yes it is true, carbon dating is only a reliable means of dating for a few dozen millenia. so, why do you suppose so many scientists, many of whom have never met each other before, can come to the same conclusion on the age of the earth, as well as how long ago dinosaurs walked the earth? do you suppose maybe they have other means of determining the age of artifacts? or do you suppose it's natural for people, once they hit the limits of carbon dating, to assume that the earth is roughly 4 billion years old and dinosaurs lived about 100 million years ago?
2007-10-11 05:54:19 · 9 answers · asked by just curious (A.A.A.A.) 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
dd, that's exactly the point of the question... i know carbon dating is only reliable to a certain extent. what i'm getting at is, you have to realize that there are other means of dating artifact. 4 billion years is not just some number some quack pulled out of his and everyone else decided to agree.
2007-10-11 06:33:03 · update #1
bug, why millions when carbon is only reliable for a few dozen millenia...
2007-10-11 06:38:01 · update #2
Shh... It's all a conspiracy by the Illuminati and the Trilateral commission to spread a One World Government by hiding dinosaur bones in the strata of the Earth's crust.
2007-10-11 06:00:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Carbon dating is used souly for Antyhropology if I recall. Its a very accurate method for dating events that have happened in close to 8000 or so years. (not sure on the lenght).
However The principal allows us to date things a hel* of a lot older.
Some elements have much much longer decay rates.
Essentially, we KNOW the earth is at LEAST 4 billion years old.
A note to creationists. Time is a human conception. It is also relative.
The whole 7 days thing....Who is to say that a week for god isnt 3 billion years?
Who is to say he didn't have a dinosaur phase? Who is to tell God what he can and cannot do?
If Jesus went around talking about the earth being 4 billion years old by human standards he would have been hanged. With a noose. and there would be no christianity today.
Have you ever thought that Jesus may have had to Lie for the better of the world? Simply becuse his story had to be believeable for the time? Otherwise He would be a nameless blasphmer and assuming your religion is correct we would all be going to hell except for the 3 people on earth who managed to stay clean of sin.
so a lie may have infact saved the world. It is better not to lie, however sometimes we have to choose the best possibility.
Jesus HAD to lie, and he HAD to not tell us the truth. Today we have the abillity to understand it.... well you do.
I personaly am Asatru... We accept that^ in our religion naturally.
2007-10-11 06:16:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends upon your premises.
For instance, prior to the Flood - if you believe in the Flood - life on earth would have been very different. In Genesis, the Bible says that God seperated the waters above from the waters below. The waters above are not there now; they came down in the Flood -- as well as waters from below the earth. So, the waters above the earth perhaps formed ice crystals around the planet. Regardless, a greenhouse effect would have occurred, allowing tropical, ludh, plantlife to exist from pole to pole. We are discovering evidence of such life from desert caves in Arabia to the Arctic circle. In fact, there is quite abit of oil under the ice. Oil comes from decomposing organic life. Ever wonder where it all came from? And how it got there? The vast amount of plantlife would have dramatically increased the oxygen percentage in the air, leading to greater healing rates and higher endurances. Dinosaurs found today with unexplainably small nostrils that could never survive in our atmosphere could survive then. By the way, have you recently read where many of the Dinosaurs were actually covered in feathers? Did you also know that God created the birds before land animals?Additionally, the amount of Carbon-14 per unit of oxygen ingested by the plants would have been greatly diluted. This in itself has been theorized to skew carbon-14 dating results from millions to thousands of years.
After the water came down, oxygen content has declined. In fact, since records have been kept in the 1800's, we have recorded the steady decline of oxygen content in the air. We live much shorter lives.
In any event, the Flood led to major geological and atmospheric changes. Secondary impacts include carbon-14 dating, length of lives, the enlarging of the oceans, etc.
If you reject the Flood and God's creation in Genesis, you arrive at very different conclusions than the Bible. If you do believe in Creation, then there, too, are very logical answers to what we are seeing today.
By the way, at an estimated gross tonnage of 14,400 tons, the Ark would have a carrying capacity of 522 standard railroad cars. Each railroad car can carryy 240 sheep. Only 188 cars would have been required to carry the estimaded 45,000 species. Therefore, there was sufficient space to carry all known dinosaurs as well with room for food and roaming. However, chances are there was little food and declining oxygen to support such massive animals after the Flood.
2007-10-11 06:21:52 · answer #3 · answered by BowtiePasta 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just suppose the sun just 'turned on'. How much carbon 14 is going to be in the upper atmosphere? Zero!! How old is carbon dating going to say everything is from this period? !000s of years. So I believe that the first thing that must be proved is that the carbon 14 has been constant for millions of years. May I see you data that proves this little point. You don't have any. Big false assumption.
2007-10-11 06:17:37 · answer #4 · answered by Bug YA 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Carbon 14 dating is old technology, from about the 1950's.
Radiometric dating techniques have come a LONG way since then. A VERY long way.
But creationists keep trying to use it to prove a point. Pathetic.
2007-10-11 05:59:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old.
your rules, dude.
2007-10-11 06:11:06 · answer #6 · answered by ddking37 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Where does "assume" fit into the reliability picture ?
2007-10-11 06:02:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
and everyone is just taking Darwins word for it
no scientist has ever studied evolution in depth (certainly not thousands of them all over the world)
I guess it helps them sleep better
2007-10-11 06:06:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Fundies mock scientific proof, yet they provide no proof of their delusions.
2007-10-11 06:00:16 · answer #9 · answered by Lex Fok B.M.F. 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋