Posted on 12/02/2017 12:19:56 PM PST by SeekAndFind
The 40 other radiometric tests will prove it.
Prove her wrong - she pretty much said there are some things we thought we could prove but now realize we can prove....
There are fluctuations of no more than 5% in C14 production, but over the time period in question—C14 is good for dating back about 50,000 years—the fluctuations even out to a mean, which is actually a very good statistical basis on which to base calculations. Furthermore, the C14 creation in any year can be checked against other data, such as tree ring data, allowing for the C14 content of a sample to be calibrated to known variations.
C14 dating is not a “best guess.” On the contrary, because there is enough corroborating evidence from other sources, it is a very good method of determining the age of a recent (geologically speaking) specimen.
And this author demonstrates why I no longer participate in the faith under which I was raised. I view most of them as stupid.
I did write “most...”
Cue the ad hominem...
Both, I would hope.
That is incorrect. There are documented fluctuations substantially larger than 5%, such as the one I referenced in the late 8th Century.
C14 creation in any year can be checked against other data, such as tree ring data, allowing for the C14 content of a sample to be calibrated to known variations.
However, tree-ring data is incomplete. And tree-rings are not produced at a rate of exactly one per year. Sometimes there are more, sometimes none. There are gaps and variations and it only goes back so far. Tree rings, however, are the main source for knowing that there are fluctuations.
C14 dating is not a “best guess.”
Don't get me wrong - C14 dating is a very good tool, but it is not as accurate as it is portrayed to be. Significant amounts of calibration are required, and dates measured even against tree rings can have large discrepancies. And even direct measurement of tree-ring C14 doesn't match the 'counted' age of the tree very well much of the time. Aside from trees, artifacts of known age are used to benchmark the levels of C14 for given dates. So we're using C14 to date things and we're using things to calibrate the C14. See the problem? Layered uncertainty. Large error ranges, especially as you go back further in time to before there are a lot of carbon artifacts.
>>And this author demonstrates why I no longer participate in the faith under which I was raised. I view most of them as stupid.
>>I did write “most...”
>>Cue the ad hominem...
You don’t need to cue it. You called a sizable number of people stupid and it didn’t add a thing to your statement.
IMO, the length of one of God’s days before man existed is irrelevant. The age of the universe has no effect on me or my life unless we suddenly found proof that it really is only 10,000 or 6,000 years old. I doubt that any proof like that will ever be found, so I just move on through my brief period of time that I will walk on Earth.
Simplicity: The entire physical universe is an illusion created by the collective ego.
Who took care of the many years before natural selection finished what remained?
When “god” comes to visit, you can get back to me on whether you were included in that group.
I have my reasons, so just back off bucko.
>>I have my reasons, so just back off bucko.
Bucko? LOL. I didn’t go through the thread. Did you get the ad hominem attacks you were trolling for?
BTW, God visited me in March 2008. I was an atheist until then.
You can believe the world is 4.5 Billion years old and also think that spontaneous formation of life on planet earth is a mathematical impossibility. To many problems with spontaneous life.
Putting words in another’s mouth is a lib tactic.
Barking up the wrong tree, dude
“The heavens declare a much bigger & older space than man’s limited interpretation of a text concludes. When great contortions of understanding reality are required to unify with an unsure interpretation of Scripture, it’s usually the interpretation that’s got it wrong.”
As I recall it, “The heavens declare the glory of God...” (Psalm 19:1a) God is God - we are not. It is about faith. Yes, God gives us reason, but if we can reason everything, there is no need for God. THIS is the danger of dogged, unbending reasoning. Unless we admit that God may have reasons beyond our understanding (perhaps only the creation of beauty), we must not attribute anything to Him at all.
It is not reasonable for artists/sculptors through the ages to take pains to make their works so elaborate as to include details that only THEY would appreciate, except for the fact that it pleased them. I have a feeling that God is even more elaborate in creating details that only He knows. It is no contortion to a person of faith to believe in a God who defies (or shall we say, transcends) human reasoning.
And, by the way, if you accept the Biblical account that Moses was a “goat herder”, you must also accept the Biblical account that he was also once in line to be Pharoh - ruler of most ot the ancient world. So your denigration of God’s man fails there.
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.