in the bible
- Thread starter mac yayo
- Start date
^^^^
That book never claims that the Earth is 6 or 10,000 years old.
People like to make that estimate from looking at the generations talked about it the bible.
Thing is, had they done they're research correctly, they would find that the Earth is much older if you consider the biblical claim that people once lived close to a thousand years.
That book never claims that the Earth is 6 or 10,000 years old.
People like to make that estimate from looking at the generations talked about it the bible.
Thing is, had they done they're research correctly, they would find that the Earth is much older if you consider the biblical claim that people once lived close to a thousand years.
your talking about Proof. Yet you have none. You know just as well as I do that ten Science test all say ten different things, some even go against the others. Is that your proof. If so show me some of it. Like I said I said "Guess" and you say Theory. So focus on making a theory Fact and not on Me proving a Guess for you.
"Originally posted by 2-0-Sixx
Carbon dating is very accurate in fact.
The disbutes aren't whether or not carbon dating works or not, its whether or not it is highly accurate after 50,000 years ago."
Oh, is that the case? So it's highly accurate before 50,000 years ago?
"Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were dated as old as 4,600 years, and a freshly-killed seal was dated at 1,300 years old." -- And I will guess you will say, well C-14 dissolves at an excelerated rate in water and that must have messed with the results....or for other examples I could give you will say some other outside factor effected the results. WELL DUH.....everything being dated is going to have outside factors effecting the results. They assume that just because it was found in dry land or other uncontaminated land that the results must be accurate....forgetting the fact that the land may not have been in the same condition during the whole existance of what is being tested. They "pretend" that they have ways around these errors of carbon dating but they don't otherwise they wouldn't have dated these things so erroneously...they would have thrown the results out. Carbon Dating is a joke. read up on it.
Carbon dating is very accurate in fact.
The disbutes aren't whether or not carbon dating works or not, its whether or not it is highly accurate after 50,000 years ago."
Oh, is that the case? So it's highly accurate before 50,000 years ago?
"Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were dated as old as 4,600 years, and a freshly-killed seal was dated at 1,300 years old." -- And I will guess you will say, well C-14 dissolves at an excelerated rate in water and that must have messed with the results....or for other examples I could give you will say some other outside factor effected the results. WELL DUH.....everything being dated is going to have outside factors effecting the results. They assume that just because it was found in dry land or other uncontaminated land that the results must be accurate....forgetting the fact that the land may not have been in the same condition during the whole existance of what is being tested. They "pretend" that they have ways around these errors of carbon dating but they don't otherwise they wouldn't have dated these things so erroneously...they would have thrown the results out. Carbon Dating is a joke. read up on it.
Your right, Carbon dating is NOT reliable for :SOME: creatures, and it has never been advertised as being so. I never said carbon dating is 100% accurate all the time on living creatures.
That SEAL example is not surprising because seals get their food from the ocean and carbon in the oceasn is already many years removed from the atmosphere, because of their diet seals are not suitable for carbon dating.
HOWEVER, Carbon dating is consistently reliable for trees and most land plants, you know why? Because they build themselves out of carbon directly from the atmosphere. It is also reliable for land-plant-eating animals and the animals that eat those animals, and so on. There are some cases of corruption, but in the overwhelming majority of cases the method works fine.
Now, CARBON DATING is NOT the only dating system out there, and I NEVER claimed it was. The oldest rocks which have been found so far on Earth date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago by several RADIOMETRIC dating methods. Rocks of this age are rare, BUT rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia. See below.
"Principles of Radiometric Dating
Naturally-occurring radioactive materials break down into other materials at known rates. This is known as radioactive decay.
Radioactive parent elements decay to stable daughter elements.
Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel. In 1905, Rutherford and Boltwood used the principle of radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks and minerals (using Uranium decaying to produce Helium. In 1907, Boltwood dated a sample of urnanite based on uranium/lead ratios. Amazingly, this was all done before isotopes were known, and before the decay rates were known accurately. "
I suggest you vist http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isoprobs and study isochron methods as well.
Once again, I HAVE PLENTY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS MY CLAIM. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER?
That SEAL example is not surprising because seals get their food from the ocean and carbon in the oceasn is already many years removed from the atmosphere, because of their diet seals are not suitable for carbon dating.
HOWEVER, Carbon dating is consistently reliable for trees and most land plants, you know why? Because they build themselves out of carbon directly from the atmosphere. It is also reliable for land-plant-eating animals and the animals that eat those animals, and so on. There are some cases of corruption, but in the overwhelming majority of cases the method works fine.
Now, CARBON DATING is NOT the only dating system out there, and I NEVER claimed it was. The oldest rocks which have been found so far on Earth date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago by several RADIOMETRIC dating methods. Rocks of this age are rare, BUT rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia. See below.
"Principles of Radiometric Dating
Naturally-occurring radioactive materials break down into other materials at known rates. This is known as radioactive decay.
Radioactive parent elements decay to stable daughter elements.
Radioactivity was discovered in 1896 by Henri Becquerel. In 1905, Rutherford and Boltwood used the principle of radioactive decay to measure the age of rocks and minerals (using Uranium decaying to produce Helium. In 1907, Boltwood dated a sample of urnanite based on uranium/lead ratios. Amazingly, this was all done before isotopes were known, and before the decay rates were known accurately. "
I suggest you vist http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html#isoprobs and study isochron methods as well.
Once again, I HAVE PLENTY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS MY CLAIM. WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO OFFER?