Ok, If carbon 14 has a half life of less than 6,000 years how can you determine the age of an organism that has been dead for 60,000 years? Is there still enough carbon 14 available to give an accurate reading? If not, how do you determine the age?
And also, why do so many fundamentalist christian groups like creationists pour scorn on search research?
Do they have any viable arguments to contradict evidence which, to my knowledge at least, is considered acceptable in the general scientific community?
Who is right, creationists, scientists or somewhere in between?
Thanks
2006-12-07 09:54:19 · 3 answers · asked by Melok 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
A half-life means that over that period, half of the element will have decayed. So for C-14, half will have decayed into C-12 after 5568 years. But there'll still be half left. After another 5568 years, half of what was left will have decayed, but there'll still be a quarter of the original amount. And so on.
After about 50,000 years, the amount left is negligible so it is not possible to measure things older than that using this method, contrary to many creationists' claims. Luckily there are plenty of other methods which are able to date much longer periods.
As to why a small minority of Christians reject science, it is because they are unable to imagine a concept of God greater than their small minds can hold, so they limit him to their own limitations. In several years of observing creationist arguments, I have never seen one that is valid.
As Richard Dawkins says: "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."
2006-12-07 18:16:07 · answer #1 · answered by Daniel R 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Carbon dating can only date things to a max of around 50000 years. According to evolutionists coal should not contain any carbon any more. Yet no coal has been found which does not contain carbon! Other radiometric methods are used to date longer ages. However there are many assumptions involved. The fact that rock from a recent volcano was dated as millions of years old should be enough to make people treat radiometric dates with a good deal of scepticism. Most dating methods indicate that the earth is young. See link 1 below. There are many 'viable arguments' which indicate that the evolutionary hypothesis is not a good explanation of the evidence that we see around us. see link 2 rhsaunders above is gravely mistaken if he thinks evolution is proven. I suspect he does not udnerstand what science actually is. The fact is that one cannot prove what happened in the past using the scientific method of observation, test, repeat, and so on. Evolution and Creation are philosphical ideas or worldviews, within which people interpret the actual evidence very differently. We all have the same evidecne with which to do science in the present. It's a bit rich for an evolutionist to claim that creationists ignore evidence - in my experience it is evolutionists that ignore the awkward evidence. Creationists are in favour of all evidence being shown and all points of view being given an airing. rhsaunders is a typical evolutionist - trying to rubbish creationists without engaging in debate on the evidence. Daniel (below), you demonstrate just how little some evolutionists actually use your brain to think about the issues!
2016-05-23 04:40:12 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The limot of carbon dating is about 50-60,000 years.
Fundamentalist Christian groups believe in the fundamentals of science!
There is much evidence to call into question the philosophical claims of evolutionists - which they falsely claim to be scientific claims.
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3663
2006-12-09 06:41:01 · answer #3 · answered by a Real Truthseeker 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋