Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[Sparks]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I know you want to believe it.  But as you see, He was not.  Even his opponent, von Baer admitted that he was wrong, not lying.

Earnest Haekle was a fraud.  He stood in a type of trial in his own university. 

[The Barbarian]

6 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I didn't learn anything of the sort, and neither did you.

Well, maybe you weren't paying attention, but I've known about the Lake Suigetsu calibration for about 30 years.

You see, the energy to convert nitrogen to carbon in the high atmosphere comes from cosmic rays and this varies a bit over time.  The varves at Lake Suigetsu have documented these small changes, more accurately calibrating C14 results.

 

[Sparks]

2 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

You weren't paying attention when I showed you why.   Mollusks get a lot of their carbon from rocks, which are ancient.  So mollusks falsely date to be very ancient, as do other animals that eat them.   Scientists realize this and know better than to do such testing.   But you didn't know this, and didn't pay attention when I told you, so you were easily fooled.

C14 testing works, because scientists know how to avoid such things.   And now you know, too.

All seals bark AFAIK.   But some seals do test as very ancient if tested with C14 methods.  For the reason I showed you above.   

Seals are known to be opportunistic feeders, meaning they will adapt their diet according to the availability of prey in the wild. In general, most seals primarily eat fish and mollusks such as squid, octopus, crab and shrimp.

https://wwnature.com/what-do-seals-eat/

It's not that hard to figure out.

Radio Carbon dating does not work.  There is more C-14 being generated in the atmosphere today that before, and more today than has depleted because the world is not that old, and that is only partially why it fails.

[Sparks]

7 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Well, maybe you weren't paying attention, but I've known about the Lake Suigetsu calibration for about 30 years.

You see, the energy to convert nitrogen to carbon in the high atmosphere comes from cosmic rays and this varies a bit over time.  The varves at Lake Suigetsu have documented these small changes, more accurately calibrating C14 results.

You might think you were around 50,000 years ago, but I got news for you.

World has not equalized so C-14 dating is a moving target.

[The Barbarian]

Just now, Sparks said:

Radio Carbon dating does not work. 

I know you want to believe that.  But the data says you're wrong.

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

There is more C-14 being generated in the atmosphere today that before

As I reminded you, the data from Lake Suigetsu shows that it rises and falls over time.  New C14 is being formed constantly.   So your assumption fails on that point alone.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

You might think you were around 50,000 years ago, 

But I've got news for you.  Varves from Lake Suigetsu shows us what the C14 levels were 50,000 years ago.

[Sparks]

4 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

But I've got news for you.  Varves from Lake Suigetsu shows us what the C14 levels were 50,000 years ago.

This seems to be what you don't understand about science.  You were not there 50,000 years ago to measure, and no one alive today was alive then, either.

For science to work, you need to observe it first hand, and test.   Lastly, C-14 has a half-life of 5730 years, so no traces of C-14 from that era could be measured today, of course, you have no evidence that the Earth existed 50,000 years ago.

[Sparks]

9 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

I know you want to believe that.  But the data says you're wrong.

No, it does not.  Some scientist lying might say that, but they don't understand how the scientific method works and should turn in their scientist badge, if the plan is to state there was such data.

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Speciation is microevolution, not macro.

Well, that's a testable assumption:

macroevolution

 

măk″rō-ĕv″ə-loo͞′shən, -ē″və-

noun

1. Large-scale evolution occurring over a very long period time that results in the formation of new species and higher-level taxonomic groups.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/macroevolution

Macroevolution Definition

Macroevolution refers to the concept of large-scale evolution that occurs at the level of species and above.

https://biologydictionary.net/macroevolution/

Sorry, you have that wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

For science to work, you need to observe it first hand, and test.  

If that was true, forensics, fire investigation, geology, and a great many other sciences would not work.   It's not hard to show that the notion "you can't know anything you weren't there to see" is false.

We can test that and show that it's false.