[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: 35074
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 (1-40) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#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  


#56. To: Vicomte13 (#55)

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.

A friend took his wife to The Ark, a relatively new display in northern Kentucky a couple of years ago.

For whatever reason he was irate and turned off when one of the displays had a dinosaur in it. To this day I have no explanation for why he reacted that way.

He's a regular Joe and I guess it may have had something to do with his religious background and upraising.

Fred Mertz  posted on  2018-06-09   0:16:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Vicomte13 (#53)

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 ag

How were dinosaurs running around before Adam and Eve?

Was there death before sin?

Why do you believe the Earth is millions of years old?

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-09   7:59:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Vicomte13 (#55)

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.

You are more correct here.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-09   8:00:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: Vicomte13 (#55)

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.

They didn't. As has been mentioned here,there is no shortage of crocodiles,alligators,or lizards.

Especially that nutty little "devil lizard" from somewhere south of the border that has a tail,runs standing up on his hind legs,and has a "hood" that extends around his head to make him look bigger. Evil-looking little booger.

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  2018-06-09   9:59:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: A K A Stone (#57)

Why do you believe the Earth is millions of years old?

Why do you believe in "Holy Spooks" who created everything because everything BUT THEM has to have been created?

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  2018-06-09   10:01:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: Vicomte13, Tooconservative, A K A Stone, sneakypete, redleghunter, pinguinite (#26)

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.

Great thread by the way...The kind that can fork off into several directions. And has already.

Yes, we can all agree that Carbon Dating works for approximately 50,000 years.

HOWEVER...with respect to Carbon Dating the age of dinosaurs, scientists and paleontologists have run into a conundrum. Dinosaur bones cannot be Carbon Dated BUT the tissue can and *has* been Carbon Dated.

Since now-famous paleontologist Mary Schweitzer accidentally dropped T-Rex bone into acid, dissolving the bone, leaving behind T Rex-Tissue, the flood-gates have been opened to a new paradigm. Several now innumerable discoveries of dinosaur ("65 million year") tissue samples have been determined to have *plenty* of C-14 left. Ruh-Roh.

What's this prove? What can be concluded from this? Obviously that dinosaurs are NOT "millions" of years old. With a "half-life" of 5750 years there shouldn't be a sniff of C-14 in this tissue, should there?

IF the establishment Scientific/Paleontological "Communitah" is wrong about its "settled science" of dating dinosaurs in the "millions" of years, then what other "settled science" is just...presumption or wishful thinking?

And sure, in the context of "oceans of time" (like millions or billions of years), 50,000 years IS like a pond. IF there indeed *had* existed "millions or billions" of years on this planet, in this Universe. Problem again are still scientifically un-proven, inconsistent veracity and validity of the other mentioned dating methodologies.

Liberator  posted on  2018-06-09   11:23:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#62. To: sneakypete (#60)

Because it works. It contains only truth. Has never contradicted itself. Describes human nature. Explains why we wear clothes. Predicts a future cashless society that would have been impossible to implement when the words were written but in this day is entirely feasible with the technology we have. Talked about men going to space before it was possible. Said the world wasn't flat from the beginning. Says we reproduce after like kind which happens 100 percent of the time nothing in the history of the world has ever been observed to evolve, and there is zero evidence anything ever did. That is why so called scientists are still searching for a missing link. Because even if you wanted to you couldn't reproduce with an ape which you believe is your great great...........grandpa. Here have a 🍌.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-09   11:36:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#63. 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. No one ever considered it that accurate to begin with.

It seems it's significant only in terms of understanding the record of civilized history, and is not significant in terms of discrediting the method of carbon dating itself.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-06-09   11:45:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

I don't know that the Creationists are right, but I do know that the actual underlying pictoglyphic text of Genesis 1 is vastly more complex, and sophisticated, than the simple translations that sit atop it. There is a genius behind that text that is supernatural in its depth.

I liken the Genesis story of creation to poetry. And poetry can generally never be disproven.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-06-09   11:47:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#65. To: Vicomte13, sneakypete (#55) (Edited)

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

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

Couldn't the amber itself be Carbon Dated?

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.

No doubt -- the more hermetically sealed the tissue, the more preserved.

MANY samples of viable dinosaur tissue material has been discovered (or rather "re-discovered"). Mary Schweitzer's accidental discovery is being replicated all over the world by many scientists. Similarly, Mummies thousands of years old have been found to have retained minute tissue material as well.

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...

THAT is THE ramification. It rocks the long-accepted orthodoxy of the age of dinosaurs. But it also moves the timeline way up....to something unfathomable, laughable even ten years ago -- that dinosaurs *might* have co-existed with man.

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.

I shouldn't be an important factor in the Scientific Communitah but we know it can't help but be. Unfortunately like most institutions, "Science" has been corrupted by a political agenda.

We should make a couple of distinctions here; Evolution is both a theory AND "religion". Like all religions, it relies on faith. So yes, the timing of AND reason for the death of dinosaurs IS important. Why? Exactly because the dinosaur tissue discovery reinforces the Genesis timeline and erases a large portion of timeline required for "Evolution".

All many of us want is...the unadulterated truth of respective matters. We are tired of PTB hiding and masking political or scientific or historical truths/facts for agenda-sake.

Liberator  posted on  2018-06-09   11:47:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#57)

How were dinosaurs running around before Adam and Eve?

Was there death before sin?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Vic...

It seems Vic is on record here as considering Genesis as high-minded, perhaps even divinely-inspired "poetry" and not the Word of God.

Ergo that would mean God's Timeline as narrated in Genesis (as well as "sin" and "death" not being in-effect until after Adam and Eve's Fall) would not be taken literally.

For what it's worth, Jesus Himself pretty heavily quoted Genesis.

Liberator  posted on  2018-06-09   11:57:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#67. To: Liberator (#43)

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

That's a speculative comment and cannot be proven. It's in fact a statement of a negative claim, that something is not possible, which they used to say about heavier-than-air machines flying.

There are plenty of instances throughout scientific history where something that was believed impossible was later found to be possible via mechanisms that were not known or understood.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-06-09   12:07:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: Liberator (#44)

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

Obviously the person dictating the message. But in the case of the Bible, what evidence is there that God did the dictating?

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

So the Bible is the "Word of God" because the Bible says it's the "Word of God"? That's circular evidence. If I wrote a story about God and included a passage where God claimed I was writing for him, would it make my story into a certified message from God?

Some claim the Bible's validation of historical evidence is proof of divinity. But would that make an old newspaper report about the Titanic sinking the "Word of God"? There's a difference between accuracy and divinity.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-06-09   12:16:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#69. To: Pinguinite (#67)

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

That's a speculative comment and cannot be proven. It's in fact a statement of a negative claim, that something is not possible, which they used to say about heavier-than-air machines flying.

I agree. My comment/assertion IS speculation because *I* cannot prove it. I can only project a very high likelihood. No, I can't "prove" certain things are "impossible" -- also true. But some things ARE impossible. The corollary that "NOTHING-IS-IMPOSSIBLE" can't be true. For instance, 0+0 /= 1+

That said, I think we can agree that there are such things as degrees of "probability/impossibility".

If so, might there not be such things as "extremely high probability" upon scrutinizing indisputably proven facts? (unless we again run into the snag of defining "indisputable" because according to the Science-Communitah, "Evolution" is/was "indisputable", as is/was the age of the planet, the earth, and "Global Warming".)

One fact with respect to "flying machines" is that at least the mechanics could be observed as to how creatures and objects do fly. So that analogy and degree of asserted "impossibility" may have been a matter of figuring out how to fly -- NOT imagining so.

There are plenty of instances throughout scientific history where something that was believed impossible was later found to be possible via mechanisms that were not known or understood.

I hear ya. Many many things. Fact.

But when physics are involved, *some* things ARE "impossible". Hard mathematics doesn't lie; And sometimes Point "A" really *does* connect to Point "B".

Liberator  posted on  2018-06-09   12:29:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#70. To: Liberator (#52)

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.

There's speculation that the story of the "great flood" may have originated with the flooding of the Black Sea by a failed land bridge that separated it from the Mediterranean Sea, which seems occurred within time frame of ancient civilization.

www.novinite.com/articles...enced+Deluge+-+Scientists

Such a cataclismic event could well have been the story that was ancestral to the Biblical account. People do have a way of inventing explanations for things they do not understand, and the less they understand things, the more likely they are to chalk it up to the will of a divine entity. And the ancients understood very little about the world.

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*.

Whether they were in fact referring to what we now call dinosaurs is speculation. Could they not have been referring to present day alligators & Komoto dragons and such?

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-06-09   12:31:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: sneakypete (#59)

They didn't. As has been mentioned here,there is no shortage of crocodiles,alligators,or lizards.

All of which are, essentially, dinosaurs.

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-06-09   12:35:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#72. To: Liberator (#65)

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...

More accurately, if carbon-14 dating were to be recalibrated or revised in such a way as to show dinosaurs bones being much, much younger than it currently does, then that evidence would still need to be corroborated with other evidence showing they are the present age. The age of the dinosaur fossils is generally based on geological dating methods, and any carbon-14 revisions would not mean that a fossil encased in hardened stone dated by other methods to be millions of years to be automatically redated to a few thousand. In that example, if carbon-14 said such a bone was 5000 years old, but the geologic dating method said the stone was 70 million years old, the next task would be to find out which was right and which was wrong.

Science is always in flux, by it's very nature.

And just because new/revised carbon-14 understanding might make us change what we now believe about it would NOT mean that those revised understandings would then be firm science. Next year someone might come out and say, "Hey, when we said we were wrong about carbon-14 and decided dinosaur bones were just a few thousand years old, we were actually wrong about what we thought we were wrong about because of xyz, and so those bones are still likely to be much older than 50k years. Sorry for the confusion".

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-06-09   12:50:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#73. To: Pinguinite (#68) (Edited)

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

Obviously the person dictating the message. But in the case of the Bible, what evidence is there that God did the dictating?

Those prophets and messengers who did the "dictating" themselves revealed it was God who was the author of their writings.

Scripture is a "self-revelation" of God. The evidence? The spoken and written words of the prophets (divinely inspired) which were God's own account, His creation, angels, signs/wonders/miracles.

There are also NO lies to be found in either the OT or NT.

You might say the "evidence" and "proof" of The Almighty's authorship-through-man as well as authorship of His Creation is highly circumstantial. Does that mean it's "highly convincing"? Obviously not. Some will and faith is obviously involved.

So the Bible is the "Word of God" because the Bible says it's the "Word of God"? That's circular evidence. If I wrote a story about God and included a passage where God claimed I was writing for him, would it make my story into a certified message from God?

In other words, could YOU be chosen as an envoy, a "prophet" of God? Why not? Many Pastors minister the Word and truth every Sunday. Of course the words and messages of all Pastors and Ministers are examined and scrutinized in discernment as not the be led astray.

Some claim the Bible's validation of historical evidence is proof of divinity. But would that make an old newspaper report about the Titanic sinking the "Word of God"? There's a difference between accuracy and divinity.

I agree.

That's why discernment of truth and word is crucial and why many who supposedly "teach the word" have been called "false prophets" (i.e. certain televangelists and Popes.)

Liberator  posted on  2018-06-09   12:53:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#74. To: Liberator (#66)

It seems Vic is on record here as considering Genesis as high-minded, perhaps even divinely-inspired "poetry" and not the Word of God.

Poetry was my term, not Vic's, though he's free to agree with me, of course.

Ergo that would mean God's Timeline as narrated in Genesis (as well as "sin" and "death" not being in-effect until after Adam and Eve's Fall) would not be taken literally.

Though it's a claim that the Genesis timeline is "God's Timeline" as opposed to a timeline of man that is purported to be God's.

If I were to nitpick about death existing before sin, the human body experiences cell death as a normal function of healthy human living. Hair, for example is dead tissue. If no death existed before sin, would this mean that before the fall, Adam and Eve either had no hair, or if they did, it was living tissue?

Pinguinite  posted on  2018-06-09   12:56:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#75. To: Liberator, A K A Stone, Pinguinite (#66)

I have seen the messages and am thinking about my response. Religious passions are inflamed here, and I have a different viewpoint than all three of you so, given that this is not an area of passion for me, I have to think through the degree to which I'm willing to endure the inevitable hectoring when I say something contrary to somebody else's belief system.

Given how unimportant the whole topic is in the big scheme of things (from my perspective), what is much more important to me is the degree to which I want to wade into a street fight over it.

I think that I probably will, but I will have to very carefully craft my response.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-09   14:27:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#76. To: Pinguinite, A K A Stone, Liberator (#74)

To even have the discussion, we'd have to go through the definitions of God, life, spirit, sin, death and inspiration. That's just for starters.

And because what I think departs from various orthodoxies on each point, I get a lot of abuse when I write on religion. When I speak of my own direct experiences with God, I get ridicule and scorn, that continues on afterwards.

Essentially, I don't believe in the traditional Christian religion, or any other religion, and I don't believe in "Science", practiced as a modern religion either. The factual and logical errors of each are obvious to me, and they rule out belief. I have talked with God many times, and experienced major miracles, so I know that God is as a matter of empirical fact, such that I have to always include the reality of God in all scientific analysis or I cease to be a real scientist.

Unlike many, I do not denigrate the ancient texts, and I think they were inspired by God. But I don't think "inspired" means what traditionalists think it means.

Who really wants to know what I believe? Probably nobody, really. What you want is the opportunity to draw me into a discussion of religion, so you can hector me about the things you believe that I don't. What good is that?

Honestly, what is the point? There is nothing more useless in this world than another man's religion. Yours are useless to me, and my own is useless to you. So why argue about it? If you really want to know my religious beliefs, we can take it to another thread and discuss it there. I certainly don't care what you believe, in precisely the same way I don't care what sex turns you on. Your religion is of no interest or use to me. I'm pretty sure the same is true in the other direction. If I'm wrong and you really, truly want to know what I believe and why, then start a thread with that as the topic, and I will go there and tell you. I'm not holding my breath. Nobody cares. Why would they?

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-09   18:04:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#77. To: Vicomte13 (#76)

Essentially, I don't believe in the traditional Christian religion

Ok. That is all I need to know. You don't claim to be a follower of Christ or a Christian as it is called.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-09   18:39:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: A K A Stone (#77)

You simply cannot get the truth straight. I follow Christ. I do not follow him in the way that you do. I do not believe in the same hierarchy of authorities that you do. I do not have the same religion you do. I follow Christ.

You follow Christ in a different way. And the way you do it looks to my eyes a lot like not following Christ at all.

Your way is just A way. It is not THE way. Even in traditional Christianity, your way is a fringe element.

The way I follow Christ is adequately respectful of a certain set of norms for me to not be thrown out of the Catholic Church. My actual beliefs about many things differ somewhat from Catholicism, but that doesn't matter to the rest of Catholics.

To follow Christ, in my estimation, means to carefully read exactly what he said, to figure out what he meant by it, and then to do what he said. That is what it means: it means to keep his commandments. It does NOT mean to elevate a book to the status of God. It does NOT mean to insist on some faith alone versus works doctrine. It does NOT mean asserting all sorts of thing about a Trinity that Christ never taught. It doesn't even mean WORSHIPPING Christ. It means doing what Jesus said. Full stop. That's "following Christ". Whatever else you want to add to it is your religion. Catholics add a lot. I smile at it, perhaps genuflect to it, but don't confuse it with following Christ.

The thing that strikes me most about your particular religion is that you DON'T follow Christ. You assert a bunch of things that are the opposite of Christ, but you very much worship that book of yours.

And you just can't bear to speak directly to what I say. You always have to add a lie to it, to assert some additional thing I did not say and don't believe. You are not able to directly address the things I say. You always erect a straw man alongside it and hit that. Which means that you write vexatious things, but you're not really talking to ME at all, you're attacking a dummy that you've set up and CALLED me, but that isn't actually what I said or believe.

To me, it's really quite dishonest of you to do this, but you love to call ME the liar. It's striking, really, how far off the path that Christ laid out that you are. That's your religion, and your religion does not to my eyes appear to be about following Christ. It's about setting up a dummy of Christ who is not very much like Christ, and then worshipping the dummy instead of listening to and following the man.

Vicomte13  posted on  2018-06-09   20:10:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#79. To: Vicomte13 (#78)

You're confusing. First you say your not a Christian. Then you say you are.

There is only one path and that is the path laid out on the Bible, which you don't believe you said so.

So you have your own custom religion. Let's call it viclizardo. You are a viclizardian.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-09   21:06:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#80. To: Vicomte13 (#78)

The thing that strikes me most about your particular religion is that you DON'T follow Christ

Says the man who prays to a dead sinner. And ignores scripture and follows the tradition of a man (men)that has stolen Gods title of "holy father". MY shortcomings doesn't excuse your ignoring the plain teachings of the scriptures. Or your blasphemous words saying the bible isn't the whole word of I'd without error.

A K A Stone  posted on  2018-06-09   22:10:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (81 - 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