Pre-History and God

intergamer

New member
not reading beyond the first post of this thread, sorry, but:

Any scientist that believes the earth is only 7000 years old is full of crock... and apparently hasn't heard of carbon dating?

Why, after so many years, do we not see undeveloped half humans, instead of just different species of monkey?

surely you don't think this is unexplainable by the theory of evolution? (it's mandated by evolution theory, but i'm not going to regurgitate a book about it)
 

fortuneandglory

New member
I trust carbon dating, but it has been wildly innacurate in many cases...

rocks created in the Mount St. Helens eruption were in fact dated many years older than they should have been.

Fossils, in one theory, are much too old to carbon date, due to the extremely low level of Carbon 14. In another theory, scientists extrapolate that the Carbon Dating is not so innacurate as it seems, and points more to a flood catastrophe.

A good place to start is here - http://www.worldbydesign.org/research/c14dating/datingdinosaurs.html

We also can't date things that are too young. The nuclear tests of the 1950's created a lot of C14. Also, humans are now burning large amounts of "fossil fuel". As the name suggests, fossil fuel is old, and no longer contains C14. Both of these man-made changes are a nuisance to carbon dating.

If you hear of a living tree being dated as a thousand years old, that is not necessarily an example of an incorrect dating. Trees only grow on the outside. Wood taken from the innermost ring really is as old as the tree.

Plus, we assume that the reservoirs of C14 have remained constant throughout history.

So, it can be innacurate.

The real fact is that all scientific research into the history of the earth is marked by some kind of bias, whether it be evolutionist OR creationist. Both sides do experiments to validate their claims, over and over again, and both points seem to be proven.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Even though carbon dating can be proven to be a throw-off some times, there is some concrete evidence that the cycle required for evolution of species seems to reach far further than the alleged 7000 years.

I don't generally see what's the big deal with the core ideals of evolution being against what the Bible says. Even to those who won't support the Genesis being a scientifical haycase, the building of man starting from small cells and finishing the development cycle into a "finished product" about ten millennia ago would suit well to the metaphor of creating the man from the dust of Earth. That certainly leaves just time as our only issue.

I can understand that some people have hard time accepting this, as God was supposed to create man as His own image. We'll of course have to take into account that this opinion is burdened by the bias of the thought that Earth, the cradle of mankind, is the center of the universe. This has of course been misproven centuries ago by a certain Polish astronomist.

Yeah, I know that Bible still says this or that, but please refer to my previous post for some ideas why taking the tellings of the Good Book <i>completely</i> literally is a bad idea.

It's history repeating itself all over again. It took the church two hundred years to give Copernic the credit. Judging by the same cycle we still have about fifty years to go before they admit that Darwin was right too.
 

fortuneandglory

New member
I see your point, and referring to my previous posts, you'll see I believe in evolution, just not a species jump from monkey to human.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
fortuneandglory said:
I see your point, and referring to my previous posts, you'll see I believe in evolution, just not a species jump from monkey to human.
Well, the common ancestor has most likely been some kind of monkey... but it's of course not like one day this being would just have pushed a human being out of its womb. The process is far more complicated than that.

And my jabs aren't exactly tossed as much to you as those Bible literalists who fail to see that there's lot more of new stuff to be taken into account than what we knew 2000 years ago.
 
Last edited:

fortuneandglory

New member
Finn said:
Well, the common ancestor has most likely been some kind of monkey... but it's of course not like one day this being would just have pushed a human being out of its womb. The process is far more complicated than that.

And my jabs aren't exactly tossed as much to you as those Bible literalists who fail to see that there's lot more of new stuff to be taken into account than what we knew 2000 years ago.

Heh, have no fear finn, I don't take your comments as jabs, they've given me much to consider. You give a lot of intelligent posts, and I appreciate what you are saying, however I am not in the least studied enough on evolution to debate this point. *man i need a subscription to archaeology magazine...*

Until then, i'm going to keep on reading.
 
" I am not in the least studied enough on evolution to debate this point. *man i need a subscription to archaeology magazine...*"
Especially if, as you've said before, you think you want to actually BE an archaeologist!

"i'm going to keep on reading"
Never stop, F&G!! Never stop... :)
 

fortuneandglory

New member
Thanks for the encouragement CH, despite our differences...

We actually get Archaeology magazine here in Oklahoma, but I'm a bit short on money... Maybe for christmas?

And of course i'll never stop reading ;). I have actually done more studying up on current archaeological issues since our little debates... so on that note, you have been a good influence on my development in archaeology.
 
"despite our differences..."
What a boring ol' world it'd be, if we were all the same eh!

STVulcanIDIC.jpg

"Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations"

"you have been a good influence"

Damn... there goes my reputation as an a--h*le!
,-)
 

intergamer

New member
...

thousands of objects have been carbon dated to times hundreds of thousands of years ago...

I assure you, our knowledge of chemistry is not so completely off base that all of this is wrong

the sites you refer to are unscientific babble spreading FUD
 

fortuneandglory

New member
I never said that all Carbon Dating is wrong. I said that in some cases, it has been PROVEN to be wildly inaccurate. And, this site, that is singular, provides some scientific evidence pointing in this direction. Babble spreading FUD? That's very mature. I look forward to seeing examples of these objects dated hundreds of thousands of years ago.

And perhaps this site is a little more scientific for you.

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050218-2.htm

enjoy!
 

intergamer

New member
fortuneandglory said:
I never said that all Carbon Dating is wrong. I said that in some cases, it has been PROVEN to be wildly inaccurate. And, this site, that is singular, provides some scientific evidence pointing in this direction. Babble spreading FUD? That's very mature. I look forward to seeing examples of these objects dated hundreds of thousands of years ago.

And perhaps this site is a little more scientific for you.

http://scienceweek.com/2005/sc050218-2.htm

enjoy!

sorry, I meant 10's of thousands, which is more than 7K to be sure.
that website isn't more scientific, and you are spreading complete nonsense
do you even understand how carbon dating works? it's not some random black box... it's based on the fundamental properties of radioactive decay. The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years. This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the background radiation.
 

fortuneandglory

New member
intergamer said:
sorry, I meant 10's of thousands, which is more than 7K to be sure.
that website isn't more scientific, and you are spreading complete nonsense
do you even understand how carbon dating works? it's not some random black box... it's based on the fundamental properties of radioactive decay. The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years. This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the background radiation.

Carbon dating is actually not accurate beyond 50,000 years, if you had read the website I gave you. Is my information nonsense because it conflicts with your views? Again, I know exactly how carbon dating works. It measures the amount of decay, the half life of Carbon 14 being about 5 and a half thousand years, and that gives you the date. Again, i'm not saying its all inaccurate, but there are certain points where you cannot date using this method. Dont be so inflammatory, and think before you insult my intelligence next time.
 

fortuneandglory

New member
Oh, and Carbon dating also does not work as well underwater, due to the fact that Carbon 14 is absorbed into objects through the atmosphere. Which is another reason we cannot always trust it, because we make the assumation that the Carbon 14 reservoirs have always been the same, which we cannot possibly know.
 
Last edited:

intergamer

New member
fortuneandglory said:
Carbon dating is actually not accurate beyond 50,000 years, if you had read the website I gave you. Is my information nonsense because it conflicts with your views? Again, I know exactly how carbon dating works. It measures the amount of decay, the half life of Carbon 14 being about 5 and a half thousand years, and that gives you the date. Again, i'm not saying its all inaccurate, but there are certain points where you cannot date using this method. Dont be so inflammatory, and think before you insult my intelligence next time.

it's not about carbon dating being inaccurate, it's about proof that the earth is more than a 10,000 years old... carbon dating is inaccurate, but only probabilistically, and not by 40,000
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
No need for anyone to lose their tempers here.

By the current scientific knowledge, the carbon dating is one our of best arguments when it comes to proving that Earth is older than the Bible cites. I recall the discussion around here though where a theory was given that the great global flood mentioned in the holy book would have thrown off the carbon values.

It's a kind of pathetic theory really, as all the proof it gives for the flood is the words in the Bible. Considering that to give this all any credit one should take the Bible literally, so the scientific value of this theory is nil. Actually, it's easier to scientifically suggest that there never was a flood (at least in the global scale), as the water moving around in the Earth's cycle is nowhere near enough for such a thing to happen.
 
Top