Posted on 03/11/2019 2:51:56 PM PDT by Sopater
C14 will go back as far as 60,000 yrs. There are about 2 dozen isotopes which are useful for dating. They probably used Strontium 90 to get 300,000 years. It is a very good dating method and is used frequently both for original dating as well as confirmation for other isotopes.
Thanks for the post!
It has been caibrated as have the other isotopes. That’s why they are useful for dating.
We measure 1 part per quadrillion nowadays , when c14 dating was invented we could only measure 1 part per million. C14 dating is accurate , roughly to 1 or two decades throughout most of its useful range. Due to our ability to measure very small quantities.
A great flood is referenced in a number of religions and cultures throughout the world. It most likely was not a localized event.
Christ referred to Noah in Matthew (twice) as a person, Noah is listed in Luke’s genealogy, Noah is mentioned in Hebrews as an example of great faith, and Peter mentions Noah in both of his letters. So to deny the existence of a great flood is to deny what other cultures have reported, what Christ had to say, and what other writers in the New Testament confirms. So I’m not sure how you can make the statement that you follow the New Testament.
Life does not evolve. It devoles.
It may be old but it is no more invalid than comparing the children of the devil with the children of the Lord.
I don’t have to follow a very narrow teaching trying to explain everything they couldn’t fathom and written down by sandal wearing sheep herders.
Meaning you are liberal in your theology, and like them, including prohomosexual apologists, you implicitly attribute what you disagree with as being due to the ignorance of the writers, of "sandal wearing sheep herders." Or carpenters, fishermen, etc. Yet the veracity of the word of God is never based upon the natural knowledge of the vessels of it, but that the Spirit of God spoke by them, as He did thru the sandal wearing sheep herder David. (2 Samuel 23:1)
If the the account of Adam and Eve (which the learned sandal wearing Paul believed in) of Scripture was provided by Balaam's donkey then it would be as true as it is from the quill of Moses.
In the American vernacular, “theory” often means “imperfect fact”—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is “only” a theory and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is worse than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): “Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was.”
Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
Moreover, “fact” doesn't mean “absolute certainty”; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory—natural selection—to explain the mechanism of evolution.
- Stephen J. Gould, “ Evolution as Fact and Theory”; Discover, May 1981
There is a good chance that a few thousand years after the last ice age a number of huge inland seas holding back incredible amounts of water were let loose when ice dams broke Sending torrents into the then, much lower oceans all in one incredible flood. It raised the sea levels in a matter of days. In places like the Mediterranean it raised enough to break through the Bosporus and raise the water lever hundreds of feet and sending the torrent down the Tigris and Euphrates valley causing mass death and distruction. It also wiped out costal villages all over the planet.
Sigh. Your children of the devil condemnation tells me it was useless to think I could have an intelligent dialog in this thread.
Ahh--*anything* to explain away the Scriptural narrative.
The fact that you entered the thread claiming that evolution is a fact pretty much signaled that you are not intelligent enough to have an intelligent conversation.
I think adaptation within species by something like Darwin’s mechanism is indisputable, and is easily demonstrated.
I think Darwinian evolution is theoretically POSSIBLE and I do not dissent from it on religious grounds.
But the crusade, especially by public school “educators” and others to banish dissent and to claim that evolution of one species or form
into another is “settled science” or an “established fact” is educational malpractice on a grand scale.
Yes mother.
“...it was useless to think I could have an intelligent dialog in this thread.”
Does refusing to defend unsubstantiated assertions, calling people Ludites, and avoiding questions simply by casting random ad hominem aspersions pass for intelligent dialog where you are from?
And why do we try to kill germs?
Don't we believe in survival of the fittest or not??
I wonder what evolved first: the penis or the vagina??
You've obviously never met my brother-in-law!
"Evolution" does care about these either.
It HAS to have something already going to be able to 'change' into something different.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.