Where did the races come from? Evolutiion, Creation or Other.

6days

New member
Jonahdog said:
There does appear to be the remains of a village, evidence of human habitation, artifacts, etc. How old is it? And how would you make that determination?
The village might be about 4,000 years old. That determination is made from God's Word. It would be interesting to know how they determined the site was 14,000 years. C14 dating would be interesting, and that may be how they arrived at their date. I hope they are able to find further artifacts in the area. A graveyard for example would be interesting.*
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
The village might be about 4,000 years old. That determination is made from God's Word. It would be interesting to know how they determined the site was 14,000 years. C14 dating would be interesting, and that may be how they arrived at their date. I hope they are able to find further artifacts in the area. A graveyard for example would be interesting.*

"Might be 4000 years old"? How can we tell?
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
:rotfl:

Learn to read. :up:

Ah, well. Stripe, are you suggesting that we just take your deity's word, as suggested by 6days? Yet he also raised the issue of C14 dating. So I am trying to sort out, if C14 dating was used and determined the date to be about 14K years, how that manages to fit with 4K years. Obviously all C14 dating must be greatly suspect if it does not match with the real world.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Are you suggesting that we just take your deity's word, as suggested by 6days?
:darwinsm:

I was hoping you would stop asking questions that are answered in the posts you quote.

Obviously all C14 dating must be greatly suspect if it does not match with the real world.

Your wording exposes your commitment to your assumptions. How about you phrase things in a manner that respects the scientific method?

:up:

Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
 

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
There are no biological human races. There is more genetic variation within any "race" you might define, than there is between them. There are genetic markers that are typical of different geographical human populations, but you are as likely to be a genetic match with a Tibetan as you are with a person living down the street.

Races are just ways people try to divide us. But they don't have any biological validity.
 

6days

New member
Yet he also raised the issue of C14 dating. So I am trying to sort out, if C14 dating was used and determined the date to be about 14K years, how that manages to fit with 4K years. Obviously all C14 dating must be greatly suspect if it does not match with the real world.

Jonah..... Is C14 dating suspect when it doesn't provide results you like? (Soft tissue dinosaur at 28,000?)
It is consistent with the creation account because unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for...
(Strength / weakness of solar rays, earths magnetic field, global floods etc)

The global flood would have drastically effected the ratio....
-With all vegetation dead...much buried starting to form coal and oil...
The C14 would increase at this time relative to the C12.
Also effecting the ratio at this time would be volcanic activity around the earth emitting lots of CO2 without the normal C14
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
6days: is C14 dating totally worthless? That seems to be what you are saying. Is all radiometric dating totally worthless?
 

6days

New member
Jonahdog said:
6days: is C14 dating totally worthless? That seems to be what you are saying. Is all radiometric dating totally worthless?

The NCSE National Centre for Science Education says "radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods."

So...the question you avoided was...

" Is C14 dating suspect when it doesn't provide results you like? (Soft tissue dinosaur at 28,000?)"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
The NCSE National Centre for Science Education says "radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods."

So...the question you avoided was...

" Is C14 dating suspect when it doesn't provide results you like? (Soft tissue dinosaur at 28,000?)"

My question is whether or not C14 dating is reliable. And then whether all radiometric dating is reliable. Assuming dinosaur soft tissue tested at 28K years, it must not be reliable since the earth is about 6K years old according to your theological needs.
 

6days

New member
My question is whether or not C14 dating is reliable. And then whether all radiometric dating is reliable. Assuming dinosaur soft tissue tested at 28K years, it must not be reliable since the earth is about 6K years old according to your theological needs.
You are still trying to avoid the question I first asked you.
 

Jonahdog

BANNED
Banned
You are still trying to avoid the question I first asked you.

And you are avoiding the basic question. Is all radiometric dating useless, or to use your tactic, is it valuable when it supports a 6K year old universe but then questionable? You raised the original issue when you questioned whether C14 was used to date the 14K year old Canadian village.
 

6days

New member
Jonah..... Stripe might be on to something with his "read" comment to you. I already answered about C14 dating. It is you avoiding the question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Lon

Well-known member
And you are avoiding the basic question. Is all radiometric dating useless, or to use your tactic, is it valuable when it supports a 6K year old universe but then questionable? You raised the original issue when you questioned whether C14 was used to date the 14K year old Canadian village.

Trying to get you to think: Does it make sense that soft tissue is found in anything that is no longer capable (theoretically mind you, by 'science' postulation) of being soft because it is millions of years old?

How dedicated are 'we' (opposing sides) dedicated to a concept, that we can't ask ourselves again whether the science idea is functional. To any degree we are unwilling, we are being ingrained and indoctrinated.

You don't have the same commitment to a theory of science, that one does to their theology simply because the theologian has their belief as a paradigm for living.

The guy looking at science doesn't have a fraction of nearly the same commitment so it is REALLY odd when an obvious conundrum presents itself, that an internet guy looking at science (or a scientist who is only it by trade and still not the same commitment level) doesn't question the obvious disconnect.

"What is actually happening for dinosaur soft tissue (by example) to appear in a fossil that was dated to be millions of years old?" The internet guy and scientist should not be posturing against such questions but seeking to cogently answer them, themselves, ESPECIALLY as he/she is not nearly as attached to the result as a theologian happens to be about his/her theology and what may attempt to assail it.
 
Top