- Oct 16, 2015
- 15,022
- 7,398
- 31
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Deist
- Marital Status
- Single
I did answer your question. I said:
So it is just you posting an edited version of the OP question then.
That's not a rebuttal.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You didn't answer my question.
So now we have come full circle again. I'll just let the discerning readers come to their own conclusions.
I did answer your question. I said:
So it is just you posting an edited version of the OP question then.
That's not a rebuttal.
It seems that we will just have to agree to disagree.
It has nothing to do with my response.
That's not even remotely the same sort of thing. Carbon dating is an actual, workable and testable science. But if people say it's wrong, then something has to replace it. That is a fact of science; if something is shown to be wrong, it is replaced with something that is shown to be right.
So if carbon dating is wrong, then what is right then?
That makes absolutely no sense.
It’s based on the G-d created universe. Hahem created matter that changes form at a certain rate. Radiometric dating just measures that change. He created it and gave us the mental capacity to use it.Carbon dating is man made, - this is why it is so inaccurate. The truth comes from God and his written Word.
I'm calling this my own sort of challenge thread here.
Very often on this forum and the C&E forum, I see a lot of Creationist/people who do not accept evolution or anything scientific even remotely linked to evolution say that carbon dating is incorrect, it's fallible, it's bad science and should not be trusted whatsoever.
Let's for a second take that line of argument as correct. That carbon dating is incorrect and should not be trusted.
What do you think it should be replaced with?
Bear in mind, this is for those people who do not think that carbon dating is worthwhile.
Carbon 14 has a half life of 5730 year or thereabouts. We've had the ability to actually see the state of carbon atoms for less than 100 years. We havent had sufficient time to watch carbon decay to actually witness its rate of decay.
Nothing.
Unless your desire to know how old something is supersedes your right to exist, don't worry about how old it is.
This is an entertaining question.
Let me try some.
If unicorns don't exist; what should we replace them with?
If water dowsing shouldn't be trusted; what should we replace it with?
That was fun.
We could apply this same line of thinking to time machines, and perpetual motion machines; but then why replace faulty inventions with anything? Why not simply dismiss them?
Bad analogy since carbon dating does exist.
It shouldn't be replaced. Those people should just be told that they are wrong. Their interest, in my experience, is not to prove anything but to undermine. They are not going to accept any finding that disagrees with their interpretation of the scriptures.I'm calling this my own sort of challenge thread here.
Very often on this forum and the C&E forum, I see a lot of Creationist/people who do not accept evolution or anything scientific even remotely linked to evolution say that carbon dating is incorrect, it's fallible, it's bad science and should not be trusted whatsoever.
Let's for a second take that line of argument as correct. That carbon dating is incorrect and should not be trusted.
What do you think it should be replaced with?
Bear in mind, this is for those people who do not think that carbon dating is worthwhile.
It does help to put the lower bound far beyond 6 to 10 thousand years though.It shouldn't be replaced. Those people should just be told that they are wrong. Their interest, in my experience, is not to prove anything but to undermine. They are not going to accept any finding that disagrees with their interpretation of the scriptures.
My understanding is that carbon dating is useful for dating organic samples back to about 50,000 years. It has been checked using lake varves and tree rings and ice layers so it is pretty well established for dating things in that narrow range.
It's not used to find the age of the Earth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."-Any Rand
True, but in a Creationism Vs Radiometric conflict, then carbon dating is all you need for evidence against recent creation or recent world wide flood.There are hundreds if not thousands of geologic formations that do the same.
The White Cliffs of Dover come to mind.
I don't think as Christians that we need to doubt that radio-carbon dating, or any other fission can show a decomposition rate. We should accept that the physics of decay is actually correct.
Where the evolutionary claims fail is with the assumptions that are used for dating. The assumptions that are flawed are:
1. The concentrations of initial C14 in the atmosphere are the same now as they have "always been"
2. The concentrations of C14 in the atmosphere become the concentrations in every living being during the time that they lived
The first assumption is wrong because the atmosphere before Noah's flood contained very much more water which would almost eliminate the production of C14. Shortly after the flood, the C14 levels would be very small, and so everything remaining from that era would appear much older when "dated" using assumptions that C14 was always the same.
The second assumption is also flawed because for unknown reasons some living things can selectively absorb C12 from the atmosphere and reject C14 making such things look as much as 3000 years dead.
In summary, Christians should not reject the science (the real science) of radioactive decay. We should reject the false assumptions of uniformitarianism that are made without justification.
You ignore that the differing methods of radiometric dating overlap and support each other and that non radiometric dating can also be used to support those timelines.I don't think as Christians that we need to doubt that radio-carbon dating, or any other fission can show a decomposition rate. We should accept that the physics of decay is actually correct.
Where the evolutionary claims fail is with the assumptions that are used for dating. The assumptions that are flawed are:
1. The concentrations of initial C14 in the atmosphere are the same now as they have "always been"
2. The concentrations of C14 in the atmosphere become the concentrations in every living being during the time that they lived
The first assumption is wrong because the atmosphere before Noah's flood contained very much more water which would almost eliminate the production of C14. Shortly after the flood, the C14 levels would be very small, and so everything remaining from that era would appear much older when "dated" using assumptions that C14 was always the same.
The second assumption is also flawed because for unknown reasons some living things can selectively absorb C12 from the atmosphere and reject C14 making such things look as much as 3000 years dead.
In summary, Christians should not reject the science (the real science) of radioactive decay. We should reject the false assumptions of uniformitarianism that are made without justification.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?