[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles

Title: A Crucial Archaeological Dating Tool Is Wrong, And It Could Change History as We Know It
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/radioc ... egion-calibration-inaccuracies
Published: Jun 6, 2018
Author: MIKE MCRAE
Post Date: 2018-06-06 21:41:38 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 35073
Comments: 248

One of the most important dating tools used in archaeology may sometimes give misleading data, new study shows - and it could change whole historical timelines as a result.

The discrepancy is due to significant fluctuations in the amount of carbon- 14 in the atmosphere, and it could force scientists to rethink how A comparison of radiocarbon ages across the Northern Hemisphere suggests we might have been a little too hasty in assuming how the isotope - also known as radiocarbon - diffuses, potentially shaking up controversial conversations on the timing of events in history.

By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years.

That may not seem like a huge deal, but in situations where a decade or two of discrepancy counts, radiocarbon dating could be misrepresenting important details.

The science behind the dating method is fairly straightforward: nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere hit with cosmic radiation are converted into a type of carbon with eight neutrons. This carbon – which has an atomic mass of 14 – has a chance of losing that neutron to turn into a garden variety carbon isotope over a predictable amount of time.

By comparing the two categories of carbon in organic remains, archaeologists can judge how recently the organism that left them last absorbed carbon-14 out of its environment.

Over millennia the level of carbon-14 in the atmosphere changes, meaning measurements need to be calibrated against a chart that takes the atmospheric concentration into account, such as INTCAL13.

The current version of INTCAL13 is based on historical data from North America and Europe, and has a fairly broad resolution over thousands of years. Levels do happen to spike on a local and seasonal basis with changes in the carbon cycle, but carbon-14 is presumed to diffuse fast enough to ignore these tiny bumps.

At least, that was the assumption until now.

"We know from atmospheric measurements over the last 50 years that radiocarbon levels vary through the year, and we also know that plants typically grow at different times in different parts of the Northern Hemisphere," says archaeologist Sturt Manning from Cornell University.

"So we wondered whether the radiocarbon levels relevant to dating organic material might also vary for different areas and whether this might affect archaeological dating."

The tree rings were samples of Jordanian juniper that grew in the southern region of the Middle East between 1610 and 1940 CE. By counting the tree rings, the team were able to create a reasonably accurate timeline of annual changes in carbon-14 uptake for those centuries.

Alarmingly, going by INTCAL13 alone, those same radiocarbon measurements would have provided dates that were older by an average of 19 years.

The difference most likely comes down to changes in regional climates, such as warming conditions. Extrapolating the findings back to earlier periods, archaeologists attempting to pinpoint Iron Age or Biblical events down to a few years would no doubt have a serious need to question their calibrations.

One controversial example is the dating of a single layer of archaeology at the Bronze and Iron Age city buried at Tel Rehov.

Just a few decades of difference could help resolve an ongoing debate over the extent of Solomon's biblical kingdom, making findings like these more than a minor quibble in a politically contested part of the world.

"Our work indicates that it's arguable their fundamental basis is faulty – they are using a calibration curve that is not accurate for this region," says Manning.

Collecting additional data from different geographical areas and taking a closer look at historical climate trends could help sharpen calibration techniques, especially in hotly debated regions.

For the time being, archaeologists covering history in the Levant are being advised to take their dates with a pinch of salt.

This research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.they use ancient organic remains to measure the passing of time.

www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/05/23/1719420115

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-14) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#15. To: Tooconservative (#7)

Hmmm...I see their assertions here but was unaware that anyone considered 19 years margin of error in carbon dating to be significant.

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-07   8:37:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: sneakypete (#14)

That's why they call religions "faiths". Start demanding evidence and they all have to shut their doors and go out of business.

You say that but you cannot back it up.

Lets play and see how dumb you can be at this subject (no you're not dumb at everything you are quite smart in some areas just not here.)

You believe in the tooth fairy and evolution.

You say things come from the spontaneous combustion of mud. Except that has never been witnessed or duplicated in the lab.

The Bible says God created everything natural. That things reproduce after like kind.

That is what you see in the world. Seeds make one thing they don't turn into something if you breathe the magic pixie dust of evilution.

Ok so idiots believe in evolution.

Just because you are a cripple doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Tell me brainica how the human nervous system evolved. You can't explain that or anything on this subject can you. You just hate God because you think he wont answer your prayers and heal your body.

I put your ultra liberal Jameson like talking point out of business. You have nothing of substance you can add because you are out of your mind and believe that when princesses kiss frogs they turn into people. Frickin idiot at times.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   8:45:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Tooconservative, sneakypete (#7)

Extrapolate it out Einstein.

What is the percentage they are off.

If they are off that much for a short time span. How much for a long time span.

It is bullshit and only idiots who love their sin believe in the dating methods used.

They have been debunked a hundred times over.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   8:48:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: sneakypete (#15)

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

How old is the planet and how do you know?

Oh you don't know and can't explain shit can you. Out of business.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   8:50:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#17)

What is the percentage they are off.

If they are off that much for a short time span. How much for a long time span.

I'm questioning whether 14C dating has ever been reliably considered to be dead-accurate to within 19 years.

Apparently, this is a somewhat complex situation with various timelines constructed for the eras in which particular empires and kingdoms (including Solomon's) were in power and were then succeeded by another empire or kingdom. These become cumalative because of the way they are "stacked". So apparently they've tried to resolve some of the contradictions in the scant historical evidence by filling in the blanks via 14C dating methods. It seems this article is questioning the accuracy of that methodology.

The general accuracy of the dating is not in question, more in how they apply it to questionable timeline scenarios such as the geographical extent of Solomon's kingdom and when certain areas of the periphery of his kingdom came under or passed from his control.

So, if you think this tidbit is some move in science circles to entirely discredit the use of carbon dating, you just haven't read the article properly. In no way is anyone suggesting abandoning carbon dating as worthless. They're merely saying that it isn't accurate enough to try to date things within 19 years of an event in ancient times.

Which is what we've known about the limits and fallibility of carbon dating for the last 50 years.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   9:55:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: sneakypete (#15)

It's not even an eye blink when related to the age of the planet.

Sure but science doesn't date the earth's age by carbon dating. They use other means of providing an estimate.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   9:56:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Tooconservative (#20)

Sure but science doesn't date the earth's age by carbon dating. They use other means of providing an estimate.

The means used rely on radioactive decay, which is a function of "c".

There are two things to note.

First: radioactive decay rates are affected by the strength of solar output. We don't know why, but it has been observed in some experiments.

Second:

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   13:37:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)

Scientific American:

It was not until 1926, when (under the influence of Arthur Holmes, whose name recurs throughout this story) the National Academy of Sciences adopted the radiometric timescale, that we can regard the controversy as finally resolved. Critical to this resolution were improved methods of dating, which incorporated advances in mass spectrometry, sampling and laser heating. The resulting knowledge has led to the current understanding that the earth is 4.55 billion years old.

That takes us to the end of this series of papers but not to the end of the story. As with so many good scientific puzzles, the question of the age of the earth resolves itself on more rigorous examination into distinct components. Do we mean the age of the solar system, or of the earth as a planet within it, or of the earth-moon system, or the time since formation of the earth’s metallic core, or the time since formation of the earliest solid crust? Such questions remain under active investigation, using as clues variations in isotopic distribution, or anomalies in mineral composition, that tell the story of the formation and decay of long-vanished short-lived isotopes. Isotopic ratios between stable isotopes both on the earth and in meteorites are coming under increasingly close scrutiny, to see what they can tell us about the ultimate sources of the very atoms that make up our planet. We can look forward to new answers—and new questions. That’s how science works.

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   13:46:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: A K A Stone (#16)

You believe in the tooth fairy and evolution.

No,I don't.

You say things come from the spontaneous combustion of mud.

Well,smoke and flames come from spontaneous combustion,but water is,AFAIK,the only thing that makes mud explosive.

The Bible says God created everything natural. That things reproduce after like kind.

Which is it? Did God create them,or did they do their own recreating?

Do you believe everything you read?

That is what you see in the world. Seeds make one thing they don't turn into something if you breathe the magic pixie dust of evilution.

Which side of this discussion are you taking?

Ok so idiots believe in evolution.

Some do,and some idiots believe everything their Shaman tells them,even stuff written by unknown authors.

Just because you are a cripple doesn't mean God doesn't exist.

Nor does it mean a God exists.

Tell me brainica how the human nervous system evolved. You can't explain that or anything on this subject can you.

Everything alive has a nervous system. Just because I can't explain it to you,or that people who can couldn't explain it to you at a level you can understand,doesn't mean some Holy Ghost living in clouds created it all.

Why don't YOU tell ME who created God,since you know so much about this stuff?

According to your own dogma,nothing just happens by accident,so splain it.

You just hate God because you think he wont answer your prayers and heal your body.

No,and I don't hate the Easter Bunny,Santa,or any other mythical personages.

I DO have to admit I have a healthy helping of hatred for the religious charlatans that dedicate their lives to getting wealthy and powerful be fleecing their flocks,though.

I put your ultra liberal Jameson like talking point out of business. You have nothing of substance you can add because you are out of your mind and believe that when princesses kiss frogs they turn into people.

That sounds more like your beliefs than mine.

Frickin idiot at times.

You said it,not me.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-07   14:44:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#18)

How old is the planet and how do you know?

I have no idea.

Nor do I care because it is irrelevant.

It IS older than 2,000 years,though.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-07   14:45:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: A K A Stone (#1)

Twinkle Twinkle little Star
Wonder just how far you are...

"What is a light year" - for 13.8 billion and final Jeopardy!

VxH  posted on  2018-06-07   14:47:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Tooconservative (#22)

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

No, it's too SHORT. Carbon dating is only good back about 50,000 years.

By that point, the C-14 is all gone. You need more stable, longer-lived radioactive isotopes, Uranium and the like, to measure oceans of time. 50,000 years is a pond.

Dinosaurs are not dated by Carbon 14.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   15:12:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: sneakypete (#24)

I agree it is much older than 2000 years recorded history goes back much further than that. It does matter though because if I'm right that means you're accountable to God. Hope you see the light Pete.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   15:28:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: VxH (#25) (Edited)

Twinkle twinkle the creation was made complete even the trees were already grown. I don't know if they had rings or not though.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   15:29:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: Vicomte13 (#26)

Dinosaurs or indirectly dated using carbon 14. Assumption piled on assumption piles on assumption it's a circle jerk reasoning

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   15:31:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Tooconservative (#19)

Google what radiocarbon dated the Lava Rock from the Mount Saint Helens eruption.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-07   15:34:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: A K A Stone (#28)

So God blew up SN 2213-1745 and SN 1000+0216 as what... some sort of cosmic practical joke?

[12 Billion-Year Old Supernova Discovered by Astronomers]
https://scitechdaily.com/10- billion-year-old-supernova-remnant-discovered-by-astronomers/
 

VxH  posted on  2018-06-07   18:49:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone (#0) (Edited)

It does not matter very much. The timing of events just after and before, are affected the same way. So it will not change much.

A Pole  posted on  2018-06-07   19:00:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: VxH (#31)

So God blew up SN 2213-1745 and SN 1000+0216 as what... some sort of cosmic practical joke?

He is trying to keep us on our toes. A real test of faith.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-07   19:26:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Tooconservative (#22)

Carbon dating plays little if any role in current estimates of the earth's age. It's too flawed.

It's not just that. All of the Carbon 14 is gone after 50,000 years, so you can't use it to tell the difference between 51,000 and 500 million years old: zero is zero.

Carbon dating no longer provides any information before 48,000 BC or so.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   23:26:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: A K A Stone (#29)

Assumption piled on assumption piles on assumption

It does make the knowledge less than certain, I agree.

The main problem is that all radioactive dating techniques rely upon an underlying assumption of a relatively uniform state of decay, which is fundamentally driven by "c". If c was faster in the past, the clock is not constant.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-07   23:29:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#34)

It's not just that. All of the Carbon 14 is gone after 50,000 years, so you can't use it to tell the difference between 51,000 and 500 million years old: zero is zero.

Carbon dating no longer provides any information before 48,000 BC or so.

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since it is not true. It is not zero C14 after 50,000 years at all.

We have methods of carbon dating that go back as far as 75,000 years and we could develop it further if we wanted to. We just don't have any real need to do so as we have other isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-08   3:08:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Tooconservative (#36)

isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

That use carbon dating to "check their pet theory".

The earth is exactly as old as the Bible says it is.

Add up the begats and you have the age.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-08   6:43:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: VxH (#31)

Your comment has fiction about the age of the earth in it. So it is not worth commenting on.

You can believe God is a liar. I choose to believe the Bible is true.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-08   6:45:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Tooconservative (#36)

I'm not sure why you keep repeating this since it is not true. It is not zero C14 after 50,000 years at all.

We have methods of carbon dating that go back as far as 75,000 years and we could develop it further if we wanted to. We just don't have any real need to do so as we have other isotopes to measure and other dating methods we use.

I keep repeating it because it is true.

Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, under presently observed conditions, and there isn't all that much of it to begin with. In living tissue, there is about 1 C-14 atom for every trillion Carbon atoms. One part per trillion, 1 C-14 atom for every 10 to the 12th Carbon atoms. That's a low concentration.

Let's consider a human body. By weight, carbon makes up only 18.5% of the human body. So a 150 pound living man is composed of 27.75 pounds of carbon, 99% of that carbon is C-12, 1% is C-14. So, 2.775 times 10 to the negative 11th power pounds of C-14 atoms are in the living man, which is to say that there are 623,879,200,000,000,000 C-14 atoms in a living 150 pound man. Once he stops breathing and stops eating, there is no more C-14 being added.

The half life is 5730. So, in 5730 years there will be 311,939,600,000,000,000 C-14 atoms left in his remains. Of course, if there are any remains, they will have been diluted by whatever is preserving them.

In 11,460 years there will be 155,969,800,000,000,000 C-14 atoms left

In 17,190 years there will be 77,984,900,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 22,920 years, there will be 38,992,450,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 28,650 years there will be 19,496,225,000,000,000 C-14s left.

In 34,380 years there will be 9,748,112,500,000,000 C-14s left.

In 40,110 years there will be 4,874,056,250,000,000 C-14s left.

In 45,840 years there will be 2,437,028,125,000,000 C-14s left.

In 51,610 years there will be 1,218,514,962,500,000 C-14s left.

That isn't much left from the original same, less than two-tenths of one percent.

And of course this assumes that one is carbon dating a whole, intact human corpse, a 150 pound sample. Radiocarbon dating is not done on 150 pound samples. The machines can't hold anything like that. The sample sizes used are 100 GRAM samples - THAT is what fits into the machines.

So, let's take the remains of that 150 pound man and look at the actual sample size we can test. 150 pounds is 67200 grams. We're only going to be able to test .0014880952380952 of that sample.

So, at the 51,610 year point, there are only 1,813,266,313,244 C-14 atoms left in the testable sample. That's small, but detectable.

Go one cycle further, to 57,340 years, and the number of atoms in the total sample drops to the 902,633,156,622 range, which is quite a bit smaller than the US budget in dollars, and at the bare limits of our ability to detect.

Using very long test times and super-sensitive equipment, that have been able to manage to extend Carbon-14 testing to 75,000 years. No farther.

It is not hard to see why. At 63,070 years you've only got 453 billion C-14s left in your whole sample.

At 68,800 years, you're down to 226.6 billion C-14s left.

And at 74,530 years, you're down to 113.3 billion atoms, in a sample size of 5 septillion atoms, which is to say 1 part in 24 trillion. Our technology is not capable of reliably sorting that out.

You can see, then, why C-14 cannot possibly be used to date dinosaurs. The last dinosaurs are said to have gone extinct 65 million years ago.

Let's keep running our math.

At 80,260 years, there are 56.65 billion C-14s left in our sample.

At 85,990 years there are 28.325 billion C-14s left in our sample. We're already well below our threshold of detection, but they are there, at least theoretically. We cannot confirm this by direct observation, but we have to assume it is so.

At 91,720 years where are 14.16 billion atoms left.

At 97,450 years, 7.08 billion.

At 103,180 years, 3.54 billion.

Go back 57,300 more years, to 160,480 years, and you're down to 3.45 MILLION C-14s left. You're trying to find a single marked grain of sand on the California cost.

Go back another 57,300 years, and you have 3376 Carbon 14 atoms left in your sample.

Go back yet another 57,300 years, and there are 4 Carbon 14 atoms left. Four. How far back are we now? 275,080 years.

Go back 5730 more years, and there are 2 C-14 Atoms left. Another 5730 years, and there is 1 left. By 291,570 years back, there are no C-14 atoms left in the sample. Zero. Null.

Long before that point you passed any possibility of detection.

That is why I "keep saying" that radio-carbon dating cannot be used to date the dinosaurs.

There is NO Carbon 15 left from 65 million years ago. None. THEORETICALLY, in the whole world, there are a few atoms of it, maybe. To detect them would be like trying to find a aingle marked grain of sand randomly scattered on one of the world's beaches.

Did I need to go through all of that? Yes, I think I did. There is a pugnacious attitude around here about many things. Sometimes you have to brute force down to zero to demonstrate the point. I will now reiterate it explicitly:

ASSUMING that rates of radioactive decay are constant, and ASSUMING that the dinosaurs died out some 65 million years ago, it is categorically impossible to use C-14 to date dinosaur bones. 65 million year old Carbon 14 does not exist. At all. It has all decayed. Only theoretically is there some left. This is not provable, because it is impossible to design a machine that is so sensitive. In any case, Carbon-14 us COMPLETELY useless for dating dinosaurs. There is NO USE WHATSOEVER for C-14. It isn't simply "impracticable", it is impossible, full stop.

At 60 iterations, 343,800 years, the last C-14 atom in that 150 pound man's remains broke down. There is none left.

Coal is said to be ancient vegetation. Assuming that is true, there is a reason it is used as the inert background substrate for C-14 dating. There is no detectable Carbon-14 in it. This is not because our machines are not sensitive enough. It is because all of the C-14 has decayed. That's why it is completely useless for dating dinosaur bones.

And that's why I keep saying so: because it IS so. And also because the resistance here has been a little too fierce given the subject matter.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-08   11:31:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

Did I need to go through all of that? Yes, I think I did.

Nope.

And that's why I keep saying so: because it IS so.

But it is not true, no matter how many keystrokes you expend.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-08   13:28:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: Tooconservative (#40) (Edited)

But it is not true, no matter how many keystrokes you expend.

Yes, it is true. It is impossible to date anything a few million years old with Carbon-14, because there's no Carbon-14 left in it. It has all decayed away. It isn't there.

Back past 50,000 years; 75,000 years with herculean efforts at the edge of detectability, we do not have the equipment to detect it.

But no equipment in the world can detect Carbon-14 in a dinosaur, because the dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, and there is no Carbon-14 left on earth from that long ago, it has entirely decayed.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-08   13:30:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: A K A Stone (#38)

You can believe God is a liar. I choose to believe the Bible is true.

Correct me if I am wrong,but God didn't write the Bible. Mortal men wrote it.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-08   13:46:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: Vicomte13 (#41)

...dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago...

The agenda-driven Fake Science Cult/Communitah based on wishful thinking has been manipulating sandbagging and striking evidence to the contrary. It is impossible for blood cells to survive "millions" of years, never mind several thousands.

THIS SHOULD have been front page news but wasn't:

Liberator  posted on  2018-06-08   13:51:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#42)

Correct me if I am wrong,but God didn't write the Bible. Mortal men wrote it.

Q: When a secretary types/writes her boss's words, *who* is responsible for the transposed content/authorship, Pete?

"Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness," ~ 2 Timothy 3:16

There are several verses within the Bible that could have been quoted, by several "men" -- they ALL say basically the same exact thing.

Yes, I realize you'll merely remind me that even THAT verse and similar ones was "written by a mortal man" (inspired BY God). But that's the way The Almighty rolls.

If you're interested, there WAS one instance that God was revealed to have physicality "written" something; A saying we are all familiar with: "The writing on the wall". What transpired was recorded in the Book of Daniel, Chapter 5, NIV:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+5&version=NIV

The Writing on the Wall

King Belshazzar gave a great banquet for a thousand of his nobles and drank wine with them. While Belshazzar was drinking his wine, he gave orders to bring in the gold and silver goblets that Nebuchadnezzar his father[a] had taken from the temple in Jerusalem, so that the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines might drink from them. So they brought in the gold goblets that had been taken from the temple of God in Jerusalem, and the king and his nobles, his wives and his concubines drank from them. As they drank the wine, they praised the gods of gold and silver, of bronze, iron, wood and stone.

Suddenly the fingers of a human hand appeared and wrote on the plaster of the wall, near the lampstand in the royal palace. The king watched the hand as it wrote. His face turned pale and he was so frightened that his legs became weak and his knees were knocking...

Daniel was summoned to interpret the writing for King Belshazzar:

“This is the inscription that was written:

mene, mene, tekel, parsin

“Here is what these words mean:

(Mene): God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end.

(Tekel): You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting.

(Peres): Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians...

That very night Belshazzar, king of the Babylonians, was slain."

Liberator  posted on  2018-06-08   14:13:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Vicomte13 (#41)

Yes, it is true. It is impossible to date anything a few million years old with Carbon-14, because there's no Carbon-14 left in it. It has all decayed away. It isn't there.

Where did I say that? You keep going on about how dinosaurs can't be dated this way but I never said they could. Nice straw man.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-08   14:21:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Liberator (#44)

Q: When a secretary types/writes her boss's words, *who* is responsible for the transposed content/authorship, Pete?

"Every Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness," ~ 2 Timothy 3:16

Is that from the Old Testament,which is supposed to be the true word of Gawd,or the " New and Improved "NEW Testament",which is the updated true word of Gawd?

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-08   14:22:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: sneakypete (#46)

Is that from the Old Testament,which is supposed to be the true word of Gawd,or the " New and Improved "NEW Testament",which is the updated true word of Gawd?

The first quote is ME.

The second is from 2 Timothy 3:16, but as I said, there were many I could have used. Both Old and New Testament, penned by different "Gawd-inspired" authors.

Pete, New Testament authors often quoted Old Testament authors. They dovetail with one other as The Book is one connected series of testimony, accounts, and stuff Gawd wants known. Jesus himself often quoted OT text, even the very first chapter, Genesis.

Yes, Jesus did sorta "update" the Word...but because His Coming fulfilled prophecies and also thus changed (for instance) the blood sacrifice of lambs.

Liberator  posted on  2018-06-08   14:39:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Liberator (#43)

It is impossible for blood cells to survive "millions" of years, never mind several thousands.

This is a really interesting point.

It is a serious tremor that cracks the solidity of a theory.

It's an aspect of the subject that creates its own logic tree.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-08   17:17:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: Tooconservative (#45)

Where did I say that? You keep going on about how dinosaurs can't be dated this way but I never said they could. Nice straw man.

That was my point all along: Carbon dating is useless for dinosaurs.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-08   17:19:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: Vicomte13 (#49)

That was my point all along: Carbon dating is useless for dinosaurs.

Well, thanks for those 10 posts to tell me that C14 dating is not used for dinosaurs when I never suggested that it was.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-08   17:40:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: Tooconservative (#50)

Well, thanks for those 10 posts to tell me that C14 dating is not used for dinosaurs when I never suggested that it was.

No problem.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-08   17:59:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Vicomte13 (#48)

It is a serious tremor that cracks the solidity of a theory.

It's an aspect of the subject that creates its own logic tree.

It does crack that theory...Maybe even smashes it to bits. A Game-Changer.

That "aspect of the subject" and "logic" lead straight to only one conclusion: The Great Flood was likely way it all went down in Genesis...and...occurred only several *thousands* of years ago.

It's noted that dinosaurs, historically referred to in several ancient civilization texts as "great lizards" and "dragons" (also depicted in ancient paintings in both the Old and New World) indeed existed *at the same time as man*.

This notion of course presents a dilemma for the high priests of science and its True Believers, shattering the Theory/Religion of Evolution at its foundation. It also forces the intellectually honest to re-calibrate and re-assess both "History" and Science" as taught in the past century and a half.

Liberator  posted on  2018-06-08   18:39:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Liberator (#52)

It does crack that theory...Maybe even smashes it to bits. A Game-Changer.

That "aspect of the subject" and "logic" lead straight to only one conclusion: The Great Flood was likely way it all went down in Genesis...and...occurred only several *thousands* of years ago.

It's noted that dinosaurs, historically referred to in several ancient civilization texts as "great lizards" and "dragons" (also depicted in ancient paintings in both the Old and New World) indeed existed *at the same time as man*.

This notion of course presents a dilemma for the high priests of science and its True Believers, shattering the Theory/Religion of Evolution at its foundation. It also forces the intellectually honest to re-calibrate and re-assess both "History" and Science" as taught in the past century and a half.

It allows the possibility of those things, yes.

On the other hand, it also opens the possibility that not all of the dinosaurs went extinct after the great meteor strike of 65 million years ago, that pockets of them remained alive, and continued to populate parts of the earth afterwards. Certainly other animals alive at the time still exist, and there is no particular reason to believe that EVERY dinosaur EVERYWHERE died off as the result of the meteor strike. Crocodiles and Alligators survived, why not some dinosaurs, here and there?

Certainly some large mammals that survived the eons eventually perished as the conditions continued to change. Example: wooly mammoths and sabre- toothed tigers. They were not hunted to extinction by man. Hell, men today with planes, trucks and high-powered rifles haven't completely wiped out the elephants or the rhinos. Men with spears simply did not have the numbers or skill to wipe out a major elephant species.

The mammoths died out because of climate change. The identical thing could well be true of the dinosaurs.

Now, of course, this is heresy to those who have established that the dinosaurs "must" have ALL perished 65 million years ago. but there is no real imperative for that to be true. SOME may have lingered on here and there - turtles and crocks made it. There MIGHT still be something looking like armored fish of old deep down into the abysses of the sea.

If we've got blood cells and connective tissue from inside dinosaur bones - and we do - that doesn't perforce mean that there was no evolution, or a worldwide flood. It could just mean that the meteor didn't get ALL the dinosaurs, that some soldiered on - indeed, that some of the dragon stories of legend are real encounters between humans and dinosaurs.

Certainly the intact cells from within dinosaur bones would tend to indicate that.

Of course, then again, the inside of bones that were encased in mud don't have much oxygen, and without the oxygen they may not have decayed. Certainly we have feathers and scales and other things that otherwise decay contained in amber, because of the hypoxic nature thereof.

Who can say?

All of these things are possible. For my part, they don't engage my emotions, because I'm not a sola scripturalist, so the truth or mere poetic nature of Genesis 1 doesn't bear on my religious beliefs pretty much at all.

I would say that my basic ASSUMPTION is that God made the world, evolution is how he did it, and these dinosaur soft tissues we have means that all of the dinosaurs didn't die out 65 million years ago, that pockets of them survived, and that we have soft tissue because those particular dinosaurs died out more recently. This would fit the evidence as I see it. None of it has any bearing on what I think about God. It does mean that the Bible isn't a scientific text, but I never assumed it was.

In a similar vein, not being a Sola Scripturalist, I think the only really authoritative parts of the Bible - the LAW as it were - are Jesus' commandments - what to do and what not to do. And I think that obedience or departure from those is what destermines the status during stages of the afterlife. I do think that what happens in the afterlife was revealed, by Jesus, and that there are elements of what he said that are corroborated by Near Death Experiences.

Science and religion don't conflict in my mind. Of course Genesis 1 and Standard Theory conflict, but Genesis 1 is sacred poetry, not a science text.

That's how I look at it.

Your religious beliefs are differently configured, and anything that disturbs the absolute literal truth of any part of the Scriptures, as you read them, causes the whole thing to fall apart.

The Scriptures are not the basis for my knowledge of God. They add some detail about what God wants, mainly through Jesus.

Our religions are different. Yours does not bother me. I understand why you believe what you do. As long as you don't kill people I'm content to share the earth with you in peace, and we'll find out the details in the end, I reckon.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-08   18:58:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Vicomte13, Liberator (#48)

It is impossible for blood cells to survive "millions" of years, never mind several thousands.

This is a really interesting point.

It is a serious tremor that cracks the solidity of a theory.

It's an aspect of the subject that creates its own logic tree.

What about instances where mosquitoes are trapped in tree sap/amber?

I don't even know enough to guess. I'm just asking.

In the entire history of the world,the only nations that had to build walls to keep their own citizens from leaving were those with leftist governments.

sneakypete  posted on  2018-06-08   23:46:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: sneakypete (#54)

What about instances where mosquitoes are trapped in tree sap/amber?

I don't even know enough to guess. I'm just asking.

I referred to that in my last post, when I talked about the bones in mud and compared it to the feathers and scales and such in amber. Where there is no oxygen, things may not break down. So it could be that these dinosaur soft tissues inside bones are simply the result of things being buried, encased in a certain way that deprived the tissues of some element vital for decay.

Or it really could be that, year, these animals (a dinosaur is, after all, just an animal) died much more recently. That would mean that the orthodoxy about all of the dinosaurs going extinct at a certain time would not be true, but that's ok. It's not as though the death of the dinosaurs is a matter of religious importance to anybody on the scientific side of the house - at least it SHOULDN'T be. Dinosaurs are interesting. When, precisely, the last died out - if they all did - would be a simple matter of historical fact, not something that ought to provoke resistance as though theology were being violated.

That it does merely demonstrates that some people have turned natural science into theology, and that's too bad.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-09   0:08:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (56 - 248) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com