CNN (Cannibal News Network)

Bi0Hazard: If you believe that the earth is 4 billion years old, then can you tell me why that there is C-14 in diamonds?

Because the fact of the matter is that the presence of C-14 in diamonds indicates that these are less than 250,000 years old.

Krazy: If you believe that the earth is 4 billion years old, then can you tell me why that there is C-14 in diamonds?
C-14 in diamonds?
I don't an issue with that in regards to the age of the entire earth.
With radiocarbon dating, C-14 is only used to date up to about 60000 years and no more, so I don't know what you mean here.

Bi0Hazard: I don't * an issue
*see

Bi0Hazard: Right, there isn't any C14 after 40,000-50,000 years or so. C14 has a 5,700 year old half-life. With a half-life that short, there really shouldn't be any C14 atoms in any carbon older than 250,000 years.

Now there is detectable C14 in coal and diamonds. The evolutionists will tell you that coal formed 250,000,000 years ago. But when they test coal, it still has C14. How is that possible, if all the C14 should have disappeared after 50,000 years or so? I think it's because the earth is less than 50,000 years old; but of course, they don't like that answer because it hurts their evolution theory.

The same thing is true with diamonds. They will say that diamonds formed millions and millions of years ago but they still have C14 in them. And you can't say that it's been contaminated because that is the world's hardest substance. It isn't possible to contaminate those things. And since it has C14 in it, that means it's less than 40K or 50K years. It did not form millions of years ago.

Krazy: So that is what you meant.

First off, "evolutionists" isn't really the right word for this since they deal with biology, not geology.
As for C14 in coal and diamond, there are actually studies that show thorium and uranium decay radiation can actually create C-14 from C-12, so millions of years can sustain C-14. That is actually likely with the different amounts of C-14 content. Diamonds are formed in the earth, not from atmospheric conditions as well. Unlike fossils, diamonds are not accurately measured with radiocarbon dating, but creationists will cite it anyways to fit their views.

Its funny how creationists claim carbon dating methods are so inaccurate but readily support its predictions when it comes across as supporting their views as opposed to the other side (mainstream). This refutes many of their own arguments for a young earth, since some of their arguments rely on carbon dating.

Bi0Hazard: I don't rely on carbon dating for what I believe in. I'm just citing what Kent Hovind said about it, which sounds very reasonable. I think radiometric dating is pointless because you have to make a wide range of assumptions when using it; and many evolutionists assume what their trying to prove when using radiometric dating. And that's not a scientific way to think.

For example, when using radiometric dating, evolutionists assume the original number of unstable atoms can be known, based on the amount of parent and daughter atoms are left today. But you can't know; you weren't there back then to measure it.

They also assume that the rate of change of the atoms was constant; ignoring what impact Noah's flood may have on the world. So they assume the creation story in the Bible is false before they do any testing of the rocks. They assume what their trying to prove, which isn't science.

And they assume that none of the daughter atoms were contaminated and that they were all produced from radioactive decay. They ignore any outside forces such as flowing groundwater or what have you.

The whole thing is filled with assumptions which isn't real science. That's why I like to look at common sense and ask any evolutionists if we all came from fish, then why don't you get a fish to turn into a human? Or show a frog turning into a human. But they can't. Because it's in their imaginations.