ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Which just provides evidence of hundred of millions of years, which you deny exist, and is totally irrelevant to C-14 dating.
-
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!
Questions that evolutionists and billions of years proponents cannot answer but disprove their theories.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
As I said before and say it again, they are off on the old age dating.Which just provides evidence of hundred of millions of years, which you deny exist, and is totally irrelevant to C-14 dating.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Another baseless, unargued assertion. Also, you can't, on the one hand, deny the age range, while at the same time relying on it to allow for higher CO₂.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Sure can. The C-14 ratio would have been changing leading up to the flood. And even the C-12 concentration would also have been changing.
So there should be variations in the results.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
There was no worldwide flood. You're just making things up.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Read Genesis 6-8.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
OK, but that still does not help your claims.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is refuted by the endless evidence that tells us it never happened.
LOL it's in Genesis so it must be true!!!!
There is no way that it isn't just baseless ancient myths!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is just another unsupported claim.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Not at all.
Go look at the graphs from your guys.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I did. That was a long time ago. Hundreds of millions of years. You have to use the much more recent figures.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Nothing is over 6000 years old.
C-14 testing all of it and any new discovery ASAP .
That isn't even that old
If you'd have said nothing is over 60,000 years old then that would still be wrong but much less ridiculous
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I have done. It's a baseless myth.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Many things are older than that. We couldn't see outside of our galaxy if the universe was a recent creation. We have a tree ring record that goes back almost 14,000 years.
And if you want things tested with C14 you need to fund it. You need to find a competent and honest source.
So why don't they abandon the techniques?
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
We couldn't see most of the galaxy if it were only 6,000 years old. Not even to the centre.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Meantime with all this + what scientists may say, the universe is expanding. Into whatever, or not into whatever. It was quite an explosion, I would say. Meantime there are planets, moons, stars and other things I suppose and these items are something. Rocks and whatever else. But they're not nothing. (are they?) No, they're not nothing. There's nothing and then there's something.