Scientific arguments against carbon dating Free non login sex chat to old women
For the past several decades, the question of the age of the Earth has been a very divisive one among Christians.Many people (known as "Young-Earth Creationists") believe that the only valid interpretation of the Bible indicates that the Earth is 10,000 years old or less, and they also claim to have scientific evidence that supports this view of the Earth.So, we have a “clock” which starts ticking the moment something dies.
The answer, unsurprisingly, is absolutely none at all. Ham showdown simply illustrated why challenging creationism is so frustratingly futile.Even for the first investigation, there was a possibility of using radiocarbon dating to determine the age of the linen from which the shroud was woven.The size of the sample then required, however, was ~500cm, which would clearly have resulted in an unacceptable amount of damage, and it was not until the development in the 1970s of small gas-counters and accelerator-mass-spectrometry techniques (AMS), requiring samples of only a few square centimetres, that radiocarbon dating of the shroud became a real possibility. The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination.Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? He said, This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago.It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss theology, but this author firmly believes that a literal interpretation of Genesis allows for an Old-Earth view that is consistent with mainstream science.