Is there a scientific reason why evolution would be false? Yes, many. First, the Bible declares it to be flse. [...]
Another reason is actually quite clear, and comical. One of the most popular methods of dating an object is carbon-14 dating. But, there is a problem: carbon-14 dating always seems to return an age of less than 10,000 years. Of course, when these ages are 'observed', the observations are discarded.
38 comments
The Bible is not, and will never be, a "scientific reason." Get over it.
Well, there is this thing called a "limit" to the age any one method can resonably find. Knowing that we got multiple dating methods which can be used to make a far more accurate estimate of the age of an object.
One, the Bible, a book written in one of the most scientifically developed society of the time. Second, C-14 is the study of a chemical process that starts taking place when a living being stops metabolising and loses effectivity(in other words, is slightly less reliable) if THE OBJECT IS MORE THAN 60,000 YEARS OLD AND YOUNGER THAN 2000. Moreover, there is ANOTHER METHODS, like thermoluminiscence and another based on the testing of Potasium, whose margin is even higher. With them, we´ve known the date of the Homo Erectus.
Bro Randy, it is better to remain in silence and be believed to be a fool, then to speak and confirm the belief.
First up, the Bible is not scientific. Second, scientists know that carbon-14 dosn't last very long, which is why elements with a longer half-life are used to date older things. None of these things however have anything to do with disproving evolution.
"All right, class, this semester we're going to study general science. Get out your Bibles, please."
The Bible declares absolutely nothing regarding evolution since it knows nothing of it, anymore than it knows about electricity, combustion engines, or nuclear physics.
Radiocarbon dating is only useful to about 60,000 years because after that, the amount of radioactive particles being emitted from the C-14 to N-14 transformation is too low to distinguish its radiation from everyday background radiation.
"Imagine not that these four walls contain the mighty owl of Thebes! For, gentles all, beauty sits most closely to them it can construe!""NO, IT DOESN'T."
No one's said it yet, so
CARBON DATING DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
And where did you pull that out of? Your head? Your ass? Eh, same place.
"Is there a scientific reason why evolution would be false? Yes, many. First, the Bible declares it to be flse. [...]"
Book, chapter, verse explicitly stating the words "evolution" and "false"?
The BIBLE declares evolution to be wrong? I thought the Bible was written like 6000 years ago, parts of it, anyway, some are just 1700 years old or so. But still, written many, many, many years before the mid 1800 when Darwin was active.
From Wikipedia: Radiocarbon dating, or carbon dating, is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.
You can't just discard observations, that will make the whole investigation null and void.
First, the Bible is not science(on the contrary). Second, Carbon 14 only applies to organic substances and the 10,000 years is actually the opposite. The measuring starts to lose accuracy if it´s YOUNGER than 4000 years, not 10,000 and over 100,000. Would you like to read better?
Is there a scientific reason why evolution would be false? Yes, many. First, the Bible declares it to be flse. [...]
Lolz.
Another reason is actually quite clear, and comical. One of the most popular methods of dating an object is carbon-14 dating. But, there is a problem: carbon-14 dating always seems to return an age of less than 10,000 years. Of course, when these ages are 'observed', the observations are discarded.
Carbon dating has it's limits, you dolt! Not only that, but it's not the only dating method used!
So what other radioisotope dating methods can you name other than C-14 dating?
Hint: There's more than one.
But, there is a problem: carbon-14 dating always seems to return an age of less than 10,000 years. Of course, when these ages are 'observed', the observations are discarded.
Proof of these allegations, or shut the fuck up.
I wonder why Bro. Randy thinks it's OK to lie like that. No, seriously. I'm curious about the thought process that occurs when he hobbles together some Frankenstein of bullshit he heard from "some guy", or just fabricates information entirely. Does he wonder if he should investigate further, or does it become instant truth in his mind the moment it confirms his preconceptions? Is that why he can blithely ignore the ninth commandment the way he does? What an absolutely terrifying way to live.
And how do we know carbon 14 has limits? Because those limits were documented and published by scientific means.
Every time this is used there's an inference that science was dishonest about the dating processes, a suggestion that creationists somehow discovered the truth despite it being some dark secret.
And of course the too often repeated accusation of "when these ages are 'observed', the observations are discarded." suggesting that tons of evidence for creation are hidden. Having no scientific evidence, skills or programs of their own the creationist world accuses the scientific world of hiding things.
In other words Bareing false witness
Scientific reasons =/= The Bible
One of the most popular methods of dating an object that is supposed to be 60 000 years old or less is carbon-14 dating.
I fail to see why one method of dating would be a reason why evolution is false. Scientists have seen evolution happen in bacteria in their laboratories this decade. We don't need carbon dating for that.
'/ But, there is a problem: carbon-14 dating always seems to return an age of less than 10,000 years. Of course, when these ages are 'observed', the observations are discarded.'/
'and then the LORD said unto Bro. Randy: yea, thou shalt never cite your sources, for this is a sin. mankind shall not circulate credible information, for it is of the devil, and unholy. cursed are they who do not conform to half-assed hearsay, their blood shall most certainly be upon them, and hellfire awaits them'
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
