Zone1 Do you trust radiocarbon dating?

[alang1216]

There are several unproven assumptions and errors in the science.

Science is not math, nothing is ever 'proven' but things like radio-dating have been shown to be accurate and repeatable when checked against objects we know the date of. When dating first began everyone was skeptical but once the results were found to be accurate, only the religious zealots remained skeptical.

 

[toobfreak]

You are incapable of having a reasoned discussion.

Oh really? Are you capable of following the facts?

He did not claim the earth was 7000 years old.

He claimed 1000 years per day. There are 7 days in a week. 7 X 1000 = 7000.

Earlier when I originally said 6,000, I was told that was wrong too. So which is it, Ace? Either way, the number is off by a million miles.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Science is not math, nothing is ever 'proven' but things like radio-dating have been shown to be accurate and repeatable when checked against objects we know the date of. When dating first began everyone was skeptical but once the results were found to be accurate, only the religious zealots remained skeptical.

I dont see how they could have checked the dating of a known object with the required age minimum.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh really? Are you capable of following the facts?


He claimed 1000 years per day. There are 7 days in a week. 7 X 1000 = 7000.

Earlier when I originally said 6,000, I was told that was wrong too. So which is it, Ace? Either way, the number is off by a million miles.

god didnt make days right away.

 

[alang1216]

I dont see how they could have checked the dating of a known object with the required age minimum.

The typical radiocarbon dating range for organic materials is from around 500 years to about 50,000-60,000 years old. Egypt has material of known dates from 500 to 5,000 years ago. That alone would be enough to validate the process.

 

[toobfreak]

god didnt make days right away.

Yeah, I know, I already said that. There was no Earth for 9.3 billion years, and when Earth formed, our days were about 10 hours long, not 24.

And God made probably millions, billions and trillions of other Earths too, so why was he only concerned for THIS one?

 

[BackAgain]

When carbon is dating, does it go all the way on the first date?

Asking for Bill Clinton.

 

[whoisit]

This hurts my brain just thin king about it. I'm just going to KISS ,' keep it simple stupid' it and go along with what we do know, and that is that we are here somehow.
I believe it because of a creator, since we are also a form of creators.
It's not logical to me that a group of creations want us to believe they know all about creations.
I think it is more a spiritual thing than man-made theory.
Now that I've just frustrated my own self, I see what you say.

 

[Quantrill]

No, I do not trust carbon dating. It is based upon too many 'assumptions'.

Quantrill

 

[toobfreak]

No, I do not trust carbon dating. It is based upon too many 'assumptions'.

How many are too many assumptions?

There are no assumptions there, it is based on evidence, facts, and scientific and verified processes and measurements. Where there are factors involved where there is some possible influence or uncertainty in the factors, a RANGE is assigned, that is why when you see a skeleton dated, they will say the remains are between 10,000 years old and 13,000 years old or whatever, giving us good evidence that the body died there around 12,000 years ago.

 

[Quantrill]

How many are too many assumptions?

There are no assumptions there, it is based on evidence, facts, and scientific and verified processes and measurements. Where there are factors involved where there is some possible influence or uncertainty in the factors, a RANGE is assigned, that is why when you see a skeleton dated, they will say the remains are between 10,000 years old and 13,000 years old or whatever, giving us good evidence that the body died there around 12,000 years ago.

It is based on the assumption that everything is as it has always been.

 

[toobfreak]

It is based on the assumption that everything is as it has always been.

Oh no! What an assumption!

How dare anyone assume something really is exactly as it has always been!

Especially when you have half a dozen independent indicators all agreeing with you!

And nothing proving them wrong.

Oh no! How dare you assume that might even wildly be close!!! Years and years of careful study and cross-verification!

 

[onefour1]

False assumptions and flaws have led to the false dating in our world today!

 

[toobfreak]

False assumptions and flaws have led to the false dating in our world today!

Doesn't matter how many youtube experts you dredge up, it does not change the science.

I can find a youtube video of a former governor saying he was taken up in a UFO, doesn't make it true.

 

[MostBoringManInTheWorld]

 

[toobfreak]

The fact is simple, radiocarbon dating is a long-proven reliable technique for estimating age that has been studied and researched to death. It may not be perfect, but it has an acceptable and known range of estimation.

Versus people still just desperately trying to justify a medieval view of the world to protect a few words in an old book as "the word of God" as an excuse for the fact that its claims made fly completely in the face of everything we have learned now by study of the universe for the last 3,000 years.

 

[Quantrill]

Oh no! What an assumption!

How dare anyone assume something really is exactly as it has always been!

Especially when you have half a dozen independent indicators all agreeing with you!

And nothing proving them wrong.

Oh no! How dare you assume that might even wildly be close!!! Years and years of careful study and cross-verification!

You mean 'years of careful study' based on the assumption that everything is always as it has been.

The earth and universe were not in the same condition when originally created. The rebellion of Satan changed everything. The earth itself submerged in water and the light removed. (Gen. 1:2) The Garden in Eden was totally different before Satan's fall. (Ezekiel 28:13-15) One where precious stones dominated its character instead of vegetation.

Before the flood, the earth was basically a terrarium, enclosed by the 'firmament above' which protected the earth from the direct rays of the sun. (Gen. 1:7) When that was removed at the 'Flood of Noah' the atmosphere of the earth changed drastically. Whereas people lived up to a thousand years before, now would be reduced to around 70. (Gen. 7:11) (Gen. 4:6-32)

Thus you see the terrible assumption made that carbon dating is credible in dating 'millions of years'. Things have not always been the same.

Quantrill

 

[toobfreak]

The earth and universe were not in the same condition when originally created. The rebellion of Satan changed everything. The earth itself submerged in water and the light removed. (Gen. 1:2) The Garden in Eden was totally different before Satan's fall. (Ezekiel 28:13-15) One where precious stones dominated its character instead of vegetation.

Before the flood, the earth was basically a terrarium, enclosed by the 'firmament above' which protected the earth from the direct rays of the sun. (Gen. 1:7) When that was removed at the 'Flood of Noah' the atmosphere of the earth changed drastically. Whereas people lived up to a thousand years before, now would be reduced to around 70. (Gen. 7:11) (Gen. 4:6-32)

Sounds like the makings of one hell of a story! Someone should make a movie on it. Now all we need is a collection of hard evidence to prove it all true.

Thus you see the terrible assumption made that carbon dating is credible in dating 'millions of years'.

When all you got is science to go by, even a little bit of science beats a lot of magic every time.

The Liturgy produced a flat disc-like Earth sitting on the backs of elephants with a crystal sphere overhead!

A man with nothing more than a stick casting a shadow down a well and using some science with a brain not only figured out that the Earth was just a big ball, but very closely deduced a good guess as to its size.

 

[Quantrill]

Sounds like the makings of one hell of a story! Someone should make a movie on it. Now all we need is a collection of hard evidence to prove it all true.


When all you got is science to go by, even a little bit of science beats a lot of magic every time.

The Liturgy produced a flat disc-like Earth sitting on the backs of elephants with a crystal sphere overhead!

A man with nothing more than a stick casting a shadow down a well and using some science with a brain not only figured out that the Earth was just a big ball, but very closely deduced a good guess as to its size.

Well, all you got is faith in science, which assumes much. The Word of God is not 'magic'. It is Supernatural, yes. It goes back much farther then science can ever hope to go.

Science gives you theories based on assumptions, and then acts like they are absolutes. Till they learn otherwise and then their facts change.

The Bible gives the way it actually was and some history surrounding it.

Quantrill

 

[Zebra]

Why is this not a poll!?