Scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to estimate the ages of rocks, fossils, and the earth. Many people have been led to believe that radiometric dating methods have proved the earth to be billions of years old. This has caused many in the church to reevaluate the biblical creation account, specifically the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1. With our focus on one particular form of radiometric dating—carbon dating—we will see that carbon dating strongly supports a young earth. Note that, contrary to a popular misconception, carbon dating is not used to date rocks at millions of years old.

Basics



Before we get into the details of how radiometric dating methods are used, we need to review some preliminary concepts from chemistry. Recall that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter. Atoms are made up of much smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons make up the center (nucleus) of the atom, and electrons form shells around the nucleus.

The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom determines the element. For example, all carbon atoms have 6 protons, all atoms of nitrogen have 7 protons, and all oxygen atoms have 8 protons. The number of neutrons in the nucleus can vary in any given type of atom. So, a carbon atom might have six neutrons, or seven, or possibly eight—but it would always have six protons. An “isotope” is any of several different forms of an element, each having different numbers of neutrons. The illustration below shows the three isotopes of carbon.

Some isotopes of certain elements are unstable; they can spontaneously change into another kind of atom in a process called “radioactive decay.” Since this process presently happens at a known measured rate, scientists attempt to use it like a “clock” to tell how long ago a rock or fossil formed. There are two main applications for radiometric dating. One is for potentially dating fossils (once-living things) using carbon-14 dating, and the other is for dating rocks and the age of the earth using uranium, potassium and other radioactive atoms.

Carbon-14 Dating




Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common.1

When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:

Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events (historical science)?
Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method?

Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe?

Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate?

All radiometric dating methods use scientific procedures in the present to interpret what has happened in the past. The procedures used are not necessarily in question. The interpretation of past events is in question. The secular (evolutionary) worldview interprets the universe and world to be billions of years old. The Bible teaches a young universe and earth. Which worldview does science support? Can carbon-14 dating help solve the mystery of which worldview is more accurate?



The use of carbon-14 dating is often misunderstood. Carbon-14 is mostly used to date once-living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can potentially be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds could contain carbon-14). Because of the rapid rate of decay of 14C, it can only give dates in the thousands-of-year range and not millions.

There are three different naturally occurring varieties (isotopes) of carbon: 12C, 13C, and 14C.

Carbon-14 is used for dating because it is unstable (radioactive), whereas 12C and 13C are stable. Radioactive means that 14C will decay (emit radiation) over time and become a different element. During this process (called “beta decay”) a neutron in the 14C atom will be converted into a proton. By losing one neutron and gaining one proton, 14C is changed into nitrogen-14 (14N = 7 protons and 7 neutrons).





If 14C is constantly decaying, will the earth eventually run out of 14C? The answer is no. Carbon-14 is constantly being added to the atmosphere. Cosmic rays from outer space, which contain high levels of energy, bombard the earth’s upper atmosphere. These cosmic rays collide with atoms in the atmosphere and can cause them to come apart. Neutrons that come from these fragmented atoms collide with 14N atoms (the atmosphere is made mostly of nitrogen and oxygen) and convert them into 14C atoms (a proton changes into a neutron).

Once 14C is produced, it combines with oxygen in the atmosphere (12C behaves like 14C and also combines with oxygen) to form carbon dioxide (CO2). Because CO2 gets incorporated into plants (which means the food we eat contains 14C and 12C), all living things should have the same ratio of 14C and 12C in them as in the air we breathe.

How the Carbon-14 Dating Process Works
Once a living thing dies, the dating process begins. As long as an organism is alive it will continue to take in 14C; however, when it dies, it will stop. Since 14C is radioactive (decays into 14N), the amount of 14C in a dead organism gets less and less over time. Therefore, part of the dating process involves measuring the amount of 14C that remains after some has been lost (decayed). Scientists now use a device called an “Accelerator Mass Spectrometer” (AMS) to determine the ratio of 14C to 12C, which increases the assumed accuracy to about 80,000 years. In order to actually do the dating, other things need to be known. Two such things include the following questions:

How fast does 14C decay?
What was the starting amount of 14C in the creature when it died?
The decay rate of radioactive elements is described in terms of half-life. The half-life of an atom is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay. The half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. For example, a jar starting with all 14C atoms at time zero will contain half 14C atoms and half 14N atoms at the end of 5,730 years (one half-life). At the end of 11,460 years (two half-lives) the jar will contain one-quarter 14C atoms and three-quarter 14N atoms.

Since the half-life of 14C is known (how fast it decays), the only part left to determine is the starting amount of 14C in a fossil. If scientists know the original amount of 14C in a creature when it died, they can measure the current amount and then calculate how many half-lives have passed.



Since no one was there to measure the amount of 14C when a creature died, scientists need to find a method to determine how much 14C has decayed. To do this, scientists use the main isotope of carbon, called carbon-12 (12C). Because 12C is a stable isotope of carbon, it will remain constant; however, the amount of 14C will decrease after a creature dies. All living things take in carbon (14C and 12C) from eating and breathing. Therefore, the ratio of 14C to 12C in living creatures will be the same as in the atmosphere. This ratio turns out to be about one 14C atom for every 1 trillion 12C atoms. Scientists can use this ratio to help determine the starting amount of 14C.

When an organism dies, this ratio (1 to 1 trillion) will begin to change. The amount of 12C will remain constant, but the amount of 14C will become less and less. The smaller the ratio, the longer the organism has been dead. The following illustration demonstrates how the age is estimated using this ratio.

Percent 14C Remaining Percent 12C Remaining Ratio Number of Half-Lives Years Dead(Age of Fossil)
100 100 1 to 1T 0 0
50 100 1 to 2T 1 5,730
25 100 1 to 4T 2 11,460
12.5 100 1 to 8T 3 17,190
6.25 100 1 to 16T 4 22,920
3.125 100 1 to 32T 5 28,650
T = Trillion


A Critical Assumption
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process.


If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2

Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3

What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.


Magnetic Field of the Earth
Other factors can affect the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere. The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past.

The cause for the long term variation of the C-14 level is not known. The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon. The cosmic-ray flux, and hence the production rate of C-14, is a function not only of the solar activity but also of the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth.4
Though complex, this history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed,  The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.5

Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.6

If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past, dates given using the carbon-14 method would incorrectly assume that more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than what has actually occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age.

Genesis Flood
What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.
If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level, 7
When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.
Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.


The RATE Group Findings
In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:
Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
Steven Austin, PhD Geology
Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies


The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. For example, a series of fossilized wood samples that conventionally have been dated according to their host strata to be from Tertiary to Permian (40-250 million years old) all yielded significant, detectable levels of carbon-14 that would conventionally equate to only 30,000-45,000 years “ages” for the original trees.8 Similarly, a survey of the conventional radiocarbon journals resulted in more than forty examples of supposedly ancient organic materials, including limestones, that contained carbon-14, as reported by leading laboratories.9


Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States. The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources.

Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.

These results indicate that the entire geologic column is less than 100,000 years old—and could be much younger. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.
Because the lifetime of C-14 is so brief, these AMS [Accelerator Mass Spectrometer] measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of millions of years to this part of the rock layer.10


Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere11. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.


The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently.12 Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.


Because of C-14’s short half-life, such a finding would argue that carbon and probably the entire physical earth as well must have a recent origin.13


Conclusion
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.


The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, “The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils,  Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.14

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Please stop spreading lies, carbon dating is proven science and fact.

The miseducation of the negro, it's a shame that you guys will stoop this low. While science improves your everyday lives in every conceivable way you hold on to desert myths of middle eastern people from the bronze age to explain your modern reality. I CRY FOR MY PEOPLE OH!

I bet you either did not read or understand the post .

it must have gone right over your head.

now try and read another try and we can do some debate.  

Carbon dating is correct, the earth is millions or billions of years old.

@ Frosbel

I like debating with people like you - you don't shirk a challenge by avoiding the issue.

The RATE scientists say their work shows that the geological column is no older than 100,000 years old right? If we accept this work as true, 100,000 is still nowhere near 6,000 - yes it is closer to 6,000 than millions of years, but even if we get a date of 10,000 years, that still means the bible will be 'wrong' if we accept those that insist that the earth is roughly 6,000 years old.

Here are some glaring inconsistencies even in their own work

Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However[b], using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio [/b]reduces that age to about 5,000 years.

In one breath the RATE scientists (rightly) say that you CANNOT determine the previous 14C/12C ratios in the past because you simply don't know, then they do something even worse than the scientists and assume an[b] imaginary[/b] 14C/12 C ratio to suit their own time frame.

At least the scientists simply made an extrapolation from currently observed ratios, these guys manufactured a ratio that would help them get results they wanted? Is their own attempt any better or actually worse than what the scientists are accused of?

debosky:


The RATE scientists say their work shows that the geological column is no older than 100,000 years old right? If we accept this work as true, 100,000 is still nowhere near 6,000 - yes it is closer to 6,000 than millions of years, but even if we get a date of 10,000 years, that still means the bible will be 'wrong' if we accept those that insist that the earth is roughly 6,000 years old.

The bible never says the earth is 6,000 years old . It is an assumption. The 6,000 years counting is only from Adam . But the earth existed several millions of years before Adam. There was a world before Adam was created. They were destroyed by flood. Thats where the pre historic animal existed. Lucifer was the ruler of that world .the demon spirit on the earth today were humans that time.

Joagbaje, can you backup your teachings with scriptures?

My Bible says:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Your false teaching is probably based on misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:4-7. The world that was destroyed by flood is the world during Noah's time. That scripture is saying that those who are ignorant think that the world has remained the same since the beginning of the creation, that is since Genesis 1:1.

There is only one beginning. If you still think there was another world before Adam, please explain your teachings based on scripture.

wetu:

Joagbaje, can you backup your teachings with scriptures?

My Bible says:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Your false teaching is probably based on misunderstanding of 2 Peter 3:4-7. The world that was destroyed by flood is the world during Noah's time. That scripture is saying that those who are ignorant think that the world has remained the same since the beginning of the creation, that is since Genesis 1:1.

There is only one beginning. If you still think there was another world before Adam, please explain your teachings based on scripture.

Hope you understand that Gen 1:2 is not necessarily a few moments after Gen1:1?
i don't know of the today demon spirits being human at that time but what i know is that there could have been a million years btw verse 1 and 2

Joagbaje:

The bible never says the earth is 6,000 years old . It is an assumption. The 6,000 years counting is only from Adam . But the earth existed several millions of years before Adam. There was a world before Adam was created. They were destroyed by flood. Thats where the pre historic animal existed. Lucifer was the ruler of that world .the demon spirit on the earth today were humans that time.

You have gone absolutely bunkers !!!!

Where is this in the bible ?

There could have been a planet called earth , i cannot readily ascertain , but for you to make the statements above without any clarification makes me feel sorry for the sheep under your care.

What heresies they must constantly be exposed to !

When was lucifer rebellion against God? Before Eden or after?

debosky:

@ Frosbel

I like debating with people like you - you don't shirk a challenge by avoiding the issue.

The RATE scientists say their work shows that the geological column is no older than 100,000 years old right? If we accept this work as true, 100,000 is still nowhere near 6,000 - yes it is closer to 6,000 than millions of years, but even if we get a date of 10,000 years, that still means the bible will be 'wrong' if we accept those that insist that the earth is roughly 6,000 years old.

Here are some glaring inconsistencies even in their own work

In one breath the RATE scientists (rightly) say that you CANNOT determine the previous 14C/12C ratios in the past because you simply don't know, then they do something even worse than the scientists and assume an[b] imaginary[/b] 14C/12 C ratio to suit their own time frame.

At least the scientists simply made an extrapolation from currently observed ratios, these guys manufactured a ratio that would help them get results they wanted? Is their own attempt any better or actually worse than what the scientists are accused of?

Okay let me rephrase , there is the possibility that some entity existed prior to what we call 'earth' today , possibly millions of years old but I cannot confirm.

However what irks me is the attempt to disprove the biblical account of creation and the development of the earth. Not forgetting that before the earth was made, the initial entity was a cosmic mess. I cannot be presumptuous to suggest what existed on this entity if any at all.

Carbon dating is an attempt in many cases by people to disprove the bible account of creation.

When did lucifer rebel against God? Before or after Eden?

Dunno why Joeagbaje needs to bring his 'l theories' to ruin a good discussion.

For simplicity, I think a separate thread should be created to discuss this 'world before Adam' topic.

frosbel:

Not forgetting that before the earth was made, the initial entity was a cosmic mess. I cannot be presumptuous to suggest what existed on this entity if any at all.

What made it a cosmic mess? did God create a mess?

Isaiah 45:18
18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Jeremiah 4:23-26
23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. 24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. 25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. 26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord, and by his fierce anger.

debosky:

Dunno why Joeagbaje needs to bring his 'l theories' to ruin a good discussion.
For simplicity, I think a separate thread should be created to discuss this 'world before Adam' topic.

But that's where the answer lies. Science could be wrong in many things but in this regard , science is right. Except you don't want truth. Ok I back off. You and Frosbel enjoy your chat

Joagbaje link=topic=764478.msg9189821#msg9189821 date=1316597175]
What made it a cosmic mess? did God create a mess?

"IN THE beginning God (prepared, formed, fashioned, and) created the heavens and the earth.[b]The earth was without form and an empty waste, and darkness was upon the face of the very great deep. [/b]The Spirit of God was moving (hovering, brooding) over the face of the waters." - Genesis 1:1-2

frosbel:

Okay let me rephrase , there is the possibility that some entity existed prior to what we call 'earth' today , possibly millions of years old but I cannot confirm.

I don't even think this is necessarily the case, neither have I even argued for that. I am just concerned that any evidence that doesn't support the so called 'creationist' viewpoint is deemed unreliable, even by those (Ola) with clearly deficient understanding of what they are discussing.

The methodology has its limitations (like any other) but that should not lead to a rash conclusion that it is 'unreliable' - it should simply be applied within the its limits and not unduly extrapolated.

However what irks me is the attempt to disprove the biblical account of creation and the development of the earth. Not forgetting that before the earth was made, the initial entity was a cosmic mess. I cannot be presumptuous to suggest what existed on this entity if any at all.

I agree fully with this - if the aim is simply to disprove the biblical account, then it is prone to being misguided. However, people like Ola are insistent on claiming that anything that even hints at something longer than 6,000 years MUST be wrong, when the bible itself makes no such categorical claims of when the 'beginning' was.

Carbon dating is an attempt in many cases by people to disprove the bible account of creation.

In general, the aim of carbon dating was to provide a (largely) non-subjective means of dating archaeological artefacts. Previous practice involved a lot of debate and subjective date estimation with little scientific basis.

In my view carbon dating is simply a tool - the application of the tool reveals the intent of those applying it.  

In one instance it has been used to confirm the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which confirm that the versions of the bible in use today are largely in agreement with what they were thousands of years ago. If we accept that and take comfort from that, we can't in the next breath turn around and discard the methodology in its entirety.

Furthermore, as others have allegedly attempted to disprove the bible account of creation, others such as the RATE group have attempted to manipulate the method to confirm the bible account.

What is certain is that no dating method can conclusively tell us how old the earth is, as they are all based on certain assumptions - mostly around the radioactive decay rates being constant in antiquity and the previous ratios of C14/C12.

Based on the generally accepted assumptions, the earth appears to be much older than the age proposed by the so called 'creationists' who have inferred an age of the creation from the bible. As long as we understand that these assumptions are not necessarily correct, we can then make up our minds.

My view, as expressed previously, is that the biblical account was not intended as a dating mechanism, but to provide us with the  understanding that God created everything.

Joagbaje:

But that's where the answer lies. Science could be wrong in many things but in this regard , science is right. Except you don't want truth. Ok I back off. You and Frosbel enjoy your chat

Don't get me wrong - if you want to discuss that, then it is a separate matter. We are looking strictly at carbon dating on this thread, so let's keep things tidy.

Ok , I go, but tell Frosbel I'm waiting outside, if he has 2heads let him come out of the house.

frosbel:

Okay let me rephrase , there is the possibility that some entity existed prior to what we call 'earth' today , possibly millions of years old but I cannot confirm.

However what irks me is the attempt to disprove the biblical account of creation and the development of the earth. Not forgetting that before the earth was made, the initial entity was a cosmic mess. I cannot be presumptuous to suggest what existed on this entity if any at all.

Carbon dating is an attempt in many cases by people to disprove the bible account of creation.

No, carbon dating is one scientific method among others that are used to date various objects. Its development didn't have your Bible in its sights.

thehomer:

No, carbon dating is one scientific method among others that are used to date various objects. Its development didn't have your Bible in its sights.

Christianity isn't complete without claims of persecution. They have to play the victim in other to feel right. They revert to the bible and its claims of mockers and scoffers in the "last days" while ignoring the fact that their ideas are just silly. They call it christian "science" but science doesn't start with the conclusion and try to distort reality and present it as fact.

^^

Many scientists have done exactly that, only to be disgraced after many years.

Dude, the universe is 13.7 ± 0.13 billion years old. Get over it, read Stephen Hawking's "a brief history of time" if you must know. The universe is still expanding. Subataomic particles pop in and out of existance constantly. Illiterates shouldnt be allowed an opinion.

debosky:

^^

Many scientists have done exactly that, only to be disgraced after many years.

That doesn't stop fundies and scientifically ignorant people from spewing BS about ID and creationism. They don't even need to be disgraced because they have to be accepted by the real science community first.

For anyone interested, full rebuttal here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/calilasseia-aig-carbon-dating-drivel-debunked-t1101.html

Martian:

Christianity isn't complete without claims of persecution. They have to play the victim in other to feel right. They revert to the bible and its claims of mockers and scoffers in the "last days" while ignoring the fact that their ideas are just silly. They call it christian "science" but science doesn't start with the conclusion and try to distort reality and present it as fact.

Yes even now, they still claim to be persecuted when they're the largest religious group.

Martian:

That doesn't stop fundies and scientifically ignorant people from spewing BS about ID and creationism. They don't even need to be disgraced because they have to be accepted by the real science community first.

Why do you come up with such gibberish. Do you think been an atheist makes you an intellectual giant ?

I bet many of us here are better scientists than you. I for one studied science all the way to university level and currently into technology. So I love science and in many cases science agrees with the bible.

But we have people like you coming up with all sorts of nonsense without absolute prove , just a vindictive, raging , hatred for GOD and all that has to do with goodness and truth.

frosbel:

Why do you come up with such gibberish. Do you think been an atheist makes you an intellectual giant ?

I bet many of us here are better scientists than you. I for one studied science all the way to university level and currently into technology. So I love science and in many cases science agrees with the bible.

But we have people like you coming up with all sorts of nonsense without absolute prove , just a vindictive, raging , hatred for GOD and all that has to do with goodness and truth.

What field of science did you study?

Data Communications and Computer Networks !

frosbel:

Why do you come up with such gibberish. Do you think been an atheist makes you an intellectual giant ?
I bet many of us here are better scientists than you. I for one studied science all the way to university level and currently into technology. So I love science and in many cases science agrees with the bible.
But we have people like you coming up with all sorts of nonsense without absolute prove , just a vindictive, raging , hatred for GOD and all that has to do with goodness and truth.

It seems YOU think I'm an intellectual giant because I don't claim to be. I must seem like an intellectual giant to you though. I'm not a scientist either so I don't understand why you claim you're a better scientist than me but I do understand scientific subjects and when I come across things I don't know about, I try to understand them.


Science doesn't agree with the bible but Id and Creationism do agree with the bible because they are not science. Like I wrote earlier, you don't come to a conclusion without first observing, gathering and testing a large body of evidence. A scientific Theory is an hypothesis backed by empirical data and your fundamental christian science is entirely based on "faith".

frosbel:

Data Communications and Computer Networks !

So you took one class about computer information technology and  now you're a "scientist". Ok, i will forward your name to the Nobel Prize organization