jonnypants:The bible...has been changed and edited more times than your mind can wrap around it. Even a nonreligious man like myself knows that. There are sooo many different versions of the bible. Just -some- changes over the years.
If you don't thing carbon dating is accurate enough, where in the Bible does it say how old the tablets are? Nowhere. Just admit it's the best dating system we have for objects less than 50,000 years old.
Even if I am Christian and believe the Bible is true, I do know that the Bible has been changed many times. Recent versions have been edited so I use the old King James version. The website that Devoidless linked states that that the King James Bible which was based on the Textus Receptus had no changes out of the two hundred noted changes. Most of bibles read this day have been changed. So in short I do acknowledge what Devoidless said is true. Even if he is nonreligous and I am Christian.
They measured how old those were with what system?
Radioactive dating; they figure out the half-life of a radioactive isotope (they all have constant half-lives). They are found by the formula
For example the half-life of carbon-14 is approximately 5,700 years. It decays into nitrogen-14. So say there is a rock with 100 grams of carbon-14 (100 grams to make it easy). So after 5,700 years it will be the first half-life. There will then be 50 grams of carbon-14 and 50 grams of nitrogen-14. After another 5,700 years there will be 25 grams of carbon-14 and 75 grams of nitrogen. The pattern will go on and on. 12.5 grams carbon 87.5 nitrogen. 6.25 grams carbon and 93.75 grams nitrogen. You get the point.
Anyway, so they can check a rock for the amount of carbon/nitrogen they have they can see how old it is. So if a rock has 87.5% nitrogen-14 and 12.5% carbon-14 the rock is then approximately 17,100 years old.
This can be used with any radioactive isotope, some with half-lives as long as 4 billion years.
They measured how old they were with Carbon Dating. I said something about it in the attempt to make the thing a link. If you don't think it's accurate, explain to me how you check to see how old things like that are.
Oh thanks knight. I've never done a link before, all I saw was the link button next to italic. When that didn't work I thought it was because there was no title. Thanks for helping me.
It should only take the littlest amount of common sense to know that carbon dating can not be used to give any number to the life span of the earth. In order to date a carbon atom, you must first have one that has not been exposed to about anything. Make that not being exposed for about 4.6 billion years, and that's pretty much impossible. Think about it, the earth didn't just pop up looking like it does today. There probably wasn't many carbon atoms around for the first couple billion years. Even if there was an earth then as we know it, all the environmental cycles would have certainly recycled any carbon atoms from back then. Just thinking of using carbon dating to measure the earth's life span is absurd.
The true way to tell how long the earth has been in existence is stars. We can date the earth by the distance of the furthest star known in light years. For instance, if a new star pops up, it (usually) does not mean a new star has been created, but rather its light has reached us. If we get the distance of this star from earth and divide it by a light year, we get the number of years it has taken the light of the star to reach us and how old our earth is.
@dank- Carbon dating isn't used to measure the age of earth, only things in the recent past; the half-life of an atom of Carbon 14 is only 5,600 years, it becomes inaccurate to date things over 70,000 or so years because of the exceedingly small amount of Carbon 14 available. Instead the age of the Earth is measured using Uranium 238 found in asteroids because it has a long half-life, and as per your objections, is subject to no external cycles to throw the values off.
If the bible told you that all women are crab people, would you believe it?
some look like crabs from a distance
in order to know the future you must know the past...i don't like that saying the earth is old enough for man to harvest it's resources that's all the info i need
in order to know the future you must know the past...i don't like that saying the earth is old enough for man to harvest it's resources that's all the info i need
What the hell does that even mean? Speak clear english
The true way to tell how long the earth has been in existence is stars. We can date the earth by the distance of the furthest star known in light years.
If the universe was started by the big bang, then everything started clumped together. If there was a start on one end of the universe, then it's light could have easily reached the other end. We should be able to see the ends of the universe if our telescopes are powerful enough and if the Big Bang theory is true. I had trouble explaining this in some other thread, so I can only do my best and hope you understand.