Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just because science said so? How can they when they were not even there?
If you get mistakes in from their dating methods as found sometimes when dating something within our known lifetime or history; how can anyone date something beyond the scope of human history without confirmation?
Living mollusks have been carbon dated at 2,300 years old dead.
Mortar from an English castle less than 800 years old -carbon 14 test dated at 7,370 years old.
Even fresh seal skins had been carbon 14 test dated at 1,300 years old.
The C-14 system depends on the idea that there has been no catastrophic event in the past fifty thousand years, and yet we are getting errors in the dating method.
So "if" the global flood happened within the 6,000 years time period, it would throw all the measurements out of whack as it also explains why there are errors in the scientific dating method that we have today.
Feel free to share why you believe that the earth is 4.54 billion years old without science and history being able to confirm it.
I would also like to point out that the reason why marine life has a supposed greater age measurement by the carbon 14 method is because they are in a water environment where absorption of carbon 14 would not be the same as land animals or birds.
That means fossilized whale bones on mountaintops would have a greater appearance of age per the carbon 14 dating method than the fossilized land animals which being buried together in mass graves can be a testimony that it had happened at the same time, and not at different times.
It cannot prove one way or another, and so it all depends on how you want to look at the evidence.
Just because science said so? How can they when they were not even there?
If you get mistakes in from their dating methods as found sometimes when dating something within our known lifetime or history; how can anyone date something beyond the scope of human history without confirmation?
Living mollusks have been carbon dated at 2,300 years old dead.
Mortar from an English castle less than 800 years old -carbon 14 test dated at 7,370 years old.
Even fresh seal skins had been carbon 14 test dated at 1,300 years old.
The C-14 system depends on the idea that there has been no catastrophic event in the past fifty thousand years, and yet we are getting errors in the dating method.
So "if" the global flood happened within the 6,000 years time period, it would throw all the measurements out of whack as it also explains why there are errors in the scientific dating method that we have today.
Feel free to share why you believe that the earth is 4.54 billion years old without science and history being able to confirm it.
Science is not a "they", it is a process that has been confirmed to be reliable enough to be accepted as the best means of coming to conclusions. Religion and superstitions have been regularly proven wrong and thereby the least reliable method for making predictions and arriving at conclusions. Because some carbon 14 dating methods, only one of many dating methods, has been contaminated and has come to inconsistent results does not mean that the errors can be considered off by a factor of billions of years, hundreds or thousands at most. Certainly, no scientific dating methods suggest the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Again, as I posted previously, (I feel like the scientist in the video) there are many, many more problems for theists to overcome to prove the flood ever happened to even consider it in the debate about the age of the Earth much less about the reliability of carbon 14 dating.
Probably because the Pope told them it was so-but don't confuse scientists with atheists. After all, October 24, 1945 it became a new world....
Just as they used the 'trinity' doctrine to distort the Bible teaching on principles, if anyone believes that a principle can be established upon random events is about as lost as lost can be.
Just because science said so? How can they when they were not even there?
If you get mistakes in from their dating methods as found sometimes when dating something within our known lifetime or history; how can anyone date something beyond the scope of human history without confirmation?
Living mollusks have been carbon dated at 2,300 years old dead.
Mortar from an English castle less than 800 years old -carbon 14 test dated at 7,370 years old.
Even fresh seal skins had been carbon 14 test dated at 1,300 years old.
The C-14 system depends on the idea that there has been no catastrophic event in the past fifty thousand years, and yet we are getting errors in the dating method.
So "if" the global flood happened within the 6,000 years time period, it would throw all the measurements out of whack as it also explains why there are errors in the scientific dating method that we have today.
Feel free to share why you believe that the earth is 4.54 billion years old without science and history being able to confirm it.
You make good points, but in the end we must assume that the information coming from accredited universities and scientific publications is more reliable that what comes from Fundamentalists Bible Schools with no academic record.
Lastly, the info pushed by the fundamentalists is not considered science. The info pushed by academicians is on much better solid ground.
Science is not a "they", it is a process that has been confirmed to be reliable enough to be accepted as the best means of coming to conclusions. Religion and superstitions have been regularly proven wrong and thereby the least reliable method for making predictions and arriving at conclusions. Because some carbon 14 dating methods, only one of many dating methods, has been contaminated and has come to inconsistent results does not mean that the errors can be considered off by a factor of billions of years, hundreds or thousands at most. Certainly, no scientific dating methods suggest the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Again, as I posted previously, (I feel like the scientist in the video) there are many, many more problems for theists to overcome to prove the flood ever happened to even consider it in the debate about the age of the Earth much less about the reliability of carbon 14 dating.
Bear with me as I am citing evolutionists which is leading to an inevitable conclusion.
The Cambrian Explosion: the link from which these quotes are from is included in the third quote down FYI.
Quote:
Douglas, Erwin, James W. Valentine, and David Jablonski, “The Origin of Animal Body Plans,” American Scientist, vol. 85 (March/April 1997), pp. 126-137.p. 126 “All of the basic architectures of animals were apparently established by the close of the Cambrian explosion; subsequent evolutionary changes, even those that allowed animals to move out of the sea onto land, involved only modifications of those basic body plans. About 37 distinct body architectures are recognized among present-day animals and from the basis of the taxonomic classification level of phyla.”
Quote:
These men are all evolutionists.....
Dougles Irwin: Research Paleobiologist and Curator Paleozoic Mollusks, Interim Director National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C
James W. Valentine : Active Emeritus Department of Integrative Biology University of California, Berkeley, CA
David Jablonski : Chair and Professor: Committee on Evolutionary Biology Professor: Department of Geophysical Sciences Charles Schuchert Award, Paleontological Society Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Quote:
Here is an excerpt from another evolutionist, Stephen J. Gould:
Gould, Stephen Jay, “A Short Way to Big Ends,” Natural History, vol. 95 (January 1986), pp. 18
“Studies that began in the early 1950s and continue at an accelerating pace today have revealed an extensive Precambrian fossil record, but the problem of the Cambrian explosion has not receded, since our more extensive labor has still failed to identify any creature that might serve as a plausible immediate ancestor for the Cambrian faunas.”
He believed in evolution but did not believe that the fossil evidence supported that belief. He was so concerned about the lack of transitional fossils that he developed a new theory called Punctuated Equilibrium that says evolution happened so fast it did not leave the fossil evidence. In short, he developed a new theory with no proof to replace another theory with no proof.
Recently, Dr. Smith and his colleague David Harper of the University of Durham took a look at the hypotheses that have been offered about what caused the Cambrian explosion. “It became apparent just how many hypotheses there were out there,” Dr. Harper said. “Thirty-plus over the past 10 years.”
The scientists found that many of those explanations had boiled the cause down to just one trigger. Geologists suggested geological causes. Ecologists proposed ecological ones. Many of those ideas have merit, Dr. Smith and Dr. Harper argue in a commentary in this week’s Science, but it’s a mistake to search for a single cause. They propose that a tangled web of factors and feedbacks were responsible for evolution’s big bang.
Quote:
It took a global flood to tap that capacity, Dr. Smith and Dr. Harper propose. They base their proposal on a study published last year by Shanan Peters of the University of Wisconsin and Robert Gaines of Pomona College. They offered evidence that the Cambrian Explosion was preceded by a rise in sea level that submerged vast swaths of land, eroding the drowned rocks.
“There’s a big kick that correlates with the sea level rise,” Dr. Smith said of the fossil record. He and Dr. Harper propose that this kick happened thanks to the new habitats created by the sea level rise.
If you'll read the article without your blinders on, this article is speaking of multiple global floods that raised the global sea levels so much that the animals were poisoned, but it does not suggest that it covered the entire earth and killed all animals except the ones who got in a big boat, floating to safety. This is a very biased website that lends no credibility to your claims.
Gould' theory was not created to explain away the lack of earlier fossils and perhaps you should read both Its a wonderful life about the Burgess Sales and the rocks of ages in which he discusses science and religion, they are both easy books to read, having both I have read them several times.
When taking my geology minor they did not teach us how putting a rock under water changes its radioactive decay. Creationists who never appear to actually do science could do an experiment.
Before the discovery of radioactivity Lord Kelvin in attempting to disprove an old earth calculated the earth's age in the millions of years and he was a devout Christian. The geologist Louis Aggie (spelling may be wrong) demonstrated that the deposits in northern latitude were glacial and no evidence of a global flood. He also was a devout Christian who rejected evolution on the grounds it conflicted with his religion.
If you'll read the article without your blinders on, this article is speaking of multiple global floods that raised the global sea levels so much that the animals were poisoned, but it does not suggest that it covered the entire earth and killed all animals except the ones who got in a big boat, floating to safety. This is a very biased website that lends no credibility to your claims.
There were multiple floods in scripture and the article doesn't say a flood did not cover the earth either. It shows scientists have ideas but no solid facts, so... faith is what they have in a .. theory without solid proof. Nothing shows an earth wide flood did not occur either.Mind you I have no problem with a 4.5 billion year old earth, as scripture does not teach 6 each 24 hour days. It does not tell us how long the earth was formless and how long each day was so ...science is not at odds with Scripture, just with some believers.
There were multiple floods in scripture and it doesn't say a flood did not cover the earth either. It shows scientists have idea but no solid facts, so... faith is what they have in a .. theory without solid proof. Nothing shows an earth wide flood did not occur either.Mind you I have no problem with a 4.5billion earth as scripture does not teach 6 each 24 hour days. It does not tel us how long the earth was formless and how long each day was so ...science is not at odds with Scripture, just with some believers.
Science doesn't suggest that we aren't simply dustmites in the beds of enormous extraterrestrials, so does this suggest that we are? But science does prove that the flood story that is enumerated in the Bible could not have occurred. For example, science has proven that no wooden boat that size is seaworthy. Science has proven that the number of species which are living or have become extinct since the time of the Biblical flood story could not evolved from the small number that was on the Ark. There are many, many more examples.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
