Using the Bible to prove the Bible (techniques, Creator, origin)

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

Good question. Accepting carbon dating, even in a cautious way, would seem to mean accepting a world over 50,000 years old and I wasn't sure Campbell even went that far.

Well as the link below points out. If a sample died more than 50,000 years ago, it should have no measurable C-14 left today. So I would question such a date. And this is where we start having to make these assumptions, which are really impossible to confirm.

Limitations of and extensions to the C-14 dating technique

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

I believe it may be accurate to five or ten thousands years. Others believe it is accurate to 30,000 years. And others, to 80,000 years or more. Yet the more you expand on the dates, often the more assumptions you must be willing to make. I tend to be more conserative. If a sample died off 50,000 years ago. There should be no carbon left in such a sample. So I would question such an age, based on what should not be there.

Ah! I get it. Because you are a YEC you will accept C14 dating providing the results fall within a range that suggests that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. If the very same dating methods give a date of over 10,000 years old....the method is not reliable.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Well as the link below points out. If a sample died more than 50,000 years ago, it should have no measurable C-14 left today. So I would question such a date. And this is where we start having to make these assumptions, which are really impossible to confirm.

Limitations of and extensions to the C-14 dating technique

Very well 20,000 to 30,000 years then.

The early Upper Paleolithic beyond ... - Google Books

The Emergence of modern humans: an ... - Google Books

The Oxford handbook of archaeology - Google Books

The Cave Painters: Probing the ... - Google Books

If you accept a world that's 20-30 millennium old okay. If you can't I don't see how you accept radiocarbon dating.

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Ah! I get it. Because you are a YEC you will accept C14 dating providing the results fall within a range that suggests that the Earth is no more than 10,000 years old. If the very same dating methods give a date of over 10,000 years old....the method is not reliable.

Well I believe the earth to be around 13,000 years old. And dates that would suggest older I would question. Yet it is said that archeologist reject half of the dates that come back from C-14 for the oppsite reason. Especially when they test dinosaur bones, or even coal. Their belief system suggest that dinosaur bones, and coal should be millions of years old. Yet Carbon-14 dates show them to be thousands of years. So it's not like I stand alone here in the rejection of C-14 dating.

Carbon 14, Radiometric Dating, Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones, not millions of years old

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

Very well 20,000 to 30,000 years then.

The early Upper Paleolithic beyond ... - Google Books

The Emergence of modern humans: an ... - Google Books

The Oxford handbook of archaeology - Google Books

The Cave Painters: Probing the ... - Google Books

If you accept a world that's 20-30 millennium old okay. If you can't I don't see how you accept radiocarbon dating.

Well Radiocarbon dates are often rejected from both camps, not just Christians, but archeologist as well. When dinosaur bones or coal is tested and shown to be thousands of years old, and not millions. Archeologist will reject the results of such tests. When Christians are shown dates that exceed the Biblical account, they will reject those dates. The fact is, C-14 may be close to accurate. Yet, I do not believe it is 100% reliable. And that is why there are such discrepancies which are understood by both groups. Naturally, dates of 10,000 years or less should be considered the most accurate. Whereas dates that excced that time frame, I believe become much more problamatic.

Carbon 14, Radiometric Dating, Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones, not millions of years old

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Naturally, dates of 10,000 years or less should be considered the most accurate. Whereas dates that excced that time frame, I believe become much more problamatic.

....because they disprove your YEC beliefs.

The mind boggles!!!

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by Rafius

....because they disprove your YEC beliefs.

The mind boggles!!!

And yet, the C-14 age of dinosaur bones disproves their beliefs. And their beliefs have been shown to be false in the past. Yet the Biblical accounts have not. So who are you going to believe? Those who have been proven to be false before, or the Biblical accounts that continue to be proven true by historical discovery.

[sanspeur]

Once again, science does NOT use carbon 14 to date dino bones... I made it red so maybe you'll see it this time....

[Rafius]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

And yet, the C-14 age of dinosaur bones disproves their beliefs.

See post 508.

And their beliefs have been shown to be false in the past. Yet the Biblical accounts have not.

Yeah...you wish!

So who are you going to believe? Those who have been proven to be false before, or the Biblical accounts that continue to be proven true by historical discovery.

...and of course you will ignore the historical evidence that proves the Bible wrong won't you?

[Campbell34]

Originally Posted by sanspeur

Once again, science does NOT use carbon 14 to date dino bones... I made it red so maybe you'll see it this time....

And once again, that is because they incorrectly believe that dinosaur bones are millions of years old. Just like they use to believe soft tissue would never be found in dinosaur bones. They were wrong about the soft tissue, and they are wrong about dinosaur bones being millions of years old.