was. Looks like your familiarity with the history of science is a bit shallow. And I am sure a lot of the major advances in science came at the hands of faithful people of many faiths. Can you itemize some of the ideas that are now central to science that came at the hands of YECs?
Are they in agreement with scripture? No, they aren't.
Since that is a religious issue, and not a scientific one, I leave you to whatever you want to believe.
Are they considering all the evidence? I doubt it.
I shall require this of you as well.
I've said before that "evolution" might as well try to fit itself into a short time span. After all, "spontaneous generation" was believed once upon a time too. Flies from meat, etc. It's the same thing just a different time scale. More time doesn't make it any more or less possible.
I suspect evolution is not as trivially adjusted to large-scale adjustments in the time needed as you infer. But as I said, let’s focus on the C-14 question, and see where that takes us first.
As for "counterarguments" I was rather sharp on the subject ten years ago. I doubt much new has surfaced since then. As to whether you have anything that I don't know about, how am I supposed to know what I don't know? I can't say if you have something unknown to me.
Let me quote your original claim that I was asking about counterarguments on:
… start with the assumption, Carbon Dating in this case. Claimed that it is scientific and proves things are old. Claimed that useless to use on so many things because anything millions of years old would not even REGISTER on the measurement.
In the real world of C-14 dating, to REGISTER simply means the instrument gives a readout of how many C-14 (and C-12 and C-13) atoms it detected. So… assume a dinosaur lived a hundred million years ago. Similar to biological life today, a very small percentage of the Carbon atoms in its body were of the C-14 isotope. Dinosaur dies, and goes through the process of fossilization. At the moment of death, it no longer takes in carbon, and the C-14 atoms already in its body become more and more rare as the C-14 decays away. 100,000 years after it died, the level of residual C-14 is effectively zero.
Fast forward to today. Fossil-hunter Rosenritter chances upon the fossil of the long-deceased dinosaur, and decides to have its remains (whether soft or not) C-14 dated. A few questions (questions that real scientists that deal with C-14 dating are acutely aware of):
---The vast majority of fossils are found specifically because they are near the surface of the ground. With that in mind, how likely is it that, within the last 300 or so centuries, moisture has made its way from the surface into the strata the fossil is in? Unless it is pretty unusual, moisture in the ground is teeming with microscopic life, and also carries organic detritus in it. Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is also very soluble in surface moisture. Any chance that some “recent” carbon-14 atoms might end up in or on the fossil?
---Do you accurately know the radiation history the sample has been subjected to over the past 300 centuries?
---How do you extract the fossil so as to minimize its exposure to the current C-14 in the carbon dioxide in the air, and especially to biological contamination from skin contact?
---How do you store the sample for weeks (months, years) so as to be sure no modern carbon will adhere to it?
---In preparing the sample for the C-14 testing, how do you propose identifying, of the carbon that is part of the sample, which of the carbon atoms are original to the dinosaur, and which are contaminants?
---How do you assure that “system memory” (meaning carbon atoms from a prior run that adhered to interior parts of the counter rather than being counted in the previous test) does not supply some vagabond C-14 atoms to your counter?
If any of these steps introduce measurable levels of C-14, then it doesn’t matter how little of the original C-14 there is, you will REGISTER a date.
If you think these are not valid points, then I have a suggestion that could score your side big points. You guys set up a fully equipped C-14 dating lab. Set up a reciprocal agreement with one of the current labs so your scientists and theirs can freely monitor the tests at each other’s facilities.
1. Freshly created earth starts with no radioactive carbon, and input increases as exposed to the sun.
2. "Mist covers the earth" and "waters above and below" likely shields earth from much radiation during the first 1600 years. Also evidenced by the recorded long human lifespans and extreme sizes of reptiles from earlier eras.
Radioactive carbon still increasing and evidenced by life spans starting to take a drop until they approach and reach modern day lengths.
I am not aware that the “long human lifespans” recorded in Genesis have been scientifically confirmed, and the really big reptiles are just a few million years too early for the Hebrew tale.
Can you point to scientific evidence that would help to calibrate the buildup of C-14?
