Creationism and Evolution - True or False

Dan, I wrote the post that is below this paragraph BEFORE you posted your comment about Copernicus and Galileo (I have been having problems with my internet connection), so my comments are NOT in response to your comments about Galileo, I have no idea how we both independantly came to bring in the church’s persecution of Galileo at the same time, coincidence? Spooky, whatever the reason!

C14 – I know how C14 dating works, and it is entirely irrelevant. Forget for a minute about C14 in materials that have had a non-biological origin. The link that I gave (and is below again) shows dozens of examples of organic materials that are millions of years old but still have C14 in them, these include coal, gas, oil and fossils. So how do you explain the C14 in these?

Now non-biological materials, how do you explain the existence of C14 in these? You stated that you know of other sources, mind sharing? I would like replies to BOTH of the above, because at the moment you are explaining neither.

Many of John Baumgardner’s papers are to do with building a plate tectonics model which support the creationist ‘Catastrophic Plate Tectonics’ model. So, why don’t you want to read papers that are not from secular journals? I would expect a scientist like yourself to critically evaluate ALL evidence and not just the ones that support your faith in evolution. I would suspect that if you were around at the time of Galileo you would have been one of the central people that were asking for his head because he dared to challenge the excepted ruling paradigm of geocentricism. It’s sad that so called ‘scientists’ like yourself today fail to apply the foundational principle of the scientific method itself; critically, and empirically, analyse all hypotheses.

To DanH52 Thank you very much for giving me this impressively detailed answer. If you have never seen it, it seems unlikely in the extreme that I ever will, still less recognise it! However, I will certainly research this issue and will follow up on the links that you mention. Thanks again.

Can anyone spot the irony in owm's comments about Galileo?

Coal, oil, gas, and most fossils have all under gone or are the products of diagenesis or more advanced metamorphism. As I said before, these preconditions automatically invalidate C14 dating on these rocks - same as it invalidates C14 dating of diamonds which are 100% carbon. C14 in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in C14 content in different coals). I don't bother to read creationist papers that do not appear in secular journals because they cannot pass scrutiny by real scientists. Creationist "scientists" are not precluded from submitting their papers to secular journals. The reason they don't get published (at least I haven't seen one) is that they make major mistakes in scientific investigation (like trying date coal and diamonds with the C14 method ), are selective in citing only "data" that supports their case (like a C14 date on a diamond), or make flawed and biased conclusions (based on flawed and selective data). These methods are contrary to the foundation principles of scientific investigation which you apparently also misunderstand.

The ruling paradigm of geocentrism was created and enforced by the church.