This is a major arguement for atheists. This is their "scientific proof" that makes the bible obsolete. So lets examine shall we? After all...I am accused all the time of never reading a science book because of my belief in God so today I will examine it for all you atheists. So we use carbon dating to see how old something is. So lets look at carbon dating. Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 years so if you do the math, you can not carbon date something that is 60,000 years old because the carbon 14 just wont exist after that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14 The initial 14C level for the calculation can either be estimated, or else directly compared with known year-by-year data from tree-ring data to 10,000 years ago Interesting! Although I find it odd that the worlds oldest tree which is 9,550 years old does not seem like it has 9,550 rings. But hey...thats ok...they used carbon 14 dating to figure out its age! So in order to calibrate carbon 14s initial calculation they compare it with 10,000 year old tree ring data yet to get the age of this 10,000 year old tree they use carbon 14 to figure it out. hmmm sounds a little fishy to me...but lets move on. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080416104320.htm Now lets look at what fossils are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology. Such a preserved specimen is called a "fossil" if it is older than some minimum age, most often the arbitrary date of 10,000 years ago Ok...so in general a fossil is over 10,000 years old. Interesting! I know some of you now are going to say "Hey Peil! They use radioMETRIC dating to date the really old fossils, not carbon 14, you dumb ass!" But is this right? No its not! They do not date the fossils with radiometric dating. They date the surrounding material. They date the rocks AROUND the fossil. Again...you come at me. "Peil! If the stuff around the fossil is 10 million years old, then the fossils MUST be 10 million years old too, you dumb ass!" Really? So lets say a cat is out in the rain one day. It walks by a mountain and there is a landslide and the cat gets buried. Next year an archeologist is digging around and finds cat bones. The archeologist dates the rocks AROUND the cats bones. Now...do you think those rocks AROUND the cat bones are going to be 1 year old? Or are they going to come back as millions of years old. Well if the rocks say millions of years old...the cat MUST be that old! Right? Whats most interesting in all the carbon/radiometric dating methods that exist, things get a little "fishy" at the 10,000 year mark. You will notice they have to "change things around" at that mark. I wonder why? hmmm. But hey, do your research, dont take my word for it OR the scientists word for it. Go find out how dating methods like argon-argon are calibrated or the various inconsistencies with Cosmogenic isotopes. I could probably fill 100 pages writing about this, but its already getting too long and I think alot of you will not read it then. When you get tired of reading all the inconsistancies and and lies of the evolutionists and wish to know the truth, pick up the bible, as the word of God will never fail you the way man does.
Uhhh... no. Half-life refers to the amount of time it takes for radioactive decay to consume half of the amount of an element. It doesn't mean it "just won't exist" after 60,000 years. It just means that the sensitivity of radiocarbon dating (used to be) generally considered accurate to 60,000 years which is why other methods were also developed: Uranium-lead dating method Samarium-neodymium dating method Potassium-argon dating method Rubidium-strontium dating method Uranium-thorium dating method Fission track dating method Chlorine-36 dating method And none of these have anything to do with the Bible, as the Bible says nothing about 6000 years, or 10,000 years.
peilthetraveler you are an amazing example of why religion must be kept out of the schools. i guess you have just proven that dinosaurs did coexist with man. have you ever tried to educate yourself outside of reading creationist sites that preach to the choir? are you even interested in educating yourself? if so here is where to start: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm A History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth http://home.entouch.net/dmd/geo.htm The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood http://home.entouch.net/dmd/seismic1.htm Seismic Data and Evidence of the Earth's Age http://home.entouch.net/dmd/wrong.htm 12 False Statements Made by Anti-evolutionary Apologists http://home.entouch.net/dmd/pollen.htm Pollen Order in Varves Presents Problems for the Flood http://home.entouch.net/dmd/celltype.htm Why Would the Flood Sort Animals by Cell Type? http://home.entouch.net/dmd/chron.htm History of Human Technology http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/homoerectus.htm http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html Prominent Hominid Fossils http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/Evolve2.html Did We Evolve http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/genesis.html A Closer Look at Genesis 1-25
It wont exist. Unless you believe the math trick about you can infinitely divide something by 2. Yes there are plenty of other dating methods...but they are not reliable because of the way they are calibrated. Plus using each of those methods will give you different dates as to the age of something. Now i dont know about you, but if someone make 2 quarts of koolaid and puts 1 cup of suger in it, no matter what i do or what method i use, I should always be able to find out how much sugar is in the koolaid. When my methods start showing I have 2 cups of sugar in it, or 1/2 a cup, then i know my my scale for measuring the sugar MUST be wrong. Even if the guy put an unknown amount of sugar. If I use two or 3 different methods to measure how much sugar is in the koolaid and they are all different, there is something wrong.
Not one site I linked was from a creationist site. I used normal non-biased site information and used their own words against them. Give me some time...I'll read a few of those sites and see what i can debunk, but im sure you would keep me busy for hours reading everything you just linked me so dont expect me to read it all
be careful. that might cause you to think about what you believe and why you believe it. a questioning mind is the enemy of faith.
Wow. Just wow. Can you even see how you left rationality behind right here? That dividing something in half ten times is not "infinitely dividing" it? No, you're simply wrong. Carbon dating, for example was verified by measuring the age of an ancient Egyptian royal boat against known documents showing it's age. It worked. Within their error range, of course. No. In fact your scale could be correct and your kool-aid might be unmixed. You're really not knowledgeable about science and you should probably stop posting now.
1st one... Wow what a long winded writer! Writing entire pages for something he can say in 1 sentence. Since you want me to read huge long winded writers, im going to have to just link you stuff back. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/flood
i suspected you were using pratts from answers in genesis. they are the group that claims humans and dinosaures lived together and the earth is 6000 years old. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQhVjGy6ME&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiBz3JqQ8i8 Fossil Seashells Below Creation Museum Confirm Noah Deluge