Tuesday, February 19, 2008

More evidence for Noah's Flood and against evolution

I just read an article in the BBC online edition that yet again mentions fossils with soft tissue still intact, yet these scientists blindly believe that these fossils are tens of millions of years old, but somehow the soft tissue did not decay.

A much more natural explanation would be that their dating scheme is totally off, and that many of the fossils were formed around 4000 to 5000 years ago in the global flood that the Bible talks about where there would be high pressure from all that water, quick deposition, and low oxygen, so not much chance for the fossils to decay -- ideal conditions for fossil formation, and exactly the type of flood described in Genesis 8-9. This is also possibly where all the oil in the world came from. You have a massive amount of water washing all the vegetation into low-lying areas and then build up pressure and low oxygen so that it becomes oil, coal or natural gas instead of decaying.

5 comments:

Annie Chen said...

Limitation of techniques:

Although radiometric dating is accurate in principle, the precision is very dependent on the care with which the procedure is performed. The possible confounding effects of initial contamination of parent and daughter isotopes have to be considered, as do the effects of any loss or gain of such isotopes since the sample was created.

Precision is enhanced if measurements are taken on different samples from the same rock body but at different locations. Alternatively, if several different minerals can be dated from the same sample and are assumed to be formed by the same event and were in equilibrium with the reservoir when they formed, they should form an isochron. Finally, correlation between different isotopic dating methods may be required to confirm the age of a sample.

The precision of a dating method depends in part on the half-life of the radioactive isotope involved. For instance, carbon-14 has a half-life of about 6000 years. After an organism has been dead for 60,000 years, so little carbon-14 is left in it that accurate dating becomes impossible. On the other hand, the concentration of carbon-14 falls off so steeply that the age of relatively young remains can be determined precisely to within a few decades. The isotope used in uranium-thorium dating has a longer half-life, but other factors make it more accurate than radiocarbon dating.[citation needed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Joel said...

There are even more limitations than mentioned in the Wiki article. And some of the Wikipedia stated "facts" of radiometric dating are actually just assumptions, not proven foundation facts.

Joel said...

When I took advanced general geology at Columbia University, my professor let us know the assumptions on which radiometric dating techniques were based. Basically, they will run the tests until they get what they think is a result based on their assumptions of how old the rock around the fossil is. But the whole thing is very doubtful because of the assumptions of how much original radioactive isotope there was, as well as the fact that the test come up incorrect so often. The only thing that helps is taking a core sample of trees that are 4000 years old in the mountains in California, and comparing the Carbon 14 ratio of the tree rings for a particular year to the carbon 14 ration of the particular fossil or artifact. But this is only able to help confirm things back 4000 years.

All the extra "correlation between different isotopes" will not help if every single dating method is founded on faulty assumptions, which I think they are.

eric said...

there is a tree that is 4700 years old in California, a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine.

Anonymous said...

Between verse one in Genesis and verse two of Genesis millions of years could have been.

In verse two of Genesis the word "was" is translated "became".

Also in in Genesis one verse 28 the Lord said to Adam "replenish the earth". How can you replenish something unless it was plenished to begin with?

Between verse one and verse two of Genesis something happen? Could it have been the fall of Lucifer?
Isa. 14:12 He was in the garden.

So between verse one of Genesis and verse two of Genesis many things could have existed, dinosaurs for one.