Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
anthonyjmcgirr

Carbon Dating (Why I think Science Has It Wrong)

20 posts in this topic

I really, really want to date this carbon-based life form, but for whatever reason, she just doesn't have those sorts of feelings for me.

 

Okay, I'm joking. 

 

I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed here or not...I'm sure it has, but I was curious about carbon dating methods. 

 

I just read a scientific article (not from a Creationist site) that stated that carbon dating is only accurate for specimens going back a few thousand years.  So why do scientists use it to date fossils? 

 

Kent Hovind in one of his debates stated that they give an approximate date of a specimen by where its located in the rock layers.  But they also date the rock layers by the kinds of fossils in the ground and that's called circular reasoning.  There's absolutely NO WAY the same layers are found exactly the same across the earth.  But if they find T-Rex bones in Layer B in Montana and T-Rex bones in Layer C in Utah, well, they must be the same rock layer, same age, etc. 

 

It's all approximate based upon their bias!  The whole Geological timescale model is bogus and does not exist!  But it's being used in science to date things.  And why is carbon dating used to date objects they suspect are millions of years old when it is not accurate past a few thousand?!?! 

 

They also assume their dating models on how much carbon they *think* was in the air at such-and-such a time.  But they could be very, very wrong!

 

If you look at the Genesis account, there was a layer of water above the earth.  This caused a global warming effect all over the globe.  Mammoths found in Alaska, immediately flash frozen, have been found with flowers and tropical grasses and plants still digesting in their stomachs and in there teeth.  That is why they have found tropical plant fossils in Antarctica.  If there was a layer of water over the earth, it blocked out the sun's harmful rays.  People were living longer.  They were huge (giants in the land in those days).  Everything grew to mammoth proportions.  I've seen fossils of MASSIVE spiders, ants, scorpions, clams (found on the highest of mountains).  Everything grew and didn't stop growing. 

 

And when there's a global warming effect, it changes the amount of carbon in the air.  Plants were growing larger and more abundant, thriving off the extra carbon.  And when the flood hit, it buried all these animals and plants in sediments with much higher carbon levels than scientists suspect.  And when they go to do a carbon test, assuming what the level of carbon was based upon their naturalistic bias and the numbers are all jacked up. 

 

But the fact that there is still carbon in these fossils and layers to test PROVES that the earth is indeed young and that the bible is correct.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blessings Anthony

      I did not read your entire post,I apologize but I have to run & will read it all when I come back....I just wanted to say that the fact that carbon dating is only accurate(to some degree)in dating specimens but a few thousand years old has only recently been proved......at first carbon dating was thought to be the answer to dating fossils millions of years old with great accuracy & all you heard about was the" scientific evidence " proving  that this fossil was 50 million years old & that fossil was 65 million years old.......I was just surprised to read the first couple of sentences you wrote because you don't hear much that it was all in err.................just saying-LOL

                                                                                                                                 With lo0ve,in Christ-Kwik

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C14 dating is only good to just under 60,000 years since they can calculate the rate of half life decay.  

 

You are correct. The problem is with the assumption of an equilbrium between the amount of C14 produced and the amount eliminated.   The problem is that it was discovered long ago that there is no equilibrium, but it was ignored.  It is one reason why C14 data is unreliable.   

 

They are still finding C14 in fossilized plants and animals presumed to be millions of years old meaning that they are less than 60,000 years old.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ exactly! Finding any C14 in any fossilized specimen is just proof that they didn't die out millions of years ago

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really, really want to date this carbon-based life form, but for whatever reason, she just doesn't have those sorts of feelings for me.

 

Okay, I'm joking. 

 

I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed here or not...I'm sure it has, but I was curious about carbon dating methods. 

 

I just read a scientific article (not from a Creationist site) that stated that carbon dating is only accurate for specimens going back a few thousand years.  So why do scientists use it to date fossils? 

 

Kent Hovind in one of his debates stated that they give an approximate date of a specimen by where its located in the rock layers.  But they also date the rock layers by the kinds of fossils in the ground and that's called circular reasoning.  There's absolutely NO WAY the same layers are found exactly the same across the earth.  But if they find T-Rex bones in Layer B in Montana and T-Rex bones in Layer C in Utah, well, they must be the same rock layer, same age, etc. 

 

It's all approximate based upon their bias!  The whole Geological timescale model is bogus and does not exist!  But it's being used in science to date things.  And why is carbon dating used to date objects they suspect are millions of years old when it is not accurate past a few thousand?!?! 

 

They also assume their dating models on how much carbon they *think* was in the air at such-and-such a time.  But they could be very, very wrong!

 

If you look at the Genesis account, there was a layer of water above the earth.  This caused a global warming effect all over the globe.  Mammoths found in Alaska, immediately flash frozen, have been found with flowers and tropical grasses and plants still digesting in their stomachs and in there teeth.  That is why they have found tropical plant fossils in Antarctica.  If there was a layer of water over the earth, it blocked out the sun's harmful rays.  People were living longer.  They were huge (giants in the land in those days).  Everything grew to mammoth proportions.  I've seen fossils of MASSIVE spiders, ants, scorpions, clams (found on the highest of mountains).  Everything grew and didn't stop growing. 

 

And when there's a global warming effect, it changes the amount of carbon in the air.  Plants were growing larger and more abundant, thriving off the extra carbon.  And when the flood hit, it buried all these animals and plants in sediments with much higher carbon levels than scientists suspect.  And when they go to do a carbon test, assuming what the level of carbon was based upon their naturalistic bias and the numbers are all jacked up. 

 

But the fact that there is still carbon in these fossils and layers to test PROVES that the earth is indeed young and that the bible is correct.

I enjoyed your post.  Though we disagree on a few points.

 

I am wary of ever calling upon the sciences to "prove" the Bible.  I hold the two separate; let the sciences tell me stuff about how old the earth is, what cigarettes do to me, what I have to take when I have strep throat, how fast light travels etc. etc.  Let the Bible tell me Who created all of this, Why, What kind of God He is, What went wrong with the World, What He did about it, And what should I do in reaction to that....(I say "let the Bible" merely because, that is in fact WHAT the Bible has done).

 

Should the sciences "prove" (though others have helped me see that this might be impossible; according to them, science can neither prove nor disprove hypothetical ages of the universe) that the earth is young, this will not add an iota of faith to me; should it prove it is very, very old--it will have the same neutral effect.  The age of the earth does nothing to my faith in the inspiration of Scripture: my studies of Scripture have led me to believe Scripture wasn't concerned about that.

 

Having said that, I would still be interested in any scientific research that goes against an Old Earth theory which has NO RELIGIOUS AGENDA.  I am seeking PURE science (by which I merely mean people who don't care whether the literal interpretation of Genesis is or is not right).  Articles or books that never mention Genesis; never mention Christianity or the existence of God.

 

If you have anything meeting that criteria, I would be grateful.

 

clb

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is science.God is God.Got the picture?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but science is biased, atheistic and purely naturalistic. 

 

If science is set out to discover and analyze, why does God have to be separate from the equation?  Why are people like you trying to separate the Creation from the One who created it?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is science.God is God.Got the picture?

Hmmmmm. I have to be honest here peep, I can't see why they both can't kiss in the middle. I consider God the worlds greatest scientist!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really, really want to date this carbon-based life form, but for whatever reason, she just doesn't have those sorts of feelings for me.

 

Okay, I'm joking. 

 

I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed here or not...I'm sure it has, but I was curious about carbon dating methods. 

 

I just read a scientific article (not from a Creationist site) that stated that carbon dating is only accurate for specimens going back a few thousand years.  So why do scientists use it to date fossils? 

 

Kent Hovind in one of his debates stated that they give an approximate date of a specimen by where its located in the rock layers.  But they also date the rock layers by the kinds of fossils in the ground and that's called circular reasoning.  There's absolutely NO WAY the same layers are found exactly the same across the earth.  But if they find T-Rex bones in Layer B in Montana and T-Rex bones in Layer C in Utah, well, they must be the same rock layer, same age, etc. 

 

It's all approximate based upon their bias!  The whole Geological timescale model is bogus and does not exist!  But it's being used in science to date things.  And why is carbon dating used to date objects they suspect are millions of years old when it is not accurate past a few thousand?!?! 

 

They also assume their dating models on how much carbon they *think* was in the air at such-and-such a time.  But they could be very, very wrong!

 

If you look at the Genesis account, there was a layer of water above the earth.  This caused a global warming effect all over the globe.  Mammoths found in Alaska, immediately flash frozen, have been found with flowers and tropical grasses and plants still digesting in their stomachs and in there teeth.  That is why they have found tropical plant fossils in Antarctica.  If there was a layer of water over the earth, it blocked out the sun's harmful rays.  People were living longer.  They were huge (giants in the land in those days).  Everything grew to mammoth proportions.  I've seen fossils of MASSIVE spiders, ants, scorpions, clams (found on the highest of mountains).  Everything grew and didn't stop growing. 

 

And when there's a global warming effect, it changes the amount of carbon in the air.  Plants were growing larger and more abundant, thriving off the extra carbon.  And when the flood hit, it buried all these animals and plants in sediments with much higher carbon levels than scientists suspect.  And when they go to do a carbon test, assuming what the level of carbon was based upon their naturalistic bias and the numbers are all jacked up. 

 

But the fact that there is still carbon in these fossils and layers to test PROVES that the earth is indeed young and that the bible is correct.

I enjoyed your post.  Though we disagree on a few points.

 

I am wary of ever calling upon the sciences to "prove" the Bible.  I hold the two separate; let the sciences tell me stuff about how old the earth is, what cigarettes do to me, what I have to take when I have strep throat, how fast light travels etc. etc.  Let the Bible tell me Who created all of this, Why, What kind of God He is, What went wrong with the World, What He did about it, And what should I do in reaction to that....(I say "let the Bible" merely because, that is in fact WHAT the Bible has done).

 

Should the sciences "prove" (though others have helped me see that this might be impossible; according to them, science can neither prove nor disprove hypothetical ages of the universe) that the earth is young, this will not add an iota of faith to me; should it prove it is very, very old--it will have the same neutral effect.  The age of the earth does nothing to my faith in the inspiration of Scripture: my studies of Scripture have led me to believe Scripture wasn't concerned about that.

 

Having said that, I would still be interested in any scientific research that goes against an Old Earth theory which has NO RELIGIOUS AGENDA.  I am seeking PURE science (by which I merely mean people who don't care whether the literal interpretation of Genesis is or is not right).  Articles or books that never mention Genesis; never mention Christianity or the existence of God.

 

If you have anything meeting that criteria, I would be grateful.

 

clb

Great post amigo. What I like about this post is that sometimes in Christian circles, Christians view every scientist to be God haters and mockers. I think that thought is obviously skewed far right. I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who may not be Christian who desperately seek answers to important questions. In fact, I'm sure many seekers have found God in this search.

I too would be interested in reading of studies from "scientists without an agenda" to ponder such results. Like you said, nothing could ever shake my faith in Christ, in who he is, or in what he did for me.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but science is biased, atheistic and purely naturalistic. 

 

If science is set out to discover and analyze, why does God have to be separate from the equation?  Why are people like you trying to separate the Creation from the One who created it?

 

 

"Why are people like you trying to separate the Creation from the One who created it?"

 

Not that we can't appreciate the Glory of HIS CREATION but, Because....(Romans 1:25) "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen."

 

Even though GOD CREATED "nature" or "EVERYTHING"; by being "Created" it is still the "Creature"

 

Follow?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0