Anything Forums

This is what I don't understand, we have written history, carbon date recent history and it matches. So we continue to go back, compair it to written history 2,000 years ago, still a perfect match. Go back farther, carbon dating matches through all of the written history we have.

On to North America: we can carbon date natives up to 20,000 years ago. We compair written and preserved history and it matches. It matches humans from 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 250 years ago, 500 years ago, 1,000 years ago... all the way back to 20,000 years ago, just in North America. How can anyone realistically believe the earth is less than 8,000 years old or that humans first came around at that time. There is no evidence to support that, but mounting evidence to the contrary.

BTW, 20,000 is a conservative figure, some put it back as far as 60,000 years. I think America(and company) being such a young nation helps the population forget that there was much history before the discovery of the "New World".

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22289

Carbon Dating? Well, dating chemicals isn't as bad as RELATIVE DATING!


*rimshot for stupid science joke*

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22301

What I don't get about isotopes is, sure they base it on half life, but how do they know when the half life actually started?

I would not hit on carbon though, I think hydrogen is hotter. I so want to date hydrogen!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22307

here is a site for you to look at.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22309

I see this is going the way of all AF threads...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22310

Bookworm wrote: here is a site for you to look at.

Si amigo, I have seen this before. I fear some of the math is a bit fuzzy, but even taking that into account, as well as other outside factors, the earth is more than 8,000 years old. Again, humans in North America more than 10,000 years ago destroys the literal interpretation of creationism.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22311

Bookworm wrote: here is a site for you to look at.

Great info!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22313

Ha gha, I love that site. It says that "hey, lots of factors should be taken into account that change things", and then they defend aspects with "hemoglobin couldn't have survived more than a couple 1,000 years", sure don't take that other factors could have affected that too, only use that arguement when it helps yourself.... Or the one with the magnetic field, wow, what liberties they take that they shot down a couple of paragraphs before.

I mean, I agree carbon dating has it's flaws, however you can factor in variables to find a possible range, as they do. You can't discredit all carbon dating because of a few times is was flawed.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22314

I think the moon thing alone should be enough evidence right there, assuming the rate at which the moon is seperating from Earth, is actually 100% known data. (there's always assumptions )

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22316

oh really? Well then, how was the moon formed? You know for sure right? You know all the factors in the moons revolution around the earth and it's stabilization in it's current orbit?

Again though, let me say that while I belive in carbon dating, not to the point it is used. I don't really think the planet is as old as it is believed, but certainly not as young as some creationist say. That site would not support your theories Red, it is a more liberal interpretation, giving 10,000's of years the earth has been here, versus 6-9,000.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22319

MrSelf wrote: I mean, I agree carbon dating has it's flaws, however you can factor in variables to find a possible range, as they do. You can't discredit all carbon dating because of a few times is was flawed.

I'm sure someone could factor in all sorts of variables to correct the flaws, but then they would have to factor in some more to correct the flaws of their corrections, and all that factoring sure doesn't seem trustworthy to me.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22321

It's more trustworthy than the alternative Redster would put forth.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1674, old post ID:22327