No, we cannot measure the age of the Earth - 4.56 billion years - by "carbon dating" because the half-life of C-14 is around 5 thousand years, which means that there will not be sufficient C-14 left in the sample after about 50 thousand years. To measure the vastly greater age of early geological samples, potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium dating techniques are used, the half-lives of these isotopes being long enough.
@sakar181 [Creationists will look at 'rubidium-strontium dating' and wonder why evolutionists can make up words. Lol]
No, they'll get angry and say that rubidium should only date rubidium, strontium should only date strontium, and that the two should never date each other.
@MarcusEFN Carbon dating can only be used on living things and with the newer equipment with greater sensitivity it can now go to about 100,000 yrs. but like all the radiometric dating methods, it is based on UNPROVEN assumptions. There is no way of dating the earth. the dating methods are full of contradictions when they re-date, send the same sample to another lab, etc. Nothing has been proven. It is talked about like it has but it hasn't.
The only time radiometric dating has "failed" is when... I forget which creationist group... probably the discovery institute... intentionally had a lab radiometrically date something in a way that they could manipulate into a false result. It was nothing but a thick-headed trick.
I'll admit though, it is kind of unfair. Pitting unassailable waves of trillions of points of hard data against two thousand years out of date self-refuting iron age sheep herder mythology.
What really annoys me is that there are still people who believe that the Earth is 7,000 years old when it has already been conclusively proved to be otherwise. I mean, the evidence is already known yet dumb people still believe dumb stuf ! ! LOL
@krizan1 Dude I do not understand what you are trying to say. BUT, I know the earth was Created by an invisible man, who lives in sky. Also he watches everything that we do, despite the fact the the universe is infinite, he apparently has nothing better to do. Then the invisible man came down to earth and Banged himself a virgin. (Bow chicka, wow wow) (BAM!) Who bore him a magical baby. Who then grew up to be Jewish carpenter.
@keez1994 to start with, the Bible doesn't conflict with itself with the age of the earth. if anything SEEMS to conflict it is because it is misinterpreted and the person is looking to make it conflict. the same with the age of gthe earth. The sedimentary layers don't have ages written on them nor the fossils buried in them have tags attached telling when they were buried. Someone assigned an age to them and everyone goes along with it because they do not want to have a God to account to.
If it shows how awesome God is or if it tells us how we should live our lives, it is a point made by God; if not, then it is just how the author interpreted it due to being a human and not being perfect.
@repentNOWunbelievers But an old earth does conflict with Adam's sin bringing death into the world. And if death and suffering were arond before Adam sinned, then what's the purpose of Jesus leaving Heaven to be born as a man to save us from our sins? You might as well throw the whole Bible out. There is no scientific evidence that the earth is any older than 6,000 yrs.Charles Lyell made that popular and he was just a lawyer and was an expert at convincing people. He hated the Bible and set out
@fdasherv Because of our sinful nature, we can not save ourselves. This is what the Bible says and there is no need to throw the Bible out just because you don't like something in it. It is not the Bible that needs to be thrown out, but rather, man's thinking that goes against God's will.
What's the obsession with Carbon dating by believers?
We have elements with a half life of a few seconds and of a few billion years. Why focus on one?
Picasso43967 2 months ago
@Picasso43967 Because creationists generally aren't very smart.
shagoosty 2 months ago
whats the clip from?
runescapefacefan 2 months ago
@runescapefacefan
An HBO movie 'The Pentagon Wars'
sakar181 2 months ago
LOL nice find
TommyNockersx3 3 months ago
No, we cannot measure the age of the Earth - 4.56 billion years - by "carbon dating" because the half-life of C-14 is around 5 thousand years, which means that there will not be sufficient C-14 left in the sample after about 50 thousand years. To measure the vastly greater age of early geological samples, potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium dating techniques are used, the half-lives of these isotopes being long enough.
puffin51 4 months ago
@puffin51
Creationists will look at 'rubidium-strontium dating' and wonder why evolutionists can make up words. Lol
sakar181 4 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@sakar181 [Creationists will look at 'rubidium-strontium dating' and wonder why evolutionists can make up words. Lol]
No, they'll get angry and say that rubidium should only date rubidium, strontium should only date strontium, and that the two should never date each other.
sleazybtd 3 months ago
We all know why this won't happen. They already know they're wrong, they just won't accept it.
lobban2 4 months ago
Age of earth. 4.56 billion years old. How? Because we can accuratly measure it with carbon dating and other things
MarcusEFN 4 months ago
@MarcusEFN Carbon dating can only be used on living things and with the newer equipment with greater sensitivity it can now go to about 100,000 yrs. but like all the radiometric dating methods, it is based on UNPROVEN assumptions. There is no way of dating the earth. the dating methods are full of contradictions when they re-date, send the same sample to another lab, etc. Nothing has been proven. It is talked about like it has but it hasn't.
AndyG792 3 months ago
@AndyG792
The only time radiometric dating has "failed" is when... I forget which creationist group... probably the discovery institute... intentionally had a lab radiometrically date something in a way that they could manipulate into a false result. It was nothing but a thick-headed trick.
I'll admit though, it is kind of unfair. Pitting unassailable waves of trillions of points of hard data against two thousand years out of date self-refuting iron age sheep herder mythology.
Ryakki 3 months ago
@Ryakki Bronze-age*
But other than that, you're doing good. Keep it up.
SeedsOfHatred 2 months ago
@AndyG792 And the bible has been proven? It's the worlds most widespread chain letter, scaring people into believing in bullshit.
jbkgjbkg 2 months ago
What really annoys me is that there are still people who believe that the Earth is 7,000 years old when it has already been conclusively proved to be otherwise. I mean, the evidence is already known yet dumb people still believe dumb stuf ! ! LOL
krizan1 7 months ago
@krizan1 Dude I do not understand what you are trying to say. BUT, I know the earth was Created by an invisible man, who lives in sky. Also he watches everything that we do, despite the fact the the universe is infinite, he apparently has nothing better to do. Then the invisible man came down to earth and Banged himself a virgin. (Bow chicka, wow wow) (BAM!) Who bore him a magical baby. Who then grew up to be Jewish carpenter.
Stinkface2 5 months ago
nice, if you dont know the dumbass bible says the earth is 7000 years old. what a joke.
Sasuk3xxx 2 years ago
lol?
sorry..
an old-earth does not conflict with the Bible's claims of God's creation.
repentNOWunbelievers 2 years ago
According to many believers, it does. I guess I should have said a "YEC" instead of just creationist. :)
sakar181 2 years ago 8
I am a YEC, but there isnt any scripture that says how old or how young the earth is.
and the age of the earth is really a non-issue with most Bible-believing Christians.
it doesn't matter either way.
btw, Tesla brilliant man.
how much do you know about him?
God Bless~
repentNOWunbelievers 2 years ago
@repentNOWunbelievers The real earth does.
CreepX 9 months ago
@repentNOWunbelievers There are far more things in the Bible that conflict themselves rather than the age of the Earth.
keez1994 5 months ago 14
@keez1994 to start with, the Bible doesn't conflict with itself with the age of the earth. if anything SEEMS to conflict it is because it is misinterpreted and the person is looking to make it conflict. the same with the age of gthe earth. The sedimentary layers don't have ages written on them nor the fossils buried in them have tags attached telling when they were buried. Someone assigned an age to them and everyone goes along with it because they do not want to have a God to account to.
AndyG792 3 months ago
@AndyG792
"the Bible doesn't conflict with itself with the age of the earth."
No... The bible conflicts with reality... not to mention itself.
nolobede 3 months ago
@repentNOWunbelievers no an old earth does not but science sure does make the bible a load of fairy tales.
MrKGatl 5 months ago
@repentNOWunbelievers if you take the bible word for word, then yes it does
Moppy1988 5 months ago
@Moppy1988
The bible was written by man. The points that it makes are from god.
Awesomeoneofawesome 4 months ago
@Awesomeoneofawesome and one of the points it makes is an earth that is less than 10,000 years old
Moppy1988 4 months ago
@Moppy1988
The point of Genesis 1 is that God made the world. The bible is NOT a science textbook.
Awesomeoneofawesome 4 months ago
@Awesomeoneofawesome So how do you distinguish what is "the word of god" and what is due to the imperfection of humans?
Moppy1988 4 months ago
@Moppy1988
If it shows how awesome God is or if it tells us how we should live our lives, it is a point made by God; if not, then it is just how the author interpreted it due to being a human and not being perfect.
Awesomeoneofawesome 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Awesomeoneofawesome lol, you didn't answer the question bro
Moppy1988 4 months ago
@repentNOWunbelievers But an old earth does conflict with Adam's sin bringing death into the world. And if death and suffering were arond before Adam sinned, then what's the purpose of Jesus leaving Heaven to be born as a man to save us from our sins? You might as well throw the whole Bible out. There is no scientific evidence that the earth is any older than 6,000 yrs.Charles Lyell made that popular and he was just a lawyer and was an expert at convincing people. He hated the Bible and set out
AndyG792 3 months ago
@AndyG792 "what's the purpose of Jesus leaving Heaven to be born as a man to save us from our sins?"
None.
"You might as well throw the whole Bible out."
Done.
fdasherv 2 months ago
@fdasherv Because of our sinful nature, we can not save ourselves. This is what the Bible says and there is no need to throw the Bible out just because you don't like something in it. It is not the Bible that needs to be thrown out, but rather, man's thinking that goes against God's will.
AndyG792 2 months ago
@AndyG792
Ha!!
HAHA!!
sakar181 2 months ago
@AndyG792 ...*yawns*
keamy123 2 months ago