So far, the oldest monuments on Earth, Some folk thinks it tells the story of a major flood and the dating would put it thousands of years before the biblical flood which makes sense since this time was at the end of the last major ice age and floods happened all around Earth, like the making of the Great Lakes in the US and Canada and the floods that caused the Oglala aquifer in the midwest of the US, there were lakes back 12,000 years ago up north in Canada from the ice age floods that were far larger than the Great Lakes but they basically dried up and the water went underground to the midwest of the US.
This kind of flooding was real but not world wide like the bible tale.
Originally posted by sonhousedid you hear about the blood found in the 60 million year old dinosaur? "Oh but wait if its sixty million years old finding blood would be impossible. so why should i trust your 12000yo calculations?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0ViMVxKZA
So far, the oldest monuments on Earth, Some folk thinks it tells the story of a major flood and the dating would put it thousands of years before the biblical flood which makes sense since this time was at the end of the last major ice age and floods happened all around Earth, like the making of the Great Lakes ...[text shortened]... the midwest of the US.
This kind of flooding was real but not world wide like the bible tale.
Originally posted by sonhouseApparently they don't know that carbon dating does not work on stone. For radiocarbon dating to be possible, the material must once have been part of a living organism. However, I did notice it did have some carvings that looked like they could have been dinosaurs, but there is still a controversy about when the dinosaurs lived. It cetainly can't be the exaggerated date of 12,000 years old. These people are always trying to claim they found something older than the next guy. However, I am not that gullible to fall for every claim and you shouldn't be either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ0ViMVxKZA
So far, the oldest monuments on Earth, Some folk thinks it tells the story of a major flood and the dating would put it thousands of years before the biblical flood which makes sense since this time was at the end of the last major ice age and floods happened all around Earth, like the making of the Great Lakes ...[text shortened]... the midwest of the US.
This kind of flooding was real but not world wide like the bible tale.
Originally posted by tim88Perhaps the Holy spirit had something to do with this accident to uncover tissue and DNA of the supposed 65 million year old T-Rex.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji2cvuJ1mYg
For it is written:
Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
(Romans 1:22 Revised Standard Version RSV)
13 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsIf your statement was based on true scientific curiosity that would be one thing. Your real MO is just your belief in creationism and the 6000 year old Earth. So don't try to pull the science card with me, your MO is clear.
Apparently they don't know that carbon dating does not work on stone. For radiocarbon dating to be possible, the material must once have been part of a living organism. However, I did notice it did have some carvings that looked like they could have been dinosaurs, but there is still a controversy about when the dinosaurs lived. It cetainly can't be the ex ...[text shortened]... next guy. However, I am not that gullible to fall for every claim and you shouldn't be either.
Carbon dating is not the only way to date material and you know it but you have to keep up your creationist front because your cognitive dissonance refuses to accept any real scientific evidence otherwise.
Originally posted by sonhouseBut the woman on the video said they used carbon dating.
If your statement was based on true scientific curiosity that would be one thing. Your real MO is just your belief in creationism and the 6000 year old Earth. So don't try to pull the science card with me, your MO is clear.
Carbon dating is not the only way to date material and you know it but you have to keep up your creationist front because your cognitive dissonance refuses to accept any real scientific evidence otherwise.
14 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHinds
But the woman on the video said they used carbon dating.
This is a National Geographic video, more detailed and one of the things they showed was there were animal bones in there. The German scientist is Klaus Schmidt and I emailed him with that question.
I know there is another technique that compliments carbon dating, called
photoluminescent dating, which can show when a rock was buried.
So there were probably several techniques used.
Also, this video shows ground penetrating radar of the surrounding area shows buried monuments even older than the ones shown by the digs, perhaps 15,000 years old, way before agriculture or clay pots.
Originally posted by sonhouseThe declaration of the age is not science. It is science so-called.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JfbV21weQE
This is a National Geographic video, more detailed and one of the things they showed was there were animal bones in there. The German scientist is Klaus Schmidt and I emailed him with that question.
I know there is another technique that compliments carbon dating, called
photoluminescent dating, which can sh ...[text shortened]... than the ones shown by the digs, perhaps 15,000 years old, way before agriculture or clay pots.
Why radiometric dating doesn't work. It is theory, not fact.
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
15 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd of course you base your judgement on solid scientific research. Show me the refutation, o maven of time.
The declaration of the age is not science. It is science so-called.
Why radiometric dating doesn't work. It is theory, not fact.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
15 Jan 14
Originally posted by RJHindsEr, did you perhaps notice the title to this op? 12,000 years not 12 billion years. Photoluminescence and carbon dating are for the same time frame, less than 100,000 years.
There is no science on age guessing for millions and billions of years. It is only a carnival trick.
15 Jan 14
Originally posted by sonhouseFluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable
Er, did you perhaps notice the title to this op? 12,000 years not 12 billion years. Photoluminescence and carbon dating are for the same time frame, less than 100,000 years.
Carbon Dating...100% accurate right?...NOT!
Carbon Dating Flaws
15 Jan 14
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsOpinion pieces. Show me the peer reviewed papers. Otherwise you get no street cred putting up this street crud.
Fluctuations Show Radioisotope Decay Is Unreliable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzvrkNspcj0
Carbon Dating...100% accurate right?...NOT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmjzE9wHBUU
Carbon Dating Flaws
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVuVYnHRuig
I actually have the original paper that shows the work to date the artifacts at Gobekli. I have to figure out how to get it from PDF to word so I can post it here.