Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1225205-post32.htmlAlso I'd like some information on how they aged it. To my understanding, we don't have any good way to determine the age of very old stuff....
Your understanding is incorrect.
Ever bother to read threads before you post?
How silly of me! Must have been that 6000 year figure the fundies toss around.http://www.usmessageboard.com/1225205-post32.htmlAlso I'd like some information on how they aged it. To my understanding, we don't have any good way to determine the age of very old stuff....
Your understanding is incorrect.
Ever bother to read threads before you post?
Maybe you should take your own advice. The wiki article you posted states, as I thought everyone already knew, that radio carbon dating only works for up to 60,000 year old objects. 60,000<47 million. They date fossils by the supposed age of the soil strata they are found in.
Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly questionable, idiot. The older the find, the less accurate the dating. It relies on measuring 14.C concentrations...and those concentrations vary widely over time. The simple calculation of age from 14.C concentration is UNRELIABLE.
Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly questionable, idiot. The older the find, the less accurate the dating. It relies on measuring 14.C concentrations...and those concentrations vary widely over time. The simple calculation of age from 14.C concentration is UNRELIABLE.
Do you have a degree in chemistry?
No?
Then shut the fuck up. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
If the FACT that we are related to primates rocks your world, get over it.
PS, I'm not an expert, but I'm almost positive they don't use radio carbon dating for 47 million year old fossils. I'm pretty sure radio carbon doesn't work on anything older than a few tens of thousands of years. They probably used strontium or uraniuim dating methods. But, I could be wrong. Unlike you, I defer to the experts. You know, the ones who actually have chemistry degrees.
Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly questionable, idiot. The older the find, the less accurate the dating. It relies on measuring 14.C concentrations...and those concentrations vary widely over time. The simple calculation of age from 14.C concentration is UNRELIABLE.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1225205-post32.htmlAlso I'd like some information on how they aged it. To my understanding, we don't have any good way to determine the age of very old stuff....
Your understanding is incorrect.
Ever bother to read threads before you post?
Maybe you should take your own advice. The wiki article you posted states, as I thought everyone already knew, that radio carbon dating only works for up to 60,000 year old objects. 60,000<47 million. They date fossils by the supposed age of the soil strata they are found in.
Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly questionable, idiot. The older the find, the less accurate the dating. It relies on measuring 14.C concentrations...and those concentrations vary widely over time. The simple calculation of age from 14.C concentration is UNRELIABLE.
Good God! C14 dating is for very recent finds, at the very best, it is not good for anything older than 100,000 years, used mostly for things less than 50,000 years. Here are some sites with detailed information about the various methods of geological dating.
Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale
Geologic Time: Radiometric Time Scale
Geological Dating
The Bible does not conflict with Science...........
Care
Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly questionable, idiot. The older the find, the less accurate the dating. It relies on measuring 14.C concentrations...and those concentrations vary widely over time. The simple calculation of age from 14.C concentration is UNRELIABLE.
Do you have a degree in chemistry?
No?
Then shut the fuck up. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
If the FACT that we are related to primates rocks your world, get over it.
PS, I'm not an expert, but I'm almost positive they don't use radio carbon dating for 47 million year old fossils. I'm pretty sure radio carbon doesn't work on anything older than a few tens of thousands of years. They probably used strontium or uraniuim dating methods. But, I could be wrong. Unlike you, I defer to the experts. You know, the ones who actually have chemistry degrees.
The Bible does not conflict with Science...........
Care
I seriously doubt those men in the Old Testment lived to be hundreds of years old. Didn't the bible say Abraham lived to be 800 years old?
And I don't think it's scientifically plausible, or physically possible for Jonah to live inside a fish. And Noah really got every single land animal onto a boat?
You're right, human ignorance has projected a lot of baloney and scientifically invalid ideas onto the bible.
But a lot of the bible is flat out improbable, if not scientifically laughable.
Nothing personal, you make some good points....and I don't care if people want to view the bible as the literal word of God.
But I think its much more englightened and plausible to view the bible as metaphor and stories that are guidance for morality.