Reply With Quote
"There's a kernel of historicity in the story of the kingdom of David," he said.
"There's a kernel of historicity in the story of the kingdom of David," he said.
the le of the story doesn't match the content of the story. here I am thinking some relevant fact about the Bible and Christianity was going to be supported empirically, but what I read is that there is evidence to support some peripheral historical account listed in the Bible.
How do they know the wall is that old? At the end of the article it makes it sound like they dont have any real evidence yet to support the claim.
Also, I assume they are going to use carbon dating to verify the walls age? If carbon dating can be used to support a story from the bible, it can also be used to support the fact that the earth is millions of years old. It cant be one way and not the other.
"It cant be one way and not the other"
With "Christians", any old thing is possible, the more anti-science, the more illogical, the more they believe it.
Carbon dating works for "Christians", doesn't work for scientists. It's only good back to about 60K years. Anyway, God faked all the carbon for the first from 6K years ago to 54K years ago. Which day of the week did He do that?
There's evidence of Jesus in my toast sometimes.
We already know that there is some factual history in the Bible, as evidenced by alternative historical sources.
lol. Very true.
Don't you all know this is just another test by god and jeebus?
God, Bible Thumpers like Angel_luv are scary sheeple considering the kind of garbage they get tricked into believing.
Sons, I haven't been keeping up with crazy_luv, does she still believe Obama is the anti-christ?
God bless sons.
He doesn't seem to be popular enough to fit the Biblical description of the anti-chirst.
I just wasn't use to seeing so popular a politician as President Obama was when he ran. The only other elections I have paid attention to were the previous two, which former President Bush were in.
Very untrue. Carbon doesn't exist in leftovers of organisms that are millions of years old.
Is this another attempt to "win people over?"
Looks to me like another successful attempt at being an annoying fundamentalist.
Then why are most fossils found in calcium carbonate? Why are most plant fossils carbon films?
It's fine we differ on bigger questions, but that doesn't give you a pass to just be factually wrong.
not to derail, but the anti-christ is more a movement than a person/being.
Why do you think that?
Careful there heretic, you wouldn't want to present any other idea that is contrary to the "truth".
For your consideration Big Zak:
Revelation 13 ( the whole chapter) and Revelation 20:10.
Notice how it list the devil, the beast, and the false prophet are each listed as their own separate identies.
Also see that it says they- the devil, the beast, and the false prophet- will be tormented night and day for ever and ever.
How can a movement be tormented? Only actual, living beings can experience pain.
Everything I've read or heard states carbon dating is ineffective on ancient fossils and organisms past 60,000 years old due to a distinct lack of well, carbon. It decays into other substances within this constraint.
My bad... I didn't read what you were responding to. The radioisotope carbon-14 decays in under 60,000 years, but carbon itself does not. Obviously.
... that said, carbon dating can't be said to help young earth creationists too much.
There are scientific methods to determine such things.
carbon dating is used on organic material, not rock. As for dating rocks, depending on they type, isotopic analysis of Uranium and the compounds it breaks down to is used in many cases. It is pretty damn accurate. There are several other accurate dating methods used as well.
Question is, did anyone do an accurate dating, or are they guessing?
To clarify, it's not the lack of carbon, but the lack or carbon 14. Carbon dating is done by measuring the ratio of 14C to 12C. 14C is radioactive, with a half-life of something like 5730 years. After 57,300 years, the 14C is almost non-existent, and too small to accurately assess. There is only 0.0977% of the original amount. It already starts at trace levels.
dude...the gate in narrow. being labeled a 'heretic' by the masses is a compliment.
veronica, it's just different interpretations...different perspectives dependent on the readers beliefs.
That's why they use radio-isotope dating.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
