Geological dating techniques

[NothingIsImpossible]

Hinduism predates Judaism or at the very least arose around the same time, albeit amongst a different population. The Vedic scriptures are considered to be among the world's oldest religious texts.

You didn't answer the question though : why aren't you a Hindu?

Not a hindu because its not a real "god" and christianity (well judaism) is the only real religion where everything started. If Adam and Eve were jewish and the first people to exist, then hinduism couldn't have existed at the same time.

Once again you are simply not being rational. There are countless possible "God"s, you are merely assuming that the version that you believe in is correct. And there may be no gods at all. I am here because some Christians try to harm others by trying to get their false beliefs into schools and into laws. It has nothing to do with whether or not God is real.

Nah, only one true living God. Trying to harm others? What about teachers who teach about certain "hot topic" issues that harm my childs mind? As far as I see Gods been removed from school. So not sure what you are worried about. I'd say you are here because your angry that people have opinions that differ from yours. Which seems to be a growing trend with the younger folks. I may not like what is taught in school but I'm not on non-christian forums upset about it.

Those tests can be checked and rechecked. If you are going to be that skeptical about things that we can actually check you should be a raging atheist. Once again you are showing that you are thinking irrationally. And the fact that we can communicate demonstrates your error.

You say the word irrational alot. I think a word you should try for yourself is stubborn, narrow, intolerant...etc. I mean afterall people were talking on here and suddenly your really in some sort of hard attack mode. In otherwords a hypocrite. I could pretty much use the same reply you just gave me on you.

And the only one making "mistakes" is you. Just because you do not understand what was said does not mean that others are making mistakes. You are projecting your incompetence upon others.

See above.

There is no "proof" in science. You can't even "prove" gravity. And no, guessing is what you do. You really need to quit bearing false witness against your neighbor. Yes, we can all see that you do not understand. That does not mean that no one understands.

And if you are going to move the goal posts to God I will ask you who made God? The same answer that you give can be applied to the universe. There really is no need for your God.

There you go trying to use terms to make yourself feel better like "moving goal posts". Narrow minded. At least I can answer what came before God (as I did in another topic). God always existed. Time has no end and no start per say. Non-believers cannot comprehend that God just existed, maybe out of fear they freak out about it. Or maybe because they can't think outside the box. They are willing to say nothing is impossible and possibilities are endless about any subject, but saying God exists for some reason makes them go against their own logic. Its why I said they cannot think outside the box.

Its why I also say fear rules their lives because if God exists, it means they know they have to change their ways and they do not like it. They do not like accepting there is Someone above them who is in total control of their future. Which admiteddly does sound scary if I were not a chrsitian. Who wants to live a worldly life only to find out you have to give it up to go to a great place when you die. Its not easy. Its like a drug addict trying to give up drugs.

Lastly I'd say if you can prove God does not exist, I'll believe you. But I require actual proof. Not just "Well evolution, big bang..."etc. Because thats not evidence He does not exist. Most scientists admit they cannot disprove His existence because if He is as powerful as He says, He may even exist in a way for us to literally see Him. Such as maybe Hes in another dimension or place all together. Hes outside of time after all.

Has science searched for Him? Every planet? Every sun? Every blackhole? Every corner of the universe? Have they looked inside these things? Tried looking using various ways (like different spectrums and what not)? If not then they cannot claim He doesn't exist since they have not tried every possible way to find Him.

No, once again, that is a myth. Man evolved. The science that you won't let yourself learn tells us that this is so.

I point to my above statement.

 

[Jimmy D]

Not a hindu because its not a real "god" and christianity (well judaism) is the only real religion where everything started. If Adam and Eve were jewish and the first people to exist, then hinduism couldn't have existed at the same time.

But Adam and Eve weren't the first people so your premise is faulty.

Time has no end and no start per say. Non-believers cannot comprehend that God just existed, maybe out of fear they freak out about it. Or maybe because they can't think outside the box.

Or maybe because it's special pleading on your part, you could say the same about a universe with natural origins.

They are willing to say nothing is impossible and possibilities are endless about any subject, but saying God exists for some reason makes them go against their own logic. Its why I said they cannot think outside the box.

It is possible God exists, I see nothing that convinces me though, in fact quite the opposite, a God as presented in the bible makes little sense to me.

Its why I also say fear rules their lives because if God exists, it means they know they have to change their ways and they do not like it. They do not like accepting there is Someone above them who is in total control of their future. Which admiteddly does sound scary if I were not a chrsitian. Who wants to live a worldly life only to find out you have to give it up to go to a great place when you die. Its not easy. Its like a drug addict trying to give up drugs.

Wrong, why aren't you a muslim, are you scared that you might not meet the exacting standards Allah might expect of you? Of course not.

Your analysis of the atheist mindset is patronizing, shallow and quite insulting.

Lastly I'd say if you can prove God does not exist, I'll believe you. But I require actual proof. Not just "Well evolution, big bang..."etc. Because thats not evidence He does not exist. Most scientists admit they cannot disprove His existence because if He is as powerful as He says, He may even exist in a way for us to literally see Him. Such as maybe Hes in another dimension or place all together. Hes outside of time after all.

You might get the odd militant atheist trying to talk you out of your faith but there are very few on here, I certainly wouldn't want to do such a thing.

Has science searched for Him? Every planet? Every sun? Every blackhole? Every corner of the universe? Have they looked inside these things? Tried looking using various ways (like different spectrums and what not)? If not then they cannot claim He doesn't exist since they have not tried every possible way to find Him.

I believe science remains silent on the topic. You seem to think that science represent atheism and vice versa. Science does demonstrate that a young earth creationist reading of the bible is wrong but it has nothing to say about the existence of any gods as far as I'm aware.

 

[Speedwell]

Lastly I'd say if you can prove God does not exist, I'll believe you. But I require actual proof. Not just "Well evolution, big bang..."etc. Because thats not evidence He does not exist. Most scientists admit they cannot disprove His existence because if He is as powerful as He says, He may even exist in a way for us to literally see Him. Such as maybe Hes in another dimension or place all together. Hes outside of time after all.

This forum is not about whether God exists. It is not about theists versus atheists. It is about a cranky Protestant religious minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theists and atheists alike.

 

[Astrophile]

Hello Astrophile.

I have no idea, sounds like a leading question.

It isn't a leading question; a leading question is one that suggests the answer, literally one that leads the person questioned to the answer that the questioner wants. If I were to ask you, 'Did you spend your summer holiday in California?' that would be a leading question.

 

[Astrophile]

Hello Astrophile.

You asked.

The Isaiah Scroll, designated 1Qlsa and also known as the Great Isaiah Scroll, is one of the seven Dead Sea Scrolls that were first recovered by Bedouin shepherds in 1947. The scroll is written in Hebrew and contains the entire Book of Isaiah from beginning to end, apart from a few small damaged portions. It is the oldest complete copy of the Book of Isaiah known,[1] being 1100 years older than the Leningrad Codex, and the most complete scroll out of the 220 found at Qumran. Pieces of the Isaiah Scroll have been carbon-14 dated at least four times, giving calibrated date ranges between 356-103 BC; there have also been numerous paleographic and scribal dating studies placing the scroll around 150-100 BC.[2][3] (wikipedia)

Thank-you for this informative reply. If the true age of the scroll, determined from palaeographic and scribal dating, is 2141 years (from 125 BC to 2017 AD) and the range of dates covers 253 years, the probable error is <12% of the true age. This implies that radio-carbon dating is tolerably accurate; an object with a radio-carbon age of 30,000 years might have a true age between 25,000 and 35,000 years, but it is not likely to have a true age of only 6000 years.

You will notice also that the radio-carbon dates for the scroll overlap with the dates determined from palaeography and scribal dating methods. This is another piece of evidence for the essential reliability of radio-carbon dating.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

But Adam and Eve weren't the first people so your premise is faulty.

Proof? Bible has all the proof I need of them being first because He says they were the first creations.

Or maybe because it's special pleading on your part, you could say the same about a universe with natural origins.

(shrugs)

It is possible God exists, I see nothing that convinces me though, in fact quite the opposite, a God as presented in the bible makes little sense to me.

Stalemate.

Wrong, why aren't you a muslim, are you scared that you might not meet the exacting standards Allah might expect of you? Of course not.

Your analysis of the atheist mindset is patronizing, shallow and quite insulting.

I did strike a nerver I see which is why I believe what I said it true. Fear about God controls the non-believer. Because if they really thought God was not real, they wouldn't bother wasting any time with the subject at all.

You might get the odd militant atheist trying to talk you out of your faith but there are very few on here, I certainly wouldn't want to do such a thing.

Which is good at least in terms of you can respect others beliefs. Though technically speaking the things you are may make weaker faithed christians question things. So really any talking on such matters is some attempt to try and get someone away from God.

I believe science remains silent on the topic. You seem to think that science represent atheism and vice versa. Science does demonstrate that a young earth creationist reading of the bible is wrong but it has nothing to say about the existence of any gods as far as I'm aware.

Theres no proof of earths age though other than the bible. Other then man made tools who no one knows are accurate or not. Though I do realize christians even argue about the age of earth/universe. But for those who think its older, they don't understand the bible. BUT... I never really argue with them anyways because in the end we don't get to heaven based on how old we think the earth is.

This forum is not about whether God exists. It is not about theists versus atheists. It is about a cranky Protestant religious minority with a political agenda versus everybody else, theists and atheists alike.

This forum exists for christians to come to so they have a place that is mostly free from non-christians. Though if your so snobby about how amazing how perfect your non-protestant views are, you don't have to stay here. Far as I can tell anglicans are a tiny denomination of people.

 

[Speedwell]

This forum exists for christians to come to so they have a place that is mostly free from non-christians. Though if your so snobby about how amazing how perfect your non-protestant views are, you don't have to stay here. Far as I can tell anglicans are a tiny denomination of people.

This forum exists for both Christians (even Christians of a kind you don't approve of) and non-Christians to discuss evolution on an equal footing. If you want a forum to discuss the subject only with other Christians there is one provided, although you may be disappointed to learn that even Anglicans are allowed there.

There are about 85 million Anglicans worldwide, which is about the same as the number of "Bible-believing" Christians.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

This forum exists for both Christians (even Christians of a kind you don't approve of) and non-Christians to discuss evolution on an equal footing. If you want a forum to discuss the subject only with other Christians there is one provided, although you may be disappointed to learn that even Anglicans are allowed there.

There are about 85 million Anglicans worldwide, which is about the same as the number of "Bible-believing" Christians.

Not disappointed really, I've just yet to meet an anglician who can have a conversation without basically saying how amazing they are, how they are the right group and they ignore the fact they are arrogant. Or maybe there just isn't many on here and I've just happened to run across the bad apples.

 

[Speedwell]

Not disappointed really, I've just yet to meet an anglician who can have a conversation without basically saying how amazing they are, how they are the right group and they ignore the fact they are arrogant. Or maybe there just isn't many on here and I've just happened to run across the bad apples.

I feel much the same way about "Bible-believing" Christians. Of course, for my sins I had to live in the Bible Belt for a time and came across quite a few bad apples.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Proof? Bible has all the proof I need of them being first because He says they were the first creations.

No, the Bible says that. If you want to claim that the Bible is perfect you have a HUGE burden of proof.

(shrugs)

If observations can be used for either side of an argument that means that you have no evidence.

Stalemate.

Again, not really. Your version of God probably refutes himself. If your version is logically contradictory that would mean he does not exist. That does not mean that all versions of God do not exist, just your personal version. This does not even eliminate all Christian versions of God.

I did strike a nerver I see which is why I believe what I said it true. Fear about God controls the non-believer. Because if they really thought God was not real, they wouldn't bother wasting any time with the subject at all.

No, you merely repeated age old lies about atheists. Tell me, if you were constantly told that you were an idiot for being a creationist would it not 'strike a nerve' if someone called you an idiot in the middle of a debate? What you did was akin to that.

Which is good at least in terms of you can respect others beliefs. Though technically speaking the things you are may make weaker faithed christians question things. So really any talking on such matters is some attempt to try and get someone away from God.

Actually the creationists are the weaker faithed Christians. I have heard time after time that if the entire Bible is not true then they can't believe any of it. Once again, your version of "God" appears to not exist. In fact if your God cannot lie then either there was no Adam and Eve, no Noah's Ark or he does not exist.

Theres no proof of earths age though other than the bible. Other then man made tools who no one knows are accurate or not. Though I do realize christians even argue about the age of earth/universe. But for those who think its older, they don't understand the bible. BUT... I never really argue with them anyways because in the end we don't get to heaven based on how old we think the earth is.

No, the age of the Earth has been proven far beyond a reasonable doubt. Your ignorance of how we know that age is not evidence against it.

This forum exists for christians to come to so they have a place that is mostly free from non-christians. Though if your so snobby about how amazing how perfect your non-protestant views are, you don't have to stay here. Far as I can tell anglicans are a tiny denomination of people.

This part also exists for people that are not Christians. There are parts of the forum that are Christian only. If you want to hide from reality you will find fewer people correcting you there.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Astrophile.

Thanks, you stated the following in your post.

If the true age of the scroll, determined from palaeographic and scribal dating, is 2141 years (from 125 BC to 2017 AD) and the range of dates covers 253 years, the probable error is <12% of the true age.

Cannot argue with that.

This implies that radio-carbon dating is tolerably accurate; an object with a radio-carbon age of 30,000 years might have a true age between 25,000 and 35,000 years, but it is not likely to have a true age of only 6000 years.

Sounds like a reasonable claim, the only issue I would have is with contamination of the sample. The older the sample being tested, the more likely that the result of the test would be spurious. I think the range of error would increase dramatically over time.

You will notice also that the radio-carbon dates for the scroll overlap with the dates determined from palaeography and scribal dating methods. This is another piece of evidence for the essential reliability of radio-carbon dating.

Supporting dating methods ensures a very solid approximation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Astrophile.

Thanks, you stated the following in your post.

Cannot argue with that.

Sounds like a reasonable claim, the only issue I would have is with contamination of the sample. The older the sample being tested, the more likely that the result of the test would be spurious. I think the range of error would increase dramatically over time.

Supporting dating methods ensures a very solid approximation.

Yes, carbon dating is reliable, provided that one takes certain precautions. I also know how to get a false date using C14, but then that is because I know some of its limitations.

 

[Kylie]

In the documentary "Is Genesis History", they mention that all geological dating techniques are wrong, or misleading if you will. The narrator states a few times during the documentary that geological dating is a fundamental question, but unfortunately, no arguments are given to support the idea.

After all, there are a dozen dating techniques out there. Some based on radioactive elements half-lives, some on chemical reactions, some on light, some on biochronology, some on dendrochronology, some on paleomagnetism.

Could all of these techniques be totally misleading in assessing the age of the Earth and fossils?

Yes, it is theoretically possible that ALL of the techniques could be wrong.

But remember, if that is the case, then these entirely different techniques all give completely consistent results. We don't see one technique say the Earth is a billion trillion years old, while another technique says it is three weeks old. They all give the same results, within their known margins for error.

Kind of a big coincidence if they were all wrong.

 

[klutedavid]

Yes, it is theoretically possible that ALL of the techniques could be wrong.

But remember, if that is the case, then these entirely different techniques all give completely consistent results. We don't see one technique say the Earth is a billion trillion years old, while another technique says it is three weeks old. They all give the same results, within their known margins for error.

Kind of a big coincidence if they were all wrong.

Hello Kylie.

Probably the same dating technique on different isotopes returning the same expected results. We need more than one dating methodology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Kylie.

Probably the same dating technique on different isotopes returning the same expected results. We need more than one dating methodology.

We very often do have different technologies. Sometimes we have two different methods for one sample. I have yet to see a creationist explain that. Ice cores are dated by several means. They tend to agree with each other.

The creationist side does not have any reliable means of dating.

Tell me, when one side has all of the scientific evidence and the other side has no reliable evidence: Which side do you think is right? When a criminal is tried and the state has DNA evidence, foot prints, fabric samples, fingerprints, and tire tracks along with the weapon used, all of which indicate that only one man is guilty, do you think that he is guilty or innocent?

 

[klutedavid]

We very often do have different technologies. Sometimes we have two different methods for one sample. I have yet to see a creationist explain that. Ice cores are dated by several means. They tend to agree with each other.

The creationist side does not have any reliable means of dating.

Tell me, when one side has all of the scientific evidence and the other side has no reliable evidence: Which side do you think is right? When a criminal is tried and the state has DNA evidence, foot prints, fabric samples, fingerprints, and tire tracks along with the weapon used, all of which indicate that only one man is guilty, do you think that he is guilty or innocent?

Hello SZ.

How many techniques are available for the date of the earth?

 

[Jimmy D]

Proof? Bible has all the proof I need of them being first because He says they were the first creations.


(shrugs)


Stalemate.


I did strike a nerver I see which is why I believe what I said it true. Fear about God controls the non-believer. Because if they really thought God was not real, they wouldn't bother wasting any time with the subject at all.


Which is good at least in terms of you can respect others beliefs. Though technically speaking the things you are may make weaker faithed christians question things. So really any talking on such matters is some attempt to try and get someone away from God.


Theres no proof of earths age though other than the bible. Other then man made tools who no one knows are accurate or not. Though I do realize christians even argue about the age of earth/universe. But for those who think its older, they don't understand the bible. BUT... I never really argue with them anyways because in the end we don't get to heaven based on how old we think the earth is.


This forum exists for christians to come to so they have a place that is mostly free from non-christians. Though if your so snobby about how amazing how perfect your non-protestant views are, you don't have to stay here. Far as I can tell anglicans are a tiny denomination of people.

Subduction Zone answered pretty much all of this as I might have done. So I won't address each point individually.

The last couple of paragraphs are worth mentioning as they demonstrate just how precarious your position is. You have the hubris to deride science that you don't understand whilst enjoying it's considerable benefits. I appreciate that this is necessary to allow you to maintain your worldview though so I won't be too critical.

It's also charming how you insult and dismiss anyone who doesn't share you particular beliefs about the bible, your post represents the lovely qualities particular to American fundamentalists - a willingness to judge others based on your own predjudices and a closed mind to anything that might challenge your beliefs. Do you ever wonder why the majority of the world's christians reject the idea of Genesis as a literal history?

 

[Amazing Horse]

In the documentary "Is Genesis History", they mention that all geological dating techniques are wrong, or misleading if you will. The narrator states a few times during the documentary that geological dating is a fundamental question, but unfortunately, no arguments are given to support the idea.

After all, there are a dozen dating techniques out there. Some based on radioactive elements half-lives, some on chemical reactions, some on light, some on biochronology, some on dendrochronology, some on paleomagnetism.

Could all of these techniques be totally misleading in assessing the age of the Earth and fossils?

I heared of living creatues being dated in thousands of years .

 

[Jimmy D]

I heared of living creatues being dated in thousands of years .

Where did you hear that?

 

[Amazing Horse]

Where did you hear that?

Dunno maybe here