well if any of u r familiar with the law of conservation and mass, then u know that it states that matter cannot be created from nothing, or completely destroyed. so evolutionists say this, then turn around and say the big bang created the universe as we know it. WTF!!?!?!?!the universe went from non existent to existent in a fraction of a nanosecond! and where did the bigbang come from? nothing? nope, because if the law of conservation and mass is true, then the bigbang isnt. simple...
Most of these "human" remains were hoaxes, one was a large gibbon, one a pigs tooth, and they have been found buried in the same level of sediment and very close to tools that were dated 4000 so years old. We don't know what the ratio of say carbon-14 to nitrogen was when these people died, this could be affecting the readings.
Oldest human remains found were 160,000 years old.
There have been many frozen remains from previous ice ages.
In addition carbon dating is not used for periods of time over 100,000 years or so because it is not very accurate. Instead radioactive isotopes are used based on the half life of the material which dates it in comparison to that. It has proven to be exceptionally accurate.
In any case even if all this wren't true, what about all of the prehuman life that has been found eg dinosaurs, not every single dinosaur ever found can have been a hoax.
In addition carbon dating is not used for periods of time over 100,000 years or so because it is not very accurate. Instead radioactive isotopes are used based on the half life of the material which dates it in comparison to that. It has proven to be exceptionally accurate.
In any case even if all this wren't true, what about all of the prehuman life that has been found eg dinosaurs, not every single dinosaur ever found can have been a hoax.
Again we don't know the original ratio, and what about the dinosaurs?
Original ratio for the radioactive isotopes or the carbon?
and what about the dinosaurs?
According to evolutionism dinosaurs ruled the earth for millions of years before us and humans only for thousands. If this were indeed true would dinosaurs not be acknowledged in the bible?
Dinosaurs are at least 65 million years old. Samy said, actualy the earth would be between 6000-8000 years old. There-is-conflicting data! I... hate.. CONFLICTING DATAAAAAAA!!! It seems more likely that the dinosaurs existed, though.
Ok actualy bibles were acknowledged in the book of Job, it was called a Behemoth and fits the discription of a Sauropod. Trust me i wouldn't be a creationist if they said dinosaurs didn't exist.
Samy, the source you provide for your carbon argument is over fifty years old, and written specifically to disprove evolution, whereas evolution was merely observed.
For me this has nothing to do with faith or beliefs just evidence.
Here is info about dating mthods gained from this website
Because the radioactive half-life of a given radioisotope is not affected by temperature, physical or chemical state, or any other influence of the environment outside the nucleus save direct particle interactions with the nucleus, then radioactive samples continue to decay at a predictable rate. If determinations or reasonable estimates of the original composition of a radioactive sample can be made, then the amounts of the radioisotopes present can provide a measurement of the time elapsed.
One such method is called carbon dating, which is limited to the dating of organic (once living) materials. The longer-lived radioisotopes in minerals provide evidence of long time scales in geological processes. While original compositions cannot be determined with certainty, various combination measurements provide self-consistent values for the the times of formations of certain geologic deposits. These clocks-in-the-rocks methods provide data for modeling the formation of the Earth and solar system.
Its very good, i belive it sums it up nicely.
Here is some more evidence i found on here
Carbon-14 can only give an age of about 50,000 to 100,000 years maximum due to its short half-life of less than 6,000 years. Please see Doesnât Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
Also, creationists have been using carbon-14 to undermine alleged âmillions of yearsâ dates. Since carbon-14 should be decayed so much as to be undetectable within about 100,000 years, then a sample tested by using methods based on uranium decay or potassium argon, etc. which yields a date of 200 million years
That pretty much sums up what i was trying to explain.
Samy, the source you provide for your carbon argument is over fifty years old, and written specifically to disprove evolution, whereas evolution was merely observed.
Please stop. Your argument always seem to end up "It's a religion it was writen to disprove evolution." It was written to support the idea of a young earth.
@Woody the second one is the biggest creationist website :P But about the first I realize that may be true, but again I would say it isn't, yes it is bias because of my original belief but i choose to side with the SCIENTISTS that support my belief, I believe they are more un-biased.
I realize that may be true, but again I would say it isn't, yes it is bias because of my original belief but i choose to side with the SCIENTISTS that support my belief, I believe they are more un-biased.
Sounds to me like your trying to use words to wriggle out of a net called evidence hehe (horrible imagery i no). Th efact remains they are both true. Who are you to argue the intricacies of radioactive dating? Any creationist scientist that tries to disprove this would only embarrass himself.
I wouldlike to see you provide some links to some credible creationist science that not only defends creationism but that disproves my points.
a Behemoth and fits the discription of a Sauropod.
The Behemoth. Anyway, could be, though it is usually depicted as an ox. But there is only on Behemoth right? Though the Leviathan could represent aquatic dinosaurs while the Ziz the Pterodactyls. I never thought of that.
Here let me throw a twist on this matter! what if god or even Beelzebub(lol Satan) put dinosaurs and other conflicting items into the works. God would do this to test our faith, and Satan would of coarse do this to sway others in his direction. This whole issue is a matter of faith, not a matter of science. So what the scientists say that we where so many years old and the earth is also so many more. these are the same guys that tell us about electrodes even though there is no proof electrodes exist. but we believe them, hell i believe them. But maybe the creation story is not so literal. maybe it is metaphorical and teaches us the relationship between god and humans. Which leaves a whole lot of possibility for god to have created earth and then people existed millions of years later.
This is why we have something called Occam's Razor. Go for the simplest explanation possible. Doesn't solve all problem, but it sure is right 9 times out of 10.
Sounds to me like your trying to use words to wriggle out of a net called evidence hehe (horrible imagery i no). Th efact remains they are both true. Who are you to argue the intricacies of radioactive dating? Any creationist scientist that tries to disprove this would only embarrass himself.
Sorry honestly, thats something i haven't reseasrched, check the second website though I'm sure it will tell you.
