[_ Old Earth _] A few questions

[reznwerks]

Why is there such remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology?
Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?
Do you realize how many known tests and facts which support each other have to be wrong for the biblical view on creation to be correct? Do you realize how many times creationists have to insert their own hypothesis in order to make sense of their beliefs regardless of whether they have any evidence?

 

[peace4all]

what i find funny.

is abotu 3/4 of christians argue that the dating methods are wrong.

the other 1/4 have realized that they are wrong, so they have the new excuse.

"well, the earth has been 100,000,000 years old, but god decided to put it into this existance 6k years ago"

 

[Barbarian]

Thinking about the sects who argue against science, I would think that less than 10% of the world's Christians would have problems with an old Earth.

 

[Bregalad]

is about 3/4 of christians argue that the dating methods are wrong.

the other 1/4 have realized that they are wrong, so they have the new excuse.

Where did you get this idea from? I would say that most christians I know don't even consider these dating methods to be wring.

I am a christian and I work as a chemist. Already in the first year of my studies I had to do experiments about radioactive decay in a physics lab course. There I could see myself how that works. So i don't have any doubt e.g. about the carbon14 method. Of course this method has its limitations but it works reliably in many cases.

 

[peace4all]

Bregalad, I have been through MANY MANY conversations here, where people say that carbon dating and tree rings ect, are purely false. That they dont work.

I have then seen a few say that "sure, the earth is 100,000 years old, but god just made it come to existance 6k years ago" multiple times. THere was a whole thread on that a while ago :/


ANywho, happy 2nd post

 

[Bregalad]

Sorry if i bore you with old arguments. As you see I'm a bit new to this board and not yet familiar with all discussions.

Can you provide me with a link or something that disproves carbon dating? This is a topic I think I understand a little about and I really don't see how it can be falsified.

Even my boss (a chemistry professor and YEC) admitted to me, that carbon dating is a problem for him because he doesn't know any way to show it isn't working. His only (and admittedly weak) explanation is that god changed the laws of physics a few thousend years ago dramatically making carbon14 to appear to have decayed longer than it really has.

 

[ThinkerMan]

Bregalad, welcome to the forum.

Sorry if i bore you with old arguments. As you see I'm a bit new to this board and not yet familiar with all discussions.

Won't take long...they're all the same.

:D

Can you provide me with a link or something that disproves carbon dating? This is a topic I think I understand a little about and I really don't see how it can be falsified.

I appreciate that comment. Often, some posters here only hotlink to some other site with ambiguous criticizism of mainstream science that supports evolution and an old universe and earth without taking the time to learn about the subject themselves.

As your posts seem to demonstrate, if someone embraces the topic they will soon understand that the underlying science is quite clear, understandable and valid.

Even my boss (a chemistry professor and YEC) admitted to me, that carbon dating is a problem for him because he doesn't know any way to show it isn't working. His only (and admittedly weak) explanation is that god changed the laws of physics a few thousend years ago dramatically making carbon14 to appear to have decayed longer than it really has.

In just the one or two posts I've seen with you, I admit I don't know much, though you seem to indicate that you are a YEC.

First, I assume you know that carbon dating is invalid with the timespans of millions or billions of years. They use other elemental decay methods once they get past a few ten thousand years.

Secondly, what do you think of your boss' point? Does that seem disingenuous to you that God would "deceive" those who examine his creation? Wouldn't a less literal view of a 3000 year old religious text be a more appropriate way to view it?

BTW, so you know where I am coming from, I am an atheist. However, like millions of christians, I agree with them that evolution and an old earth is a valid theory.

TM

 

[peace4all]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs200 ... dating.asp

I have been given links very similar to this, ANd if you do a search for teh word "carbon" on tehse forums, abotu half the matches, will haev a christian saying it is ireelivant and doesnt work :/