ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Yes. For very good reasons. It's well within the range for radiocarbon dating and that has proved to be reliable and consistent with other dating methods, not to mention the archaeology.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Challenge for those that believe in billions of years for the age of things. Give anything that is more than 6000 years old. NO ASSUMPTIONS ALLOWED.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Point?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The tests are objective and aren't dependend on what researchers "believe".
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Again, those tests are objective. Not dependend on what is being "believed".
Just how do you think dating works?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I wouldn't imagine that they were lying, and I cannot speak to them directly right now, but the dating process particularly along with the items they dated are in question. Furthermore, as you probably know, scientists can offer new and differing conclusions about evidence.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
It is saying that's what the researchers believe the evidence they looked at and tested says. to them.
That's the good thing about the sciences, willing to make corrections, admit errors and move forward. Unlike the dogma of religion that can never admit it's wrong even in the face of overwhelming evidence.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No. They were using established techniques that have been extensively tested and found to be reliable. Their work will also have been reviewed and checked by others.
In other words, they were applying the scientific method just like all the science you don't desperately want to be wrong in order to cling to your superstitions, does.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Now that you mention it, I happen to agree with you. But of course, I'm not a scientist in that field.
OK, I'm amending this a little bit -- I wonder how scientists figure billions of years.
Last edited:
That sentence makes little sense to me. Can you reword it.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
So you think a personal incredulity fallacy is a good argument?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Not all religions are like that. After all, in many respects they differ with one another and base their conclusions on the same document.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
those researching the site mentioned or any site archaeologically generally test for evidence. However they test for dating. They could be wrong. I hope that helps to explain what I meant. I also hope when I ask you a question for explanation you can and will explain what you mean and/or details.
I'm not a scientist, I didn't even finish school, my services were required on the family farm. If you're looking for detailed explanations of carbon dating from me you are barking up the wrong tree.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I respect that. You probably know more about science being in the field of agriculture. I was raised a city girl, never had success with plants but I like the idea of fresh uncontaminated vegetables and fruits. Which I look forward to enjoying one day. Because I believe the earth one day (day?) is going to be a "fruitful" paradise with no contamination and no sickness and -- no dying.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
But they almost certainly aren't wrong, because there is excellent evidence that the dating techniques are reliable that put the results way beyond reasonable doubt.
Which religion has admitted it was wrong?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
P.S. I did some research about dating processes. It's a bit technical. And complicated. The actual process is not what I'm questioning, however, even though I know it's limited. It's the objects that are being tested and then put up as results of the theory. I'll try to explain later, right now it's time for me to say good early morning.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
They usually don't say that they are wrong, but they can change the understanding. That's called honesty. But after all, that's what Martin Luther did as a distinct example. And the various sects of the religions are essentially saying they are right but the other groups/sects are wrong. Good early morning again.