Polyeidus said:
Sorry, dude. Carbon dating doesn't date anything beyond 60-70,000 years. The isotope half life lasts only a little more than 5,000 years.
you are right, I stand corrected. As I said in my original post where I mentioned carbon dating, I wasn't exactly sure of how it worked so don't knock me for mispeaking. Anyway, the fact of the matter is still that carbond dating is good for about 50,000 years (see quote below) and that alone disputes the theory of the church that the Earth is only 20,000 to 30,000 years old (and don't quote me on that estimate, it's just what I heard from that religious radio guy).
"When a living organism dies, it stops absorbing C14 and the C14 that is already in the object begins to disintegrate. Scientists can use this fact to measure how much C14 has disintegrated and how much is left in the object. Carbon 14 decays at a slow but steady rate and reverts to nitrogen 14. The rate at which Carbon decays (Half-life) is known: C14 has a half-life of 5730 years. Basically this means that half of the original amount of C14 in organic matter will have disintegrated 5730 years after the organisms death; half of the remaining C14 will have disintegrated after another 5730 years and so forth. After about 50,000 years, the amount of C14 remaining will be so small that the fossil can't be dated reliably."
Once again, I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live, but here is a perfect example of why I can't accept any of the so-called evidence provided by any believer in Creation. This is a quote I got from ChristianAnswers.net website regarding carbon dating.
[size=+1]
"Conclusion[/size] There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world."
The last sentence is what eats me alive. This article offers arguments intended to disprove the effectiveness of different methods of age determination. Although I can't speak to the validity of the claims made in it, it was presented as a strong argument based on scientific inconsistencies. However, the conclusion is where it lost all credibility. The author spent all that time writing and researching only to sum it up with "The word of God to the
true history of the world". He (or she) just spent countless hours trying to make a logical argument only to summarize with that? They say there is no solid proof that any of these dating methods work, then turn around and make a completely unsubstantiated statement that the bible recounts the "true" history of the world. This is exactly the arrogance I spoke of in an earlier post. It appalls me that creationists can't accept the remote possibility that they are wrong. There is no evidence to support their side, but yet they know for fact that they are right. With all the contrary evidence (granted the dispute it) they can't even consider the possibility of anything other than what it says in the bible. If they would have ended this essay with a statement simply recounting their arguments that dating is inaccurate I probably would have accepted their position as a legitimate argument, but that conclusion just blew me away. I give no credence to anything they said in this article now, and because of the obvously biased approach to writing it, I will not bother to investigate any of the evidence they offered either.
