Zone1 Do you trust radiocarbon dating?

[toobfreak]

Well, all you got is faith in science

Science is proof in ones conclusions. Science is objectively measuring the world around us in a way that is repeatable from person to person to eliminate error.

The Word of God is not 'magic'. It is Supernatural, yes.

And lacks any external locus of verification to test its accuracy. You criticize science even though its nature is to be testable and repeatable while urging us to just take the Bible completely on its word.

It goes back much farther then science can ever hope to go.

Recorded science goes back 5,000 years. Archeological evidence of science goes back more than 12,000 years.

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

In other words, science has checks and balances and is automatically self-correcting when shown slightly off in error to continually improve and adjust itself to be as accurate as we know how.

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

The Bible makes unsubstantiated claims which not only completely fly in the face of thousands of years of learning while offering no way of even verifying or testing any of its wild claims. Why do you hold the Bible to such a low standard that it cannot possibly fail because you don't even test it but take it at its word, while holding science to an impossibly high standard it cannot ever meet while refusing to believe its proofs?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Science is proof in ones conclusions. Science is objectively measuring the world around us in a way that is repeatable from person to person to eliminate error.


And lacks any external locus of verification to test its accuracy. You criticize science even though its nature is to be testable and repeatable while urging us to just take the Bible completely on its word.


Recorded science goes back 5,000 years. Archeological evidence of science goes back more than 12,000 years.


In other words, science has checks and balances and is automatically self-correcting when shown slightly off in error to continually improve and adjust itself to be as accurate as we know how.


The Bible makes unsubstantiated claims which not only completely fly in the face of thousands of years of learning while offering no way of even verifying or testing any of its wild claims. Why do you hold the Bible to such a low standard that it cannot possibly fail because you don't even test it but take it at its word, while holding science to an impossibly high standard it cannot ever meet while refusing to believe its proofs?

it isn't self-correcting when scientists are brow beaten by CONSENSUS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

and as for repeatable the man-made warming has no repeatable scientific tests and hasn't since it started.

 

[onefour1]

More evidence of the flaws of radiometric dating:

 

[toobfreak]

More evidence of the flaws of radiometric dating:

A Youtube video?

 

[onefour1]

A Youtube video?





View attachment 1200001

Yes, a youtube video! Somehow you are under the impression that if you find a single flaw in one youtube video that it disqualifies all youtube videos from having any truth. That is like saying that if you find a single human on earth who tells a lie, then you can't trust any human to ever have any truth. Your reasoning is a complete failure.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes, a youtube video! Somehow you are under the impression that

Dude, the point is that anything can be put on a Youtube video, it has no scientific value as evidence of anything.

Yet you believe it while arguing against science. Dating like all methods in science is forever scrutinizing itself always focusing on improving itself, especially in any valued, proven, and valuable tool. Here are the facts:

Radiocarbon dating uncertainty and the reliability of the PEWMA method of time-series analysis for research on long-term human-environment interaction - PMC

Statistical time-series analysis has the potential to improve our understanding of human-environment interaction in deep time. However, radiocarbon dating—the most common chronometric technique in archaeological and palaeoenvironmental ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Quantrill]

Science is proof in ones conclusions. Science is objectively measuring the world around us in a way that is repeatable from person to person to eliminate error.


And lacks any external locus of verification to test its accuracy. You criticize science even though its nature is to be testable and repeatable while urging us to just take the Bible completely on its word.


Recorded science goes back 5,000 years. Archeological evidence of science goes back more than 12,000 years.


In other words, science has checks and balances and is automatically self-correcting when shown slightly off in error to continually improve and adjust itself to be as accurate as we know how.


The Bible makes unsubstantiated claims which not only completely fly in the face of thousands of years of learning while offering no way of even verifying or testing any of its wild claims. Why do you hold the Bible to such a low standard that it cannot possibly fail because you don't even test it but take it at its word, while holding science to an impossibly high standard it cannot ever meet while refusing to believe its proofs?

Concerning the origins of creation, science operates on its faith in science. Sure, science can build a better mouse trap. But when it comes to origins, it operates on faith in science. Because it doesn't know.

Science is not objective. It finds what it wants to. No evolution occurring today. Thus billions of years are needed to 'believe' it. No problem for science to tack that on when it needs it.

The Bible is the Word of God. He knows because He created the universe and man. The Bible doesn't need testing. It needs to be believed.

Science is a 'faith', but you don't like to admit it. It's father is philosophy.

Quantrill

 

[toobfreak]

science operates on its faith in science.

No, science operates on the power of observation. To measure and test what we see. Then for others to test and measure what they see. When we find a way of measuring the world that generally best agrees with all our own individual tests and measurements and predicts them all well, that is science.

The Bible is the Word of God.

So the Bible says. I'm only pointing out that while much of it is but a historical record in one period of the ancient Hebrew's life, the first few books taken from the Torrah, especially creation in Genesis, is likely much more metaphysical and mythical than it ever was factual, because none of it makes any sense nor has an ounce of scientific plausibility, and our science of the universe is well known, established and verified.

If there were /any/ truth in the Bible's ptolomaic myth of how the universe and man was created, we would see evidence for it somewhere.

And we know man evolved up through the Hominids, the Earth developed over 4.6 billion years and mankind and the world are not central to the universe nor God and all of it was not just created, plunked down as it is, just 6,000 years ago in six days.

That is pure medieval 16th century bs, any why so many younger people are simply leaving the church today.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, science operates on the power of observation. To measure and test what we see. Then for others to test and measure what they see. When we find a way of measuring the world that generally best agrees with all our own individual tests and measurements and predicts them all well, that is science.


So the Bible says. I'm only pointing out that while much of it is but a historical record in one period of the ancient Hebrew's life, the first few books taken from the Torrah, especially creation in Genesis, is likely much more metaphysical and mythical than it ever was factual, because none of it makes any sense nor has an ounce of scientific plausibility, and our science of the universe is well known, established and verified.

If there were /any/ truth in the Bible's ptolomaic myth of how the universe and man was created, we would see evidence for it somewhere.

And we know man evolved up through the Hominids, the Earth developed over 4.6 billion years and mankind and the world are not central to the universe nor God and all of it was not just created, plunked down as it is, just 6,000 years ago in six days.

That is pure medieval 16th century bs, any why so many younger people are simply leaving the church today.

Except right now science operates on consensus. No arguing with what we say just believe.

 

[luiza]

Do you trust Radiocarbon Dating?​

Is it better than Blind Dating or just another version of it?

 

[Quantrill]

No, science operates on the power of observation. To measure and test what we see. Then for others to test and measure what they see. When we find a way of measuring the world that generally best agrees with all our own individual tests and measurements and predicts them all well, that is science.


So the Bible says. I'm only pointing out that while much of it is but a historical record in one period of the ancient Hebrew's life, the first few books taken from the Torrah, especially creation in Genesis, is likely much more metaphysical and mythical than it ever was factual, because none of it makes any sense nor has an ounce of scientific plausibility, and our science of the universe is well known, established and verified.

If there were /any/ truth in the Bible's ptolomaic myth of how the universe and man was created, we would see evidence for it somewhere.

And we know man evolved up through the Hominids, the Earth developed over 4.6 billion years and mankind and the world are not central to the universe nor God and all of it was not just created, plunked down as it is, just 6,000 years ago in six days.

That is pure medieval 16th century bs, any why so many younger people are simply leaving the church today.

Your science was not there to observe, test, or see the origin of the universe or man. You assume. But, as I said, your assumptions with carbon dating give you a false reading. You assume everything is as it always has been. You exercise your 'faith' in science.

Yes, the Bible says. My faith is in what the Bible says. Not what your faith in science says.

No, you don't know that man evolved. You believe man evolved. And you don't know the age of the earth for the reasons I have already given. You believe you know the age of the earth.

You don't know that God did not create the earth and universe and man. You don't believe it, but you don't know it. You assume God did not. Your science can't know. And, the earth is much older than 6,000 years. But we don't know how old. And the Six Day Creation is actually the Six Day Restoration after God's judgement over the rebellion of Satan. And of that time period, where the earth was submerged in water, and the lights shut off, we are not told.

No, the Bible goes much farther back than 16th century.

Quantrill

 

[alang1216]

More evidence of the flaws of radiometric dating:

Only got 5 min in when they talked about potassium-argon dating a 10 year old rock and had to stop. You can't misuse science in an attempt to invalidate that science. That is just dishonest.

Potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating is primarily used to date rocks and minerals ranging from 100,000 years to over 4.3 billion years old. Because the radioactive isotope used has a very long half-life of approximately 1.25 billion years, the "clock" ticks slowly, making it ideal for ancient geological events but difficult to use for very recent history.

 

[Votto]

"The age of the universe has been measured using a variety of independent technological systems, including radio-active dating, Doppler shifts in starlight, and the isotropic "3" to the zero power above zero, radiation background. The methods of these studies are totally unrelated. Therefore, an error that might have occurred in one would not appear in the others. Yet the data taken from these diverse studies present a strong and scientifically consistent argument for a very old Earth and an even older universe."

The quote above comes from the book, "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder who is a scientist and theologian. His argument is not that Genesis is wrong, his argument is that it has not been properly interpreted in modern times and it not being taken literally enough. Instead, he points back to ancient Jewish theologians who all seemed to believe that when reading the original Torah in Hebrew, they came to the same startling conclusion, which is that the earth and universe were much older than thousands of years.

The key is better understanding the original Hebrew. It never says a literal day, yet that is how it has been interpreted.

Just look at the King James Version to see what I'm talking about here.

Genesis 2:4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

If the earth had been created in 6 literal days, what is all the talk about "generations"?

 

[Votto]

They believe a lot of dumb stuff

We all do, like believing you can be a furry or a member of the opposite sex like all the Left wing loons around here.

So what?

 

[toobfreak]

No, the Bible goes much farther back than 16th century.

Wow, dude, I did not even say that. I was speaking of man's historical thinking, not the Bible's creation. No wonder arguing with you is like in a vacuum.

The Bible is clearly wrong yet stuck in this conundrum now of not agreeing with scientific fact, whereas any variables in RC dating is of hot interest and being hotly researched and if any dating need to be significantly updated now due to continually improving methods, we will be the first to know.

But there is absolutely no test nor measurement ever done anywhere that suggests that all archeological dating is totally way wrong and that of all fossils ever discovered, none of them date back farther than 6,000 years.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wow, dude, I did not even say that. I was speaking of man's historical thinking, not the Bible's creation. No wonder arguing with you is like in a vacuum.

The Bible is clearly wrong yet stuck in this conundrum now of not agreeing with scientific fact, whereas any variables in RC dating is of hot interest and being hotly researched and if any dating need to be significantly updated now due to continually improving methods, we will be the first to know.

But there is absolutely no test nor measurement ever done anywhere that suggests that all archeological dating is totally way wrong and that of all fossils ever discovered, none of them date back farther than 6,000 years.

No one is arguing the earth is only 6000 years old dumbass

 

[toobfreak]

No one is arguing the earth is only 6000 years old dumbass

Yes they are buttwipe.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes they are buttwipe.

No, they aren't, I suggest you actually read the posts and not assume you know what they said. No one in this thread said the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[toobfreak]

No, they aren't, I suggest you actually read the posts and not assume you know what they said. No one in this thread said the earth is 6000 years old.

Then maybe you should follow these people in other but similar threads where they routinely argue it is.