kross Posted February 5, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 44 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,773 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/27/1957 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Did you know; That Carbon-14 dating can be ued to prove the earth is less that 30,000 years old? That oil and coal deposits have been dated with Carbon-14 dating to show they are about 10,000 years old? That Carbon-14 dating is only good for about 40,000 years and that 40,000 years from the point of the origin of the earth, Carbon-14 should reach a point of "equilibrium" which has not been reached yet? (in fact, we have Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratios that date the earth at about 30,000 years using current assumptions that make things older) I have just started looking at this again after 10 years or so and the science to prove creation and a young earth is even better now. Thought I would share. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted February 5, 2009 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.10 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted February 5, 2009 Did you know; That Carbon-14 dating can be ued to prove the earth is less that 30,000 years old? That oil and coal deposits have been dated with Carbon-14 dating to show they are about 10,000 years old? That Carbon-14 dating is only good for about 40,000 years and that 40,000 years from the point of the origin of the earth, Carbon-14 should reach a point of "equilibrium" which has not been reached yet? (in fact, we have Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratios that date the earth at about 30,000 years using current assumptions that make things older) I have just started looking at this again after 10 years or so and the science to prove creation and a young earth is even better now. Thought I would share. Very interesting; where did you get this information? I'd like to read up on this; for the edification of some know-it-alls around me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autumn8484 Posted February 5, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 31 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/22/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1986 Share Posted February 5, 2009 i seen something like this b4... but i get all my info from google so what do i know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kross Posted February 5, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 44 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,773 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/27/1957 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 Did you know; That Carbon-14 dating can be ued to prove the earth is less that 30,000 years old? That oil and coal deposits have been dated with Carbon-14 dating to show they are about 10,000 years old? That Carbon-14 dating is only good for about 40,000 years and that 40,000 years from the point of the origin of the earth, Carbon-14 should reach a point of "equilibrium" which has not been reached yet? (in fact, we have Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratios that date the earth at about 30,000 years using current assumptions that make things older) I have just started looking at this again after 10 years or so and the science to prove creation and a young earth is even better now. Thought I would share. Very interesting; where did you get this information? I'd like to read up on this; for the edification of some know-it-alls around me. drdino.com and answersingenisis.org articles. I like the answers in genesis site, but the really good articles in it are also really technical. Be prepared Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WillingToDie Posted February 5, 2009 Group: Senior Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 710 Content Per Day: 0.10 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/01/2005 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/16/1984 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I think it's funny how when Carbon Dating goes against your beliefs, it must be wrong! But if, for the sake of argument, it supports your beliefs, it's magically right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kross Posted February 6, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 44 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,773 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/27/1957 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 I think it's funny how when Carbon Dating goes against your beliefs, it must be wrong! But if, for the sake of argument, it supports your beliefs, it's magically right! I think you have mis-understood what I have stated then. As I have said before, Carbon-14 dating is a good science but is only good for a period of 40,000 years before it decays to a level that can not be measured accurately. Since it is a good science, it is very good for time periods of less that 40,000 years. All of the radiographic sciences are good science, but the use of them in dating is based on unproven assumptions and a disregard for certain truths. And yes, since the Bible is the one source of all truth, if something disagrees with the Bible, it has to be proven to me more than something that does not. Just as I am sure there are those who believe the science community is the one source of all truth and if the Bible disagrees with science, than it has to be proved more than that which agrees with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryanfromiowa Posted February 6, 2009 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 51 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/06/2009 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/03/1967 Share Posted February 6, 2009 dating methods I googled how are fossils dated found this there are several methods actually. I guess I have two thoughts and yes I know I seem to be in the minority here. 1st is that the many scholars believe the creation story is older than moses even passed by word of mouth before that. So god had to give them something they would understand. We have a much deeper understanding of how gods creation works and thats ok. 2nd is that in order for god to have created the universe he must be beyond the universe and its rules so we can't hold god to earthly rules rules of time. to get back to the specific topic further reading tells me that they use the same process but use other substance than c-14 to tell the age of fossils its the c-14 that has a time limit not the process according to the reading i've done check this out radio isotope dating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HIS girl Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 Did you know; That Carbon-14 dating can be ued to prove the earth is less that 30,000 years old? That oil and coal deposits have been dated with Carbon-14 dating to show they are about 10,000 years old? That Carbon-14 dating is only good for about 40,000 years and that 40,000 years from the point of the origin of the earth, Carbon-14 should reach a point of "equilibrium" which has not been reached yet? (in fact, we have Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratios that date the earth at about 30,000 years using current assumptions that make things older) I have just started looking at this again after 10 years or so and the science to prove creation and a young earth is even better now. Thought I would share. Very interesting; where did you get this information? I'd like to read up on this; for the edification of some know-it-alls around me. drdino.com and answersingenisis.org articles. I like the answers in genesis site, but the really good articles in it are also really technical. Be prepared I'm a HUGE fan of Answers In Genesis!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kross Posted February 6, 2009 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 44 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,773 Content Per Day: 0.31 Reputation: 51 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2008 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/27/1957 Author Share Posted February 6, 2009 dating methods I googled how are fossils dated found this there are several methods actually. I guess I have two thoughts and yes I know I seem to be in the minority here. 1st is that the many scholars believe the creation story is older than moses even passed by word of mouth before that. So god had to give them something they would understand. We have a much deeper understanding of how gods creation works and thats ok. 2nd is that in order for god to have created the universe he must be beyond the universe and its rules so we can't hold god to earthly rules rules of time. to get back to the specific topic further reading tells me that they use the same process but use other substance than c-14 to tell the age of fossils its the c-14 that has a time limit not the process according to the reading i've done check this out radio isotope dating You are 100% correct. GOD is not confined and HE could have just kinda given us a story, but... The generations of JESUS are tracked all the way back to Adam and we have actual ages for people from Adam through the flood. Plus, other scriptures verify the idea of a literal six days of creation. Also, there are about 6 different methods of radiometric dating currently in use. Each of them is very similar in how they work, each of them start with 3 huge assumptions that science has proved to be wrong; 1. "The rate of decay of the radio active elements is constant and has always been constant". This is not only a guess and an assumption, but findings in rock intidicate it is not certain, and even not likely. 2. "That the elements or byproducts of radio active decay (called daughter elements) do not exist apart for being created as a result of radio active decay". If, for instance, lead isotopes existed in number outside of being a by-product of Uranium or Thorium decay, than the amount of Lead in the rocks being dated by the Uranium-Thorium-lead process would indicate the rocks that are a couple of thousand years old to be a billion years old. (which has been the case in dating known lava flows) 3. "The amount of the radio active matrerial that existed in the beginning of the decay process is known". This is again based on current indications that are applied to the past. If, in fact, these assumed numbers are off slightly, then the outcome will be off greatly. However, the post was not to discredit these different processes, but to show that the actual science of the processes establishes the earth to be very young and not very old. Carbon-14 is not only more widely known, but it's relative short half life makes it a perfect tool for dating things that are less than 40,000 years old with some accuracy. It is still flawed in that it supposes a constant rate of decay from the beginning, but with no alteration of this flawed assumption, the earth is still less than 30,000 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayahtowb Posted February 6, 2009 Group: Junior Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 90 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/20/2009 Status: Offline Share Posted February 6, 2009 Hi koss: drdino.com and answersingenisis.org articles. I like the answers in genesis site, but the really good articles in it are also really technical. Be prepared Science is knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths arranged in an orderly system. Theory is what scientists develop to be tested, and most of what is at these sites, is theory. Did you know that some people think the earth is round like a pizza? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts