- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Archaeologist Carbon-Date Camel Bones, Discover Major Discrepancy In Bible Story
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:04 am to JOJO Hammer
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:04 am to JOJO Hammer
quote:
carbon-dating
sounds like sorcery
1
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:04 am to JOJO Hammer
This is just poor science. First of all, a lack of evidence that something exists does not preclude the possibility that it does. The gorillas of africa were thought to be a myth by european traders and colonists for 200 years until they were discovered by missionaries and soldiers.
Plus, the obvious, the hebrew torah never says camel.
Plus, the obvious, the hebrew torah never says camel.
This post was edited on 2/7/14 at 9:05 am
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:06 am to OMLandshark
quote:
I have a really hard time believing that at least someone did not bring a camel into Israel before the Muslims arrived.
true dat
camel jockeys love them some camels
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:06 am to The First Cut
quote:
But, he'll be pissed if we don't capitalize God?
I'm just guessing here. Why do you capitalize God every time? Punctuation must be somewhat important, and for some reason.
And I'm not the one who even brought it up. Vetteguy assumed if you don't capitalize the word, then you are a nonbeliever making sure everyone knows it.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:08 am to kingbob
quote:
Plus, the obvious, the hebrew torah never says camel.
It's made dumber by the fact that Abraham was from Ur, not Israel. Abraham could have easily brought them there and they could have died eventually died out.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:11 am to OMLandshark
they took er jobs
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:12 am to Topwater Trout
quote:
carbon-dating
quote:
sounds like sorcery
It's not as cut and dry as many think. Lava rock from the Mt. Saint Helen eruption back in the 80's has been carbon dated to be like 2 million years old.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:12 am to GRTiger
quote:
Why do you capitalize God every time?
Don't confuse love and respect with fear.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:14 am to JakeTheDog
quote:
Lava rock from the Mt. Saint Helen eruption back in the 80's has been carbon dated to be like 2 million years old.
Link?
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:18 am to The First Cut
So I don't love and respect him if I don't capitalize his name?
This brings grammar nazi to a whole other level.
This brings grammar nazi to a whole other level.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:20 am to GRTiger
Not at all.
It's just something I've noticed that people do. It's usually done by people who are arguing against religion.
It's fine to have an alternate viewpoint, but try not to look petty in your argument.
It's just something I've noticed that people do. It's usually done by people who are arguing against religion.
It's fine to have an alternate viewpoint, but try not to look petty in your argument.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:23 am to VetteGuy
I think this entire argument is quite petty, to be honest. Your perception of my pettiness is rooted in the very idea we are discussing.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:24 am to Wayne Campbell
quote:
If people didn't run around claiming everything in it to be true, other people wouldn't run around trying to disprove it.
I was born into a not-so-religious Baptist family and claim to be a Christian, but not a very devout one.
I have lived my entire life around other Christians such as myself - I have never known anyone who thinks the Bible is literally correct in every detail. Everyone I know think it is an allegorical document, relating history in the sense that a timeline is involved.
It seems silly to me that so many people on here seem to get their validation from 'disproving' details in the Bible. Pretty sad commentary on their lives.
I am amazed at the overall historical accuracy of the Bible. One can 'see' a pretty good description of the 'big bang' and the evolution of the specie in the first chapter of Genesis - if one wants to.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:29 am to GRTiger
I don't have any perception of you one way or another. 
If we were actually discussing a difficult topic like religion like two mature adults and you continually failed to capitalize God, I would assume you were making a point about your lack of belief.
I just think it is a silly way to make a point.
If we were actually discussing a difficult topic like religion like two mature adults and you continually failed to capitalize God, I would assume you were making a point about your lack of belief.
I just think it is a silly way to make a point.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:30 am to Rickety Cricket
quote:
It would all work out great if you'd just let me talk to you about Jesus.
Let the man speak!
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:31 am to Wtodd
this just confirms that the world is no more than 6,000 years old
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:33 am to GRTiger
You make absolutely no sense.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:35 am to VetteGuy
quote:
don't have any perception of you one way or another
Uh, you literally just said I seemed petty in my argument. That's a perception, my man.
And it is a silly way to make a point, but you'd probably be surprised how often you assumed that's what was happening when it was simply done out of convenience.
I believe in God and I probably only adhere to the practice of grammatical reverence half the time, and many times it's due to my phone changing it. It's something that doesn't cross my mind much.
And you probably thought I was some heathen using lowercase letters to offend you.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 9:50 am to GRTiger
OK, I'm lost.
The only time you wrote God, you capitalized it. I really wasn't arguing the point with you, I was merely explaining my reasons behind my statements. That's what I meant when I said I didn't have any perception of you (your stance on the larger issue).
It is just a thing I've noticed on this board, that's all.
The only time you wrote God, you capitalized it. I really wasn't arguing the point with you, I was merely explaining my reasons behind my statements. That's what I meant when I said I didn't have any perception of you (your stance on the larger issue).
It is just a thing I've noticed on this board, that's all.
Posted on 2/7/14 at 10:04 am to TheIndulger
quote:
Lava rock from the Mt. Saint Helen eruption back in the 80's has been carbon dated to be like 2 million years old.
quote:
Link?
Here you go.
LINK
What it says...
quote:
The conventional K-Ar dating method was applied to the 1986 dacite flow from the new lava dome at Mount St Helens, Washington. Porphyritic dacite which solidified on the surface of the lava dome in 1986 gives a whole rock K-Ar ‘age’ of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years (Ma). Mineral concentrates from the dacite which formed in 1986 give K-Ar ‘ages’ from 0.34 ± 0.06 Ma (feldspar-glass concentrate) to 2.8 ± 0.6 Ma (pyroxene concentrate). These ‘ages’ are, of course, preposterous. The fundamental dating assumption (‘no radiogenic argon was present when the rock formed’) is questioned by these data. Instead, data from this Mount St Helens dacite argue that significant ‘excess argon’ was present when the lava solidified in 1986. Phenocrysts of orthopyroxene, hornblende and plagioclase are interpreted to have occluded argon within their mineral structures deep in the magma chamber and to have retained this argon after emplacement and solidification of the dacite. The amount of argon occluded is probably a function of the argon pressure when mineral crystallization occurred at depth and/or the tightness of the mineral structure. Orthopyroxene retains the most argon, followed by hornblende, and finally, plagioclase. The lava dome at Mount St Helens dates very much older than its true age because phenocryst minerals inherit argon from the magma. The study of this Mount St Helens dacite causes the more fundamental question to be asked—how accurate are K-Ar ‘ages’ from the many other phenocryst-containing lava flows worldwide?
The problem with the subject of carbon dating is it's so politicized on both sides (creationism vs. Evolutionists)is it's virtually impossible to find anything on this subject which is not heavily slanted one way or the other. But despite all the twisting and turning of the facts on both sides, the fact still remains that carbon dating did indeed incorrectly give an age of millions of years to rocks from Mt. St. Helens that were actually only a few years old.
Does that prove the earth is only 6,000 years old? Nope. All it proves is many settled scientific facts are not near as settled as many people think they are.
(BTW, here is another link from the other persptive)
LINK
They do not dispute the fact that carbon dating missed the age of these rocks by thousands or millions of years. Instead they dispute what this means.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News