How can believers in God making the earth only 6000 years ago refute Carbon Dating?

Question

Scientists can prove beyond any doubt that the earth is a few billion years old. Not just carbon dating but fossils as well. Religeous people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old are blatently ignorant in my opinion. Why do they humiliate themselves so?

If the bible stated that the colour black was actually white would they believe that as well?

PS I do believe in a higher power but no in all the God created the Earth Claptrap!

Please there is other evidence. the expansion of the universe for one. Dont you think it would take more than 6000 years for the universe to cool after the big bang? Have some sense!!!!

Interesting....http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060927070741AAstpoC&r=w

Answer 1

The planet’s coming into existence is recounted in the Bible with the simple statement: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Ge 1:1) Just how long ago the starry heavens and the earth were created is not stated in the Bible. The inspired Record tells of six creative periods called “days,” and of a seventh period or “seventh day” in which time God desisted from earthly creative works and proceeded to rest. These creative periods could have been thousands of years each. For instance, more than 4,000 years after the seventh day, or God’s rest day commenced, the Apostle Paul indicated that it was still in progress. Therefore, there is no basis for Bible scholars to take issue with scientific calculations of the age of the planet. Scientists estimate the age of some rocks as being three and a half billion years, and the earth itself as being about four to four and a half billion or more years. There is no reson to doubt the accuracy of these statements. However as to the creation of the human race, there are no actual records of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits, extending into the past before 4026 B.C.E., the date of Adam’s creation. Therefore man has been around for only 6,000ish years!

Answer 2

Carbon dating is not an exact science - only an interpretation. the same artifacts were sent to 5 different labs around the world for dating - the results did not sgree and were so wide ranging!

How much carbon is in the atmosphere today? How much was there 1 million years ago? If you say the same then prove it, but you can't as you have no evidence.

Rock taken from the new island that formed in the 1960's near Iceland may be taken and carbon dated. How many millions of years old will it be when it was formed in the 1960's?

Don't believe everything that science makes a claim about. Check things for yourself.

Answer 3

Carbon dating is inconclusive and scientists cannot even agree on the different types because they always give a different result. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Answer 4

Many people are under the false impression that carbon dating proves that dinosaurs and other extinct animals lived millions of years ago. What many do not realize is that carbon dating is not used to date dinosaurs.
The reason? Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years. So if scientists believe that a creature lived millions of years ago, then they would need to date it another way.
But there is the problem. They assume dinosaurs lived millions of years ago (instead of thousands of years ago like the bible says). They ignore evidence that does not fit their preconceived notion.
What would happen if a dinosaur bone were carbon dated? - At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Scientists dated dinosaur bones using the Carbon dating method. The age they came back with was only a few thousand years old.
This date did not fit the preconceived notion that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. So what did they do? They threw the results out. And kept their theory that dinosaurs lived "millions of years ago" instead.

This is common practice.

They then use potassium argon, or other methods, and date the fossils again.

They do this many times, using a different dating method each time. The results can be as much as 150 million years different from each other! - how’s that for an "exact" science?

They then pick the date they like best, based upon their preconceived notion of how old their theory says the fossil should be (based upon the Geologic column).

So they start with the assumption that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, then manipulate the results until they agree with their conclusion.

Their assumptions dictate their conclusions.

So why is it that if the date doesn't fit the theory, they change the facts?

Unbiased science changes the theory to support the facts. They should not change the facts to fit the theory.

Answer 5

Unfortunately you are wrong on one point. That of the 'without a doubt' bit. You see, carbon dating is known to be affected by certain things which can make it unreliable. Carbon dating of rocks fresh from a volcanoe will date them as being millions of years old. Ohters that may have been around for years and years can show up as being days old.

Carbon dating only actually works effectivle under certain controlled conditions. So dating the earth by carbon dating is not an exact science. It relys on the radioctive half life of certain isotopes that are not always as reliable as they seem.

But the real problem here is not science or people ignoring facts, but it is opinion. Yours and theirs. You see, if you were truly of the scientific mind, you would not be trying to persuade others of your opinion by 'using' science in this way. Especially as you haven't actually studied your subject.

The point being that it is opinions that are constantly being argued here. Yours and theirs.

You provoke them, they provoke you. You use science which you have no full knowledge of to 'prove' facts you have no other proof for, they use scriptures they do not fully understand to 'prove' points they have no understanding of.

Opinions, opinions. Truth needs no defense. If you are right and they are wrong, then shut up about it and be content in your rightness.

If they are right and you wrong then shut up and listen.

Either way shut up and stop promoting useless arguments when you have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

Answer 6

Errors in the Radiocarbon Clock

The radiocarbon clock looked very simple and straightforward when it was first demonstrated, but it is now known to be prone to many kinds of error. After some 20 years’ use of the method, a conference on radiocarbon chronology and other related methods of dating was held in Uppsala, Sweden, in 1969. The discussions there between chemists who practice the method and archaeologists and geologists who use the results brought to light a dozen flaws that might invalidate the dates. In the 17 years since then, little has been accomplished to remedy these shortcomings.

One nagging problem has always been to ensure that the sample tested has not been contaminated, either with modern (live) carbon or with ancient (dead) carbon. A bit of wood, for example, from the heart of an old tree might contain live sap. Or if that has been extracted with an organic solvent (made from dead petroleum), a trace of the solvent might be left in the portion analyzed. Old buried charcoal might be penetrated by rootlets from living plants. Or it might be contaminated with much older bitumen, difficult to remove. Live shellfish have been found with carbonate from minerals long buried or from seawater upwelling from the deep ocean where it had been for thousands of years. Such things can make a specimen appear either older or younger than it really is.

The most serious fault in radiocarbon-dating theory is in the assumption that the level of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is now. That level depends, in the first instance, on the rate at which it is produced by cosmic rays. Cosmic rays vary greatly in intensity at times, being largely affected by changes in the earth’s magnetic field. Magnetic storms on the sun sometimes increase the cosmic rays a thousandfold for a few hours. The earth’s magnetic field has been both stronger and weaker in past millenniums. And since the explosion of nuclear bombs, the worldwide level of carbon 14 has increased substantially.

On the other hand, the proportion is affected by the quantity of stable carbon in the air. Great volcanic eruptions add measurably to the stable carbon-dioxide reservoir, thus diluting the radiocarbon. In the past century, man’s burning of fossil fuels, especially coal and oil, at an unprecedented rate has permanently increased the quantity of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Answer 7

Hi,
This is not a problem of who believes in GOD and who does not! I myself believe in GOD but don't believe all the crap the chatolic church tries to feed us! The church has always been like that from the older times. They judge everything and everyone and they don't take a look at themselves before! Do you know for instance that the church during the inquisition killed more people than hitler did during the holocaust. DO you know that if the vatican sold half of its belongings hunger in the world would be a thing of the past! Thing is that the church is just like a government. They want power and they try to feed us this crap so we are afraid to go against it! In my opinion if Jesus was born and lived a poor life that is the thing that priests must do and not being served by ppl like the pope does!

Answer 8

Yes the Earth is 6000 years old. There is no disputing that.
But there is such evidence to suggest carbon dating is complete rubbish.
Firstly, any activity, such as a volcanic eruption, brings with it heavily carbon-laden material. If carbon dated this carbon rivh material can muck up any results. This happened in the Pacific. Creation scientists took some atheist scientists along with some volcanologists. They took readings from a flow they knew to be only 50 or so years old. The results said the rock was 12000 yrs old. True science???
Similarly, any radioactive material present in th ground, and also industrial waste, can also cause anomalous results in carbon dating. Different carbon levels exist in different things, even two examples of the same thing, such as soil or rock.
As for fossils, they do fit in with the Biblical perspective. the book of Job describes a behemoth creature with a tail like a cedar tree that eats grass like an ox. In fact, it is possible Noah took young dinosaurs into the Ark with him, and they cleared the land of grass for humans to live in.
Several mediaeval texts also mention dragons- the word dinosaur is a recent word, and so the animals referred to could easily be dinosaurs. There are also new species of animal being found each week, so it is possible a dinosaur could be living in some undiscovered part of the forests and jungles of the world.
We as followers of the Bible do not humiliate ourselves in any way, we merely abide by the wonder of literature that is the Bible, Gods own word. It states clearly that those who do not believe in His word and His promise of salvation will perish in the Judgement. The Lord does not want us to die, but instead loves us and wants us to return to Him and Heaven. That is not difficult to understand is it?
i am more than willing to explain and debate further if anyone wishes to email me with questions. I can't force you to believe me, but just hear me out!

Answer 9

I believe in Allah (God) but I don't believe that the earth is only 6000 years old:

Creation of the Universe in Six Days
As per the Bible, in the first book of Genesis in Chapter One, the universe was created in six days and each day is defined as a twenty-four hours period. Even though the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, ‘Ayyaam’ is the plural of years; this word has two meanings: firstly, it means a standard twenty-four hours period i.e. a day, and secondly, it also means stage, period or epoch which is a very long period of time.

When the Qur’an mentions that the universe was created in six ‘Ayyaams’, it refers to the creation of the heavens and the earth in six long periods or epochs; scientists have no objection to this statement. The creation of the universe has taken billions of years, which proves false or contradicts the concept of the Bible which states that the creation of the Universe took six days of twenty-four hour durations each.

As per the genealogy of Jesus Christ given in the Bible, from Jesus through Abraham (pbuh) to the first man on earth i.e. Adam (pbuh), Adam appeared on the earth approximately 5800 years ago:


1948 years between Adam (pbuh) and Abraham (pbuh)
Approximately 1800 years between Abraham (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh)
2000 years from Jesus (pbuh) till today
These figures are further confused by the fact that the Jewish calendar is currently on or about 5800 years old.

There is sufficient evidence from archaeological and anthropological sources to suggest that the first human being on earth was present tens of thousands of years ago and not merely 5,800 years ago as is suggested by the Bible.
The Qur’an too speaks about Adam (pbuh) as the first man on earth but it does not suggest any date or period of his life on earth, unlike the Bible - what the Bible says in this regard is totally incompatible with science.

Answer 10

Well, my own personal belief is that god created the earth, and the universe aged (ie there's a story behind it, but it didn't happen, get it?) So the earth could be 6000 years old, but it was created with a history, like dinosaurs.
PS I also believe in the theory of evolution.