The Bible vs a Biology Textbook

And people (Homo Sapiens Sapiens, modern humans) did not exist 65 million years ago. If they did, where the artifacts they would have had such as tools, etc?

Carbon-14 dating gives us a fairly accurate date of fossils.
 
Last edited:
moxie said:
Wow, that was a great read Elihu. I'm definitely going to do more research on that theory, as I think it may coincide with some other things I've been thinking about regarding paranormal activity.
Click to expand...

Paranormal activity? Do tell! Post a new thread and share what you've learned.
 
Odale said:
Carbon-14 dating gives us a fairly accurate date of fossils.
Click to expand...

This site says differently. I've heard a lot of controversy around the accuracy of carbon 14 dating. There are quite a few assumptions necessary for its use, and depending on how you change those assumptions, it can alter your final answer greatly.

Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.1 We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"2 which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio).

And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176)

Note: This is only the 1st page from that website. There's more information if you go here.
Click to expand...
 
And the important thing to note about TJ's post is that the same information about the reliability of C14 dating (or assumptions required for it to be "accurate") can be found on *many* sites, including scientific and education-based sites.
 
Macroevolution has tons of things that disprove it alrdy, but that verse should tell those who believe in crhist AND evolution what to truly believe in.

if you want more thought on evolution, Apologia biology corriculum is very good, and there are some books out there opposing evolution. i dont have any examples but u should be able to find some on amazon.com


also a thought, why dont evolutionists go after big foot? if they actually found him he would be a good intermediate link.:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top