Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: jimmyray
Such logical contradictions, where to begin.

1. The Bible is arguably the most concise, accurate historical record we have before 400BC, and has been proven correct repeatedly, never disproven with archaeology. However, you discount it in favor of Egyptian records that a full of holes & contradictions, and the timelines commonly accepted for the dynasties are often disputed amongst Egytologists.

The Bible has been "disproved with archaeology" in at least one instance. There is simply no evidence for a global flood at the appointed time. You can deny that evidence, or you can disbelieve it, but that will not make it go away.

2. Dating that relies on decay methods have numberous assumptions, such as intial amounts of parent/daughter elements, decay rates, and no outside influences, e.g. migration of elements, cross-contamination, etc. Often, dates are off by 50% with different methods, and some dates can be off by more. Several methods argue for a young earth, buit of course you will discount those immediatly.

You seem to be equating "assumptions" with "baseless guesses." That is not correct.

You berate scientists for, as an example, assuming decay rates are constant (an assumption for which there is a lot of evidence). But by taking the opposite position, that decay rates fluctuate all over the place, you fall into an even bigger contradiction than the one you accuse scientists of because there is no significant evidence that decay rates do fluctuate. It seems that you are the one with the "baseless guess" here, not the scientists. Your other objections are on the same order. Scientists do not just pull assumptions out of the thin air.

But if you want just one decent dating method, try tree rings from the standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California. You can count individual rings. You can see the effects of volcanoes and other natural disasters of known dates in the rings, and they show up where they should (that demolishes the argument of more than one ring per year). And by comparing the ring sequences from many trees, and overlapping those sequences, you can go back some 12,600 years. This ring sequence in turn can calibrate the radiocarbon dating method, as it accounts for atmospheric variation of 14C. So, another one of those nasty assumptions is cross-checked.

3. Verify the earth is the age you assert, without any assumptions in the so called dating methods offered for evidence.

Nothing wrong with assumptions, as I have noted above. They can be checked and poorly-supported assumptions don't last long.

If you are interested, here are some good links for the radiocarbon and radiometric dating methods: Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.

111 posted on 06/21/2007 9:06:03 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

To: Coyoteman
The Bible has been "disproved with archaeology" in at least one instance. There is simply no evidence for a global flood at the appointed time. You can deny that evidence, or you can disbelieve it, but that will not make it go away.

We agree to disagree on that, and you have not addressed the evidence I raised, on you offered your own explantion based on Millions of years. Try some verifiable evidence or archaeoligical errancy, and before you do, consider the previous assertions, later proven inccorect, eg Jericos existence, David's existence, Beltashazzar's kingship, etc.


I never alluded to radiocarbon, but rather radiometric, such as Pb/Pb isochron. Big difference, and you know it.

...tree rings...

Do you understand correlation coeficients (r-values)? Do you understand Statistical Significance (p-values)? If you do, do some persoanal, independent research on dendrochronolgy (outside of talkorigins) and try and understand it's inherent weekness for dates earlier that circa 1700 AD. Research Bristle Cone Pines, and the methuselah tree, and it's age...

Just because a theologian says something, don't mean it's true, as is often the case. The same is true concerning scientist, even more so, in my estimation.

113 posted on 06/21/2007 9:32:08 AM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson