I'd advice you stop visiting wack sites bro..

rhektor:




The discussion can't just end like that.
Can you please observe this?

How about the fact that since man has begun recording time, the earth’s rotation slows by about one second per year?

earths rotation

it is not by a second...but by around 1.7 milliseconds per century.

Carbon dating is another interesting study. Did you know that they base it on totally unproven “facts”? Yes, today we can see the rate of decay on Radiocarbon or Carbon 14 (known as Carbon dating) and we expound upon the findings of short-term testing to “prove” that things are billions of years old.

reliability of radio carbon dating
and radio carbon doesnt give billion of years...

[s]Funny thing is that they tested an ancient structure at Durrington Walls in England, that they knew was 1500 years old, but the Carbon dating “proved” that it was actually 2500 years old! I stress that this "proof" was actually provably wrong. Some other examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago. A petrified miner’s hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter’s town in Australia’s outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old. So, why does everyone believe such a farce?[/s]

these outdated arguments!
snails


your seal


australian wood

If it is so inaccurate on such a relatively new sample, how can we assume that it won't be exponentially deviate on a much older sample? It is a belief, not a science.

ignorance..

Here's an interesting page where scientists in the UK are concerned about this very subject: http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/RadioCarbonDating.html. Specifically, I found this statement very interesting: “For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today. Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time. The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels. Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water.


You can continue to read here http://www.bibleprophecyandtruth.com/creation/earthsAge

DeSepiero:


You're even bungling it up further.

Just move abeg.

raphieMontella:
I'd advice you stop visiting wack sites bro..

earths rotation

it is not by a second...but by around 1.7 milliseconds per century.

reliability of radio carbon dating
and radio carbon doesnt give billion of years...





these outdated arguments!
snails


your seal


australian wood


ignorance..

Even the mri scan don't give accurate information about a living person's age, but science would blindly accept it however if a religious person postulates anything they'll be like this is against logic. Big bang my foot