Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPGuide

It would seem if you take the bible literally then the carbon dating is irrelevant. If you accept carbon dating for the shroud, you kinda have to accept carbon dating that shows the earth is much older than 6,000 years.


19 posted on 04/10/2009 6:28:05 PM PDT by yazoo (was)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: yazoo
If you accept carbon dating for the shroud, you kinda have to accept carbon dating that shows the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

Or not. Using it to refute the age of an artifact is entirely different from using it to affirm the age of an artifact.

Carbon dating has numerous problems and so does radiometric dating. When an Hawaiian lava flow, known to have occurred in 1801, was tested, twelve times, twelve different results were reached, all varying wildly, none accurate, ranging from 140 million years to nearly 4 billion years, with an average between the twelve of 1.46 billion years. It was less than 200 years old at the time.

20 posted on 04/10/2009 6:35:14 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: yazoo
If you accept carbon dating for the shroud, you kinda have to accept carbon dating that shows the earth is much older than 6,000 years.

Not necessarily -- God or the Devil could've fudged the data in the latter case.

But people don't like to open that can of worms for a whole variety of reasons.

Cheers!

...oh, and Happy Easter.

27 posted on 04/10/2009 7:14:16 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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