They are only unproven theories at best. Radiometric dating, Isotopes, and carbon -14 dating are all controversial. The earth by some accounts is very young and not billions of years old as some have postulated.
If the earth and life on earth were really as ancient as the theory of evolution requires, a great proportion of radiocarbon ages should be infinite. This is because, with a half-life of only 5730 years, initial radiocarbon in a fossil decreases in about ten half-lives to a level too low to be measured.
A large data base of radiocarbon ages are within the range of biblical chronology or not far beyond it as quiet as this information is kept from the public's view.
Creation scientists have noted these discoveries in their reports. Rarely recognized by the scientific community.
Check out the Creation-Science Research Center.
2007-07-23 07:51:54 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Ignorance of truth and indoctrination by atheistic evolutionists is the reason.
God bless.
.Read here for a great article on the unreliability of decay rates and radiometric dating methods.
http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp
2007-07-23 07:55:13 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 9⤋
Unproven Scientific Theories
2016-11-04 21:48:51 · answer #2 · answered by jacocks 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Carbon dating is not the only way to find the age of the earth. In fact because of the reasons you stated carbon dating has never been used to determine the age of the earth. Other materials with much long half lives have been used. Materials such as uranium, thorium, and radium have half lives in the millions of years. Their concentrations can be measured even after 14 or 15 half lives.
Carbon dating is only useful when trying to date organic materials such as fossils. The method is accurate when the sample is less than 15,000 years old.
2007-07-23 08:16:25 · answer #3 · answered by Gwenilynd 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's actually funny in view of the fact that atheists regularly bash the Big Bang as a Christian argument. God said, Let there be Light, and BANG! There was light! As to the earth being 6000 years old, I'd love it if you could provide a scripture supporting the calculation of a medieval Catholic monk.
I see billions of years between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.
2007-07-23 08:01:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Creation-"science" what a load of bull
look dating my not be perfectly accurate but when it says this is 100-105 million years old I can accept that but I doubt that it is off by 100-105 million years since the earth is only "6000" according to your "science"
Next thing you know you are going to tell me that its possible for the entire population to have come from only two people and that some how two of every animal got placed on a massive wooden ship that would have collapsed under its own weight.
By the way do creationist support gravity since its only a "theory" or are you bigger fans of intelligent falling and smart Air?
2007-07-23 07:58:24 · answer #5 · answered by John C 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Why do you put so much "faith" in unproven Scientific Theories such as atomic and cell theory?
They are only unproven theories at best. We've never even seen an atom before, let alone been able to see all the workings and structures of the various postulated organelles present in cells.
Why don't people accept that we're really made out of the four basic elements: earth, wind, fire, and water? It makes so much more sense!
2007-07-23 07:57:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous 3 · 6⤊ 1⤋
A theory is a logical conclusion based on observation and empirical evidence.
A magical invisible man who thought the universe into existence out of nothingness is a mindless superstition with no empirical evidence at all to support it.
Seems an easy decision to me.
2007-07-23 08:00:50 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
because the universe has a beginning and if it has a beginning something set the law of nature in motion they don't want to be wrong that is why atheists say they don't try to disprove God because when they are proving wrong they need an escape
2007-07-23 08:02:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Complete and utter rubbish. Those 'some accounts' who say the Earth in not in fact millions of years old, are morons.
2007-07-23 08:36:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
A theory is a theory is a theory and that is all
it is, is a theory.
If a big bang started everything, why is it that
all the planets appear to be round? Why not
oblong, or tubular, or any thing but round?
Have you ever seen rocks that were blown up
for excavation? Were they all round?
2007-07-23 08:03:34 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
Do you have a link for this "research" center? If it's the Institute for Creation Research you should know they don't do any research.
2007-07-23 07:59:27 · answer #11 · answered by Robin W 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋