Does Carbon 14 Dating Really Disprove The Bible? Is It Even Science?

a reply to: sacgamer25

The bible is accurate as a historical document in the same way that Charles Dickens "A Tale of Two Cities" is an accurate historical depiction if the French Revolution. Both contain some actual historical events but are still entirely fantasy based works of fiction. It takes some real brass to tout it as historically accurate and then call 14C dating pseudoscience. As has been mentioned previously,the limits of 14C are well known and not hidden away. Nobody has ever made the claim that you can date the earth using this method. It can only be used on organic matter that is 60,000 years old or less. The accuracy has been verified and corroborated by cross referencing in a double blind test by dating wood samples that were already accurately dated by using dendrochronology, the counting of tree rings. The margin of error involving objects tens of thousands of years old is rather small at +/- 40 years. I'm not sure how you've come to the conclusion that this is pseudoscience but it is anything but.

originally posted by: mikefougnie
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I could always say that my limited intelligence was unable to understand the scripture or the data if the data clearly seemed to conflict with scripture. However that is like me asking you "What if the data showed that the Earth is f;at" as was thought in the past by otherwise intelligent people, even though the scriptures describe the earth as a "sphere hung in the emptiness of space."

Funny thing about that... when there was no evidence to support the flat earth theory, people stopped believing in it.

originally posted by: mikefougnie
a reply to: Not Authorized

I know that it is not the only available method. Others include helium dating and measuring the salt content of the ocean. There are actually an abundant number of ways to measure ages. Reading an account of one who was there when it happened is usually the best, if you trust the source.

oh, if only trust was the sole factor necessary to determine the veracity of any claim! why, i believe i have a bridge i would like to sell you...lol

a reply to: mikefougnie
So read some material that explains radiometric dating, instead of reading hackneyed attempts to debunk it. You'll already have made great strides.

Then consider the fact that in archaeological circles, "one date is no date." You don't bet the farm without corroborating evidence...and no, bronze age folk tales don't count as such.

a reply to: mikefougnie

The water came from below as well.

All the scientific information I posted is from a christian organization called Truth In Genesis, with Facts and figures from the Bible, Historical Records online, as well as bits and pieces of information from AIG. Regardless of belief, we all have the same facts, and nobody was around in the beginning of the planet Earth. it's how we interpretative theses facts that matters. But this post is not about that, but about pointing out that Carbon 14 Dating is a scam, and no better than alchemy.

a reply to: mikefougnie

Then please explain WHY you think its a scam. Simply stating that it is and ignoring legitimate rebuttals doesn't make it so.

a reply to: peter vlar

I already posted an entire article on that. Go back to the very beginning of the thread.

a reply to: mikefougnie

Right but the article you plagiarized is entirely wrong and it's been explained more than once in this thread exactly why and how it is wrong yet you don't address any of the rebuttals and instead repeat the same thing like a mantra. That 14C dating is a scam and wrong. It doesn't say what your thoughts are on the subject, you're just repeating what Kent Hovind said on the matter. I'm asking why YOU think its a scam or wrong and why you haven't addressed the legitimate rebuttals of the information as Kent Hovind presents it. It had never once been used to "verify" or corroborate any geological data period let alone the age of the Earth. It can't give an accurate date to anything older than 60,000 years BPE and even then only organic material can be dated.

a reply to: mikefougnie

Show me the first bible ever, and we will talk. Since you can find no proof of Jesus' existing outside of the text, show me the very first bible and we will discount the fact it was written hundreds of years after Jesus' supposed passing.

All the scientific information I posted is from a christian organization called Truth In Genesis

Well there's you problem, a group biased toward certain beliefs from a certain sources.

Anyway carbon-14 dating is good in a range of about 50K years. But if you want to believe that and use it either way, pro or con, then your are also believing in a certain amount of science.

a reply to: Hijinx

It was written by over forty individual people, as at least sixty six books, by one author over a more than 400 year span. There is no original first copy, unless you are talking about first printed compiled copy, but I assume not. One bit of evidence we have is some of the manuscripts in the dead sea scrolls actually shows that the text has not been changed over the last couple thousand years.

a reply to: mikefougnie

Nope, I need the original words or it's all just bull# compiled over the years like a pile of pig manure out back from the pen.

The words of over 40 over 400 years is like taking everything ever written on the teleprompter for fox news since it's terrible afterbirth into the world and claiming it the word of god.

a reply to: roadgravel

So should I trust an evolutionist organization?

a reply to: Hijinx

Sure, I'll get you that, but then I want a video of the big bang which zooms in to see chemicals evolve into human beings in return.

>>
It was written by over forty individual people
>>

At least you admit it was written by PEOPLE. That's a good start : )

originally posted by: mikefougnie
a reply to: roadgravel

So should I trust an evolutionist organization?

Trust the work of many years of science research.

originally posted by: mikefougnie
One bit of evidence we have is some of the manuscripts in the dead sea scrolls actually shows that the text has not been changed over the last couple thousand years.

Key part of that is "some" because many are drastically different which has severe implications when you get right down to it. Oh and anytime you actually want to discuss the topic of your thread, 14ac dating and why YOU think its a scam. I already know about Hovind's position on it, I want to know why you think its an unreliable method and what your thoughts are on the actual science of it and why Hovind the felon is wrong. Until then ill leave you with this-

While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100

a reply to: peter vlar

So the fact that he went to prison discredits him? Does the fact that Einstein was a drop out and his teachers said he was "to stupid to learn" mean that his theories are not valid? Also, specify which of the dead see scrolls were different, and how they were different, other than being simply other points of view. I would really like to look into this. Your quote makes the same mistake I made earlier, failing to list a source.

a reply to: mikefougnie

Misslerite?



That DSS claim is another problem you might have. More on details here.