Which makes more sense?

For you:








More about artifacts depicting coexistance of humans and dinosaurs:
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

German site with photographs of artifacts:
http://www.earlyworld.de/archaeologie2.htm

 

in the first link...things that fil to impress/convince me...

1) Greek Artifacts- you deny the existance of their Gods, yet you use their depictions of dragons and such as proof co-existence

2) the depictions of "Pteridactyls" flying away from burnned houses, it is more commmon to suggest that those are probobly suposed to be dragons


i also dont see what this :http://www.earlyworld.de/grf_arch/acambaro5.jpg is supposeto show?

 

oh yes, and where did you get the Inca depictions...cause i would like to refer to the text as why they are not forgeries

 

LOLOLOL
~ not when they're solidified into 500,000 year old rock that is excavated from 6 feet down?

 

Dinosaurs have been gone for 65 million years. There have, however, been large flightless birds, such as the ostrich or emu, also extinct ones like the moa which was even bigger.

 

Yeah, so I guess all the testing done on living animals that show they died over 400 years ago is accurate? Sure thing.

And tests done on events that happened 200 years ago with live witnesses have results saying they happened billions of years ago.

Yeah, carbon dating is pin point accurate.

 

Live penguins and the shells of live mollusks were both tested. The tests were saying that the penguins died 8000 years ago and mollusks 23,000 years ago. They also have tested dead seals in a variety of ways with ridiculous results.

We talking about instincts or facts here?

There are tons of dating methods created over the years and all of them have been proven unreliable just as much as others have tried proving them reliable. There are too many unknown variables to make any of them accurate. Among the top variables are starting volumes and rate of decay. Neither will ever be known.

 

You've been misled by creationists.

The half-life of C14 itself is about 5730 years, which is more than 4000 years. That means even at 4000 years age, there is more than half the C14 remaining in the specimen, which is easily detected.

C14 dating can date objects as far back as 30K to 40K years. There's enough C14 remaining in speciments of those ages that it can be detected. The accuracy goes down as one approaches 30K to 40K years.

Scientists have never claimed 4 million years for C14 dating. Who told you that?

The fact that the half life of C14 is of Biblical age is what makes it so frustrating to creationists. They know that fact means it can be used to date lifeforms and objects well beyond Biblical age. The best they can do is to try to discredit the method as much as possible.

.

 

You haven't given any sources of these claims either. It sounds similar to some of the misleading statements creationists have made about dating methods or misunderstandings about how dating works on the part of creationists.

There is a problem with dating certain types of penguins using C14. The reason is that the food they eat comes from underwater sources which may not contain the normal amounts of C14 that is in the food that land creatures consume. C14 is generated in the upper atmosphere and there are special considerations where that C14 does not make it into the food source of certain animals. This means that the animal will appear to date older than it really was when using C14 methods.

Of course, creationists are quick to capitalize off of this type of situation and will try to make it sound as if C14 and all other dating methods are totally useless.

.

 

That isn't true either.

There are ways of knowing the starting values by taking ratios of the decaying elements (non-C14 methods). I can't explain it in a paragraph. I will post an article later that describes how this is done.

There are also ways of knowing what the starting levels of C14 were in the atmosphere thousands of years ago. This is done by examining C14 content in varves, ice core samples, and in rings of trees that live thousands of years (Methusela trees).

The tree rings tell how many years went by during the life of the tree. Samples are taken from each ring and the amount of C14 in them is been measured. This gives a way of making a calibration curve for C14 dating methods. C14 levels were different in the past compared with today's levels by about a factor of two, but once this is known a correction factor is introduced when evaluating the age of specimens. The same approach can be used by looking at layers of ice or carbonates and their C14 content.

It's interesting to note that the C14 data from varves, ice cores, and tree rings agree with one another.

Also, nothing has ever been shown to change the decay rates of the radioactive elements used in dating methods. Variables such as temperature, pressure, and time do not affect the decay rate. That's partly because radioactive decay occurs at the nucleus level which is not affected by environmental conditions.

.

 

I think you are referring to a study of volcanic rock that was done back in the 1980s. The results were misinterpreted by creationists who tried to make it look like the dating method was highly inaccurate when in fact the results supported the correctness of the dating method. This particular misinterpretation appears often on creationist websites.

.

 

That's why it was not formed like a normal arc.

It was more square-like.

 

I believe dragons existed. Satan himself was described as a dragon. Why would they not have been some sort of dinosaur?

 

Yeah Yeah Shaggie.. whatever. There are just as many arguments against as there are for just about any theory there is.

 

If anyone is still interested in the historicity of Jesus, which I thought was supposed to be the topic of this thread, check out:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/historical.html

 

Scientists aren't out there rubbing their hands together maniacally thinking "how can we prove christians wrong today?!?"

They are just learning about the world around them, and reporting what they learn. Christians always seem to think that evolutionsists have some conspiracy against them. They'd be (and are) right on their side though if those same scientists they normally consider inaccurate and deceitful found evidence supporting christian claims...

I appreciate science because it goes where the evidence takes it, as opposed to christianity which already has a predetermined idea, and then searches only for evidence that cooralates (while dismissing evidence that does not).

 

You've really been misled. You shouldn't let a small group of frustrated people make you think that way so easily. All people have to do is educate themselves a little.

It doesn't say much for the morals of certain religious groups when they go on a campaign of spreading mis-information. They should have a better code of ethics than that.

.

 

LOL.. yeah yeah. And all you guys are a bunch of geniuses. Hahahaha!

I'm done with this thread as well. Getting just as old as the other.

 

Guess what? There are Christian scientists too.

 

Sounds a bit like an oxymoron to me

J/K I knew there were christian scientists. Honey, I was raised and educated baptist.

Christian Scientists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Scientists

Famous Christian Scientists
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_chrsci.html




[Ok,ok,ok...I know you really meant scientists that are christian....]