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.
I'm not a geologist, but I'm pretty sure the technique used for igneous rocks (ie, solidified lava, which is the only kind of rock that forms quickly) cannot date anything under 10,000 years because not enough isotope breakdown has occurred yet. Radiometric dates also have errors. The older the date, the wider the range of possible values. You'll see something like 150 million, +/- 100,000 years.
As a rule of thumb, carbon 14 dating is limited to organic material and can only work op to say 100,000 years old material, so talk of dating rock artefacts (unless by organic material sticking to it) is nonsense.
Rocks can be dated by various means, radiometric dating being one of the better ones, the uniformity of radiation decay being confirmed by preserved natural radiation events.
That is the method of arriving at date of mineral deposits millions of years old.
Mind, you, a 'half life' doesn't mean that over 1,500 years (or whatever the half -life of C14 is) half the radiating isotope disappears and over the next half -life period all the rest does leaving non - fissionable carbon behind. It is that over the half life period, half of what was left decays through radiation. Like the frog hopping out of the circle, some C14 will always remain.
So, if organic dinosaur material were to be found in a truly ancient Ice - deposit or tar -pit, I suppose the tiny amount of remaining C14 could still be dated, even after millions of years.
The half -life is 6,000 years. What are the oldest things that can be radiocarbon dated?
Anything that is less than about 50 or 60 000 years can be radiocarbon dated. Beyond 60 000 years there is hardly any radiocarbon left in a sample that is original. Often, in very old material, there is contamination which can significantly affect the accuracy of a date. Dating material from the archaeological or geological record beyond 30 000 years can be very difficult indeed unless the depositional situation of the sample is favourable and scientists can remove any contamination. Even a small amount of c14 from a contaminant can produce an incorrect date in an old sample. Often, radiocarbon daters release dates as being 'greater than 50 000 years' or 'greater than 45 000 years' because of the difficulty in reliably giving a date at this age.
In some places, such as Australia, archaeologists have recognised the problems in dating the oldest sites, which may stretch back over 50 - 60 000 years. Other techniques such as OSL (Optically Stimulated Luminescence dating) which use different methods of determining age, are often used in parallel with radiocarbon to determine the ages of the uppermost parts of the site. The ages derived are compared with another, and usually, there has been good agreement between the methods. At sites in the far north of the continent, the oldest dates have been obtained using OSL, at about 60 000 years. Again, this is really just beyond the c14 limit for sites such as these. http://www.c14dating.com/k12.html
God has given us all life. He never promised us a life devoid of pain and suffering. Like the old song: "I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden." Isn't it good enough He gave us life? And what is this life compared to eternity? Take a pencil and put the tiniest dot you can on a piece of paper. That is your whole life, how long it is. It seems long to us while we are living inside that little point. The suffering seems interminable. But it is just a dot compared to eternity. How would we like it if God never brought us into existence in the first place? We have so very much to be thankful for. And to top it off, His Son came to die for all mankind to undo all Adam did in passing death through into the human race. Because of what Christ did, your wife and brother will be brought back to life and be given immortality and incorruption, love, joy, peace etc. What did they do to deserve this bountiful blessing? Nothing. How could they thoroughly enjoy that which awaits them had they not gone through suffering in this little dot of experiential time? It sure seems like a good trade-off to me.
You can't expect people to always be thankful for something they never asked for.
It's easy to sit around and declare that we should all just be yammering with glee that we exist, but I'm here to tell you as a chronic pain sufferer - there's no POINT in existing when you have a life like mine. Would it have mattered if I had never been brought into the world? No ... because it's not like I would be missing anything so astoundingly wonderful that it is worth experiencing nothing but pain every miserable day.
Normally I don't go on and on about how I feel because I know most people don't want to hear about it, and no one wants to hear about it all the time. But until it happens to YOU ... not someone you love, not someone you know but YOU, then you can never understand. Claiming you do is insulting. This is why I consider it an atrocity that we do not allow euthenasia in this country (not that I want to do that - yet).
For some of us, there is no trade off, no yang to ying. Even the most gorgeous day on earth means nothing to a person in pain, a person who can only sit and watch from a bed as the world moves on without them.
And I'm supposed to be thankful? Really? Fortunately, my atheism is what has allowed me to accept my issues instead of always looking for false hope that some magical god will cure me - and then resenting it when he doesn't.
Finally, at the end of it all, what would I have to look forward to? An eternity of babbling praises to a god? Spending forever on my knees when I'm not fetching God a cup of coffee or something? Even the afterlife leaves a lot to be anxious for.
You can't expect people to always be thankful for something they never asked for.
It's easy to sit around and declare that we should all just be yammering with glee that we exist, but I'm here to tell you as a chronic pain sufferer - there's no POINT in existing when you have a life like mine. Would it have mattered if I had never been brought into the world? No ... because it's not like I would be missing anything so astoundingly wonderful that it is worth experiencing nothing but pain every miserable day.
Normally I don't go on and on about how I feel because I know most people don't want to hear about it, and no one wants to hear about it all the time. But until it happens to YOU ... not someone you love, not someone you know but YOU, then you can never understand. Claiming you do is insulting...For some of us, there is no trade off, no yang to ying. Even the most gorgeous day on earth means nothing to a person in pain, a person who can only sit and watch from a bed as the world moves on without them.
My late wife's situation exactly, and you are sparing us the ancillary factoids, I'm sure; in her case, by the end there was chronic insomnia, unremitting fatigue, breakdown of her immune system, dementia, walking into walls, hyper-reactivity to many drugs and everyday substances, etc ... developments I believe you will be spared, likely, because I doubt the source of your neuropathy is the same, and even within her malady, outcomes vary widely and seemingly randomly. But to me the worst part is that she remained a theist to the end, which only enhanced the "why me" aspect of it for her and her extended family.
People who experience unremitting suffering of any kind quickly outgrow the simplistic pablums offered by faith. It cuts right through the BS. And it gives the lie to theist claims of moral superiority, too. Since my wife was unable to predict the violent ups and downs of her illness it was difficult for her to commit to other people's schedules and priorities. As a consequence, the church had no use for her, with its default assumption that those who don't attend and tithe regularly are "uncommitted" and those whose faith does not "overcome" are harboring secret apathies or even sins. So much for even theist claims of love and sweetness.
It wasn't that terribly long ago when Christians actually believed that being disabled meant you were being punished by God. Therefore, you were treated like a criminal by mainstream society - including the church. When I say "not too terribly long ago," I mean within living memory. Only the advent of FDR's welfare state finally ridded disabled Americans from having to rely on family or - for those without a family - having to rely on people who regarded you as a lousy sinner and not really deserving of help.
Even today, though, the loudest screamers about hating welfare and accusing all poor people of being lazy and all disabled people of simply faking it are, you guessed it, Christians. These are the same people who never raise a fuss over the fact that their tax dollars are being spent to fund a military war machine that outspends the next 20 nations combined (including all of our potential enemies), but throw absolute hissy fits when they are asked to pay for their neighbor's chemotherapy or to keep a poverty-stricken diabetic supplied with insulin.
It wasn't that terribly long ago when Christians actually believed that being disabled meant you were being punished by God. Therefore, you were treated like a criminal by mainstream society - including the church. When I say "not too terribly long ago," I mean within living memory. Only the advent of FDR's welfare state finally ridded disabled Americans from having to rely on family or - for those without a family - having to rely on people who regarded you as a lousy sinner and not really deserving of help.
There is still plenty of residual "it must be your fault somehow" sentiment in many Christians, because it disturbs what passes for the internal logic of their value propositions. Righteousness, overall, is supposed to be rewarded and unrighteousness punished. Even basically righteous Christians leave room for "testing" and "chastisement" for increasingly smaller issues as they "mature in the faith".
For this reason I think that devout Christians who experience difficulties must endure those with an extra measure of anxiety because they know that it won't be long before the empathy and patience runs out and they are expected to convert their tribulations into "blessings in disguise" through some sort of mental alchemy, or suffer the consequences. "I better start praising god, and make a convincing job of it" is what goes through their heads. It is rather like the way general society falls quiet when you announce that the doctor has given you a death sentence. Even if they don't judge you, you are a source of discomfort to those who haven't dealt adequately with their own mortality, and you see many friends and family skulking away with their fingers in their ears and their eyes squinted shut, metaphorically speaking.
Suffering is an Inconvenient Truth for Christians and they often take it out on the sufferers. Exceptions tend to include situations where there is a lot of income and/or educational disparity where believers can feed their Jesus Complexes by swooping in and "saving" the sufferers and basking in their undying gratitude. Double bonus points if the sufferer is not a Christian because they are prime marks who are apt to convert.
I hate to be so cynical about this but I'm really not that far off the mark. Yes, some Christians display genuine compassion and make a truly selfless effort towards folks in need, but I am convinced these days that this is in spite of their faith rather than because of it.
People who experience unremitting suffering of any kind quickly outgrow the simplistic pablums offered by faith. It cuts right through the BS. And it gives the lie to theist claims of moral superiority, too. Since my wife was unable to predict the violent ups and downs of her illness it was difficult for her to commit to other people's schedules and priorities. As a consequence, the church had no use for her, with its default assumption that those who don't attend and tithe regularly are "uncommitted" and those whose faith does not "overcome" are harboring secret apathies or even sins. So much for even theist claims of love and sweetness.
Oh, I get it now. All Christians on the face of the earth, all churchs are now branded as unloving and all of them screw over someone who becomes sick and fails to attend church or tithe. Okay, now I see it. Why I didn't before, I must have been blind. My church must fall into this category even if we visit our sick who can't attend and we don't ask for tithes or any money and never have. But we are now branded along with the church your wife attended as being an evil entity. Okay. You've persuaded me now. Thanks for letting me know how evil all these churches are. I'm sure your wife's life and death were meant to teach us all this valuable lesson that all churches are evil to the core.
Oh, I get it now. All Christians on the face of the earth, all churchs are now branded as unloving and all of them screw over someone who becomes sick and fails to attend church or tithe. Okay, now I see it. Why I didn't before, I must have been blind. My church must fall into this category even if we visit our sick who can't attend and we don't ask for tithes or any money and never have. But we are now branded along with the church your wife attended as being an evil entity. Okay. You've persuaded me now. Thanks for letting me know how evil all these churches are. I'm sure your wife's life and death were meant to teach us all this valuable lesson that all churches are evil to the core.
A typically charitable post from a certain breed of Christian.
Please show where mordant referred to "all Christians" and "all churchs" (sic).
Oh, I get it now. All Christians on the face of the earth, all churchs are now branded as unloving and all of them screw over someone who becomes sick and fails to attend church or tithe.
No you don't get it, because I never said that.
Many churches do good in the world because there are good people in those churches who seek an outlet for doing good. They would do good, with or without the church. In fact I strongly suspect that they'd do MORE good WITHOUT the church, because the basic teachings of the church often get in the way of good.
In a morally valid and consistent belief-system there should be little to no room for experiences like that of my wife, but it is often the default in Christianity (probably many other religions too but I'm speaking of what I'm directly familiar with) because people who experience intense suffering, unthinkable misfortune, and terrible losses DESPITE all the promises and principles on offer that say otherwise, are ... inconvenient. On the other hand, when the Bible goes on at length about the suffering of the unrighteous, god's wrath and judgment for the wicked, etc., blaming the victim is ... convenient.
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.
