Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Radiometric dating
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arikay" data-source="post: 14316516" data-attributes="member: 6561"><p>So the word says that you read the bible infallibly?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Speaking of which, you do know that the bible doesn't actually tell us how old the world is, right? It's based on interpretations and theories and is rather inexact (different scholars have done the math and come up with different figures.)</p><p>Is this another case where it's ok for you to do something but not ok for other people?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If any existed, yes you could. It could even be possible to pinpoint which layers were laid down by the flood (a question often asked and rarely answered) and which were pre flood. Depending on how exact you could make the assumptions.</p><p></p><p>But more so these distortions would appear on graphs of C-14 dating. If you graphed specimens based on tree rings, ice cores or correct strata, and then graphed them based on C-14 dating, you should see large jumps in the C-14 dates. This isn't the case. What we see is a C-14 date that is slightly incorrect, but follows the other dates well.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, all post flood trees should have started growing around the same time. Tree rings should pretty much drop off and stop.</p><p></p><p>Interesting story. AiG used to accept tree ring dating, when they thought it showed the oldest living tree as younger than their flood date. When it was discovered that the oldest living tree is 400 years or so older than they thought, all of a sudden tree ring dating was invalid and error prone. I believe these contradicting positions can still be found on their FAQ page.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We have been talking about C-14 long enough, you should know why it needs to be calibrated. It is actually one of the few methods that needs calibration.</p><p>As pointed out before, these other methods agree with each other.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arikay, post: 14316516, member: 6561"] So the word says that you read the bible infallibly? Speaking of which, you do know that the bible doesn't actually tell us how old the world is, right? It's based on interpretations and theories and is rather inexact (different scholars have done the math and come up with different figures.) Is this another case where it's ok for you to do something but not ok for other people? If any existed, yes you could. It could even be possible to pinpoint which layers were laid down by the flood (a question often asked and rarely answered) and which were pre flood. Depending on how exact you could make the assumptions. But more so these distortions would appear on graphs of C-14 dating. If you graphed specimens based on tree rings, ice cores or correct strata, and then graphed them based on C-14 dating, you should see large jumps in the C-14 dates. This isn't the case. What we see is a C-14 date that is slightly incorrect, but follows the other dates well. Well, all post flood trees should have started growing around the same time. Tree rings should pretty much drop off and stop. Interesting story. AiG used to accept tree ring dating, when they thought it showed the oldest living tree as younger than their flood date. When it was discovered that the oldest living tree is 400 years or so older than they thought, all of a sudden tree ring dating was invalid and error prone. I believe these contradicting positions can still be found on their FAQ page. We have been talking about C-14 long enough, you should know why it needs to be calibrated. It is actually one of the few methods that needs calibration. As pointed out before, these other methods agree with each other. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Radiometric dating
Top
Bottom