The Bible and Radiometric dating (the issue with Carbon 14 as well as other dating practices).

Posted on Posted in iMeetzu review

The Bible and Radiometric dating (the issue with Carbon 14 as well as other dating practices).

Lots of people are under­ne­ath the miscon­cep­tion that car­bon dating demon­stra­tes that dino­saurs and other extinct pets lived sco­res of years back. Just what nume­rous don’t realize is the fact that car­bon rela­tion­ship is cer­ta­inly not fami­liar with date dino­saurs.

The reason why? Car­bon dating is just accu­rate right back a couple of tho­usand years. The­re­fore if bof­fins genu­inely believe that a cre­ature resi­ded mil­lions of years back, they will have to date it ano­ther method.

But there is the issue. They assume dino­saurs lived an incre­di­ble num­ber of years back (in the place of many tho­usands of years ago just like the bible cla­ims). They ignore evi­dence that will not fit their pre­con­ce­ived idea.

Just what would take place if a dino­saur bone tis­sue had been car­bon dated? — At Oak Ridge nation­wide Labo­ra­tory, bof­fins dated dino­saur bones uti­li­sing the car­bon method that is dating. Age they came ulti­ma­tely back with was just a couple of tho­usand yrs . old.

This date failed to fit the notion that is pre­con­ce­ived dino­saurs lived an incre­di­ble num­ber of years back. What exac­tly did they are doing? They tos­sed the total away­co­mes away. And kept their con­cept that dino­saurs lived “mil­lions of years ago” rather.

That is practice that is common.

Then they uti­lize potas­sium argon, or other tech­ni­ques, and date the fos­sils once again.

They are doing this seve­ral times, making use of a dating that is dif­fe­rent eve­ry­time. The out­co­mes is as much as 150 mil­lion years distinc­tive from one ano­ther! — how’s that for an “exact” science?

Then they find the date they like most use­ful, based on their pre­con­ce­ived idea of just how old their con­cept sta­tes the fos­sil sho­uld always be (based on the Geo­lo­gic column) .

So that they start with the presumption that dinosaurs lived scores of years back, manipulate the results then until they agree making use of their conclusion.

Their pre­sump­tions dic­tate their conc­lu­sions.

So just why can it be that when the date doesn’t fit the idea, they replace the facts?

Impar­tial tech­no­logy chan­ges the idea to guide the reality. They ought to maybe not replace the known facts to suit the idea.

A Dino­saur car­bon dated at 9,890 and 16,000 yrs old never sco­res of yrs . old like evo­lu­tio­ni­sts claim 

I’ve docu­ments of an Allo­sau­rus bone tis­sue that has been deli­ve­red to The Uni­ver­sity of Ari­zona become car­bon dated. The out­come had been 9,890 +/- 60 years and 16,120 +/- 220 years.

We did not let them know that the bones these people were dating were dino­saur bones. The effect ended up being sam­ple B at 16,120 years. The Allo­sau­rus dino­saur ended up being allo­wed to be aro­und 140,000,000 years. The exam­ples of bone tis­sue had been blind exam­ples.”

This test had been done on 10, 1990 august

Com­ment from an audience: “Of pro­gram car­bon rela­tion­ship is not likely to work with your Allo­sau­rus bone tis­sue. That tech­ni­que is just accu­rate to 40,000 years. If you car­bon date a mil­lions of years old fos­sil so I would expect to get some weird num­ber like 16,000 years. 16.000 years because of the real method con­ti­nues to be 10,000 years before your Jesus sup­po­se­dly cre­ated the world.” Amy M 12/11/01

My reac­tion: we give an expla­na­tion for restric­tions of Car­bon dating below. The one thing you sho­uld con­si­der tho­ugh, is how will you know it really is an incre­di­ble num­ber of years of age, pro­vi­ding an “incor­rect” date (one which you think is sim­ply too young) or if it is only some tho­usand years old.

So far as your com­men­tary that 16,000 years is over the age of whe­ne­ver Jesus deve­lo­ped the pla­net, we all know that there’s more car­bon into the atmo­sphere than there was cle­arly a lot of years back. So a date of 9,000 or 16,000 years is much more apt to be less. Possi­bly just 6,000 years of age.

30,000 12 mon­ths restric­tion to Car­bon dating 

Car­bon dating is a good rela­tion­ship device for many items that we under­stand the gene­ral date of. A thing that is 300 yrs . old as an exam­ple. Howe­ver it is not even close to an science that is exact. It really is back that is some­what accu­rate a few tho­usand years, but car­bon rela­tion­ship isn’t accu­rate past this. Thirty tho­usand years is mostly about the restric­tion. None­the­less, it doesn’t mean that the pla­net earth is 30 tho­usand yrs . old. It really is much more youth­ful than that. (1)

Due to the earth’s decre­asing magne­tic field, more radia­tion (which forms C14) is per­mit­ted to the atmo­sphere that is earth’s.

Wil­lard Libby (Decem­ber 17, 1908 – Sep­tem­ber 8, 1980) along with his peers disco­ve­red the means of radio­car­bon dating in 1949. Lib­bey knew that atmo­sphe­ric car­bon would achieve balance in 30,000 years. He belie­ved it was alre­ady at equ­ili­brium because he assu­med that the earth was mil­lions of years old. Never­the­less each right time they test that, they find more c14 into the envi­ron­ment, and possess reali­zed that people are only 1/3 the best way to balance. (1)

- exac­tly what does this mean? This means that pre­di­ca­ted on c14 deve­lop­ment, our pla­net has got to be signi­fi­can­tly less than 1/3 of 30,000 years old. This will make the pla­net not as much as 10,000 years of age! (1)

Car­bon dating is depen­dant on the assump­tion that the quan­tity of C14 into the envi­ron­ment has long been exac­tly the same. But there is howe­ver more car­bon within the atmo­sphere now than there was cle­arly 4 tho­usand years back. (1)

The amo­unt of car­bon still in a fos­sil, then the date given is not accu­rate since car­bon dating measu­res. Car­bon dating makes an ani­mal resi­ding 4 tho­usand years back (whe­ne­ver there is less car­bon that is atmo­sphe­ric may actu­ally have resi­ded a huge num­ber of years before it really did.

That which was the amo­unt that is ori­gi­nal of in the envi­ron­ment?

A great book on the flaws of dating tech­ni­ques is “Radio­iso­to­pes as well as the chro­ni­lo­gi­cal age of our pla­net” (edi­ted by Larry Var­di­man, Andrew Snel­ling, Eugene F. Chaf­fin. Posted by Insti­tute for Cre­ation ana­ly­sis; Decem­ber 2000)

Dodaj komentarz

Twój adres email nie zostanie opublikowany. Pola, których wypełnienie jest wymagane, są oznaczone symbolem *