God did not create the universe says Stephen Hawking

[Lycoming]

-The rate of decay from C-14 to N-14 has been constant since the organism died. This assumption also cannot be tested.

Carbon dating works on the premise that during the lifetime of an organism it will be intaking a consistent quantity of C14 via plants. When the organism dies the C14 is no longer produced. The C14 levels decay at a KNOWN EXPONENTIAL RATE. Therefore you can approximate when an organism died based on the amount of C14 remaining in the sample. It's the exact same principal as interest rates at a bank, only for decline not growth. Basic math and science.

You clearly are not educated on the subject. Even wikipedia will give you the correct information. Do your homework.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

[razzledazzle]

We was made from germs on a rock... an alien pleased himself and wiped his stuff on a rock, thats how we was made.

[36Drew]

*try reposting without the personal attacks/Jo*

[John Right]

I quote scientists, not just what pops into my head.

Ease up on the personal attacks, I'm simply expressing my opinion, why does that threaten you so much. What are you afraid of? That you might be wrong?

[John Right]

I think Mr. Hawkins new book is less about science and more about book sales.

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary".

So which is it?

[flamingfingers]

I think Mr. Hawkins new book is less about science and more about book sales.

In his 1988 book, A Brief History of Time, Hawking had seemed to accept the role of God in the creation of the universe. But in the new text, co-written with American physicist Leonard Mlodinow, he said new theories showed a creator is "not necessary".

So which is it?

1988??? Do you seriously believe that Hawking has not learned and perhaps changed his ideas since 1988?? It is people who steadfastly maintain that something should be 'the way it always has been' that stifle education and learning.

[John Right]

Oh Ya, he changed his mind alright. In politics they call that a flip-flop. Or in this case I'd go with '180' as it seems to have a nice ring to it.

[gardengirl]

I quote scientists, not just what pops into my head.

Ease up on the personal attacks, I'm simply expressing my opinion, why does that threaten you so much. What are you afraid of? That you might be wrong?

I have heard a discussion much like this before. Do you attend Evangel by any chance?

[flamingfingers]

It would be a pretty soggy 'flip-flop' if it took 22 years! And to do a '180' would only require an 8-degree turn each year. I have learned many, many things, and have adjusted some of my attitudes in 22 years. It's called 'learning'....

[John Right]

I quote scientists, not just what pops into my head.

Ease up on the personal attacks, I'm simply expressing my opinion, why does that threaten you so much. What are you afraid of? That you might be wrong?

I have heard a discussion much like this before. Do you attend Evangel by any chance?

No, do you?

[John Right]

It would be a pretty soggy 'flip-flop' if it took 22 years! And to do a '180' would only require an 8-degree turn each year. I have learned many, many things, and have adjusted some of my attitudes in 22 years. It's called 'learning'....

Nice try.

[gardengirl]

I quote scientists, not just what pops into my head.

Ease up on the personal attacks, I'm simply expressing my opinion, why does that threaten you so much. What are you afraid of? That you might be wrong?

I have heard a discussion much like this before. Do you attend Evangel by any chance?

No, do you?

No, but I know people who do.

[flamingfingers]

It would be a pretty soggy 'flip-flop' if it took 22 years! And to do a '180' would only require an 8-degree turn each year. I have learned many, many things, and have adjusted some of my attitudes in 22 years. It's called 'learning'....

Nice try.

Huh?

I hardly think it possible that a person does not change some facets of their thinking and attitudes over 22 years. There would hardly be the internet or these forums if such were the case, don't you think?

[don_pepe]

Carbon 14 by itself isn't a perfect dating method since the levels of C14 are not constant in the atmosphere. To compensate for this science uses Dendrochronology (tree rings) to calibrate with. Using overlapping tree rings we've went back 26,000 years. We can also sample bubbles in glaciers going back 800,000 years to see what past atmospheric conditions were since they also put on layers like trees do. I'm not sure if they can use this to calibrate C14 or not?

I'm not really sure what C14 has do do with Stephen Hawking though?

[Ron Peters]

Carbon 14 by itself isn't a perfect dating method since the levels of C14 are not constant in the atmosphere. To compensate for this science uses Dendrochronology (tree rings) to calibrate with. Using overlapping tree rings we've went back 26,000 years. We can also sample bubbles in glaciers going back 800,000 years to see what past atmospheric conditions were since they also put on layers like trees do. I'm not sure if they can use this to calibrate C14 or not?

I'm not really sure what C14 has do do with Stephen Hawking though?

Because the entire theory of evolution hangs on the assumption that the earth in millions of years old and the only way anyone can 'prove' that is thru carbon dating. And evolutionist usually subscribe to the big bang theory as well. The two go hand in hand.