Modern humans have existed for 300,000 years but Abrahamic religions are only 3500 years old

[Maximus Rex]

where were you 290000 years ago to make that claim? you say that quoting the bible isnt valid but quote scientists who developed their theories of deep time in the last 100-200 years?

you insinuate that believers shouldnt be trusted but we are supposed to trust scientists that are only a 100 years removed from comparing you to an ape?

Yea because of the scientific method which doesn't rely on "faith" like religion does

Religion: I say so therefore it is
Science: We carefully studied and have evidence that this is what it is

Anything else?

 

[MMS]

You know what is a fact, humans are 300,000 years ago, when humans expire there are other humans who will continue to experience the passage of time, and the theory of relativity is irrelevant to the concept of the passage of time as people experience it, you throw together this hodge podge of ideas trying to prove a point when you come across not knowing what the hell you are talking about

speak for yourself, you havent proved a single thing youve claimed in this thread

just name calling and "you dont know what you're talking about"s

most students are good at regurgitating what their told, but rarely know what it means to actually defend an idea.

 

[MMS]

Yea because of the scientific method which doesn't rely on "faith" like religion does

Religion: I say so therefore it is
Science: We carefully studied and have evidence that this is what it is

Anything else?

scientific method is just a tool not a belief. Someone can use the method get a result and that result be refuted in a month

treating science as a religion is a sickness not a cure.

 

[Maximus Rex]

scientific method is just a tool not a belief. Someone can use the method get a result and that result be refuted in a month

treating science as a religion is a sickness not a cure.

Yes that's true, which is why it's trustworthy, you can run an experiment, look at the data and verify if it's valid or not

Which is the exact thing I said in the post you are responding to

 

[MMS]

Yes that's true, which is why it's trustworthy, you can run an experiment, look at the data and verify if it's valid or not

Which is the exact thing I said in the post you are responding to

post an experiment proving the validity of carbon 14 dating with data

and it needs to show with measurement error why i should trust it for data claiming 300000 years

 

[Secure Da Bag]

Jebel Irhoud - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where was this 'God' for the vast majority of human history?

Waiting for your peons to catch up

 

[Maximus Rex]

post an experiment proving the validity of carbon 14 dating with data

and it needs to show with measurement error why i should trust it for data claiming 300000 years

Don't need to, it's proven to be accepted by the scientific community, if you feel otherwise post your evidence

 

[MMS]

Don't need to, it's proven to be accepted by the scientific community, if you feel otherwise post your evidence

you arent apart of the scientific community, nor are you capable of searching for an experiment to back up your claims

i'll do you a solid so maybe YOU learn something for once

Question: How does carbon-14 dating work?

Answer: Cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere are constantly converting the isotope nitrogen-14 (N-14) into carbon-14 (C-14 or radiocarbon). Living organisms are constantly incorporating this C-14 into their bodies along with other carbon isotopes. When the organisms die, they stop incorporating new C-14, and the old C-14 starts to decay back into N-14 by emitting beta particles. The older an organism's remains are, the less beta radiation it emits because its C-14 is steadily dwindling at a predictable rate. So, if we measure the rate of beta decay in an organic sample, we can calculate how old the sample is. C-14 decays with a half-life of 5,730 years.

so the assumption is that carbon 14 is being formed in the atmosphere at a constant rate (not fully understood or proven)

and assumes our bodies take it in at a constant rate/same quantity

and the half-life is only 5730 years. So at most, you could say 6000 years which is ironically the age given in the bible.

So once again WHERE is your proof that it can be used for 300000 years?

 

[MMS]

@Maximus Rex from the same source

https://ncse.ngo/answers-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating

Question: A sample that is more than fifty thousand years old shouldn't have any measurable C-14. Coal, oil, and natural gas are supposed to be millions of years old; yet creationists say that some of them contain measurable amounts of C-14, enough to give them C-14 ages in the tens of thousands of years. How do you explain this?

Answer: Very simply. Radiocarbon dating doesn't work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years, because such objects have so little C-14 left that their beta radiation is swamped out by the background radiation of cosmic rays and potassium-40 (K-40) decay. Younger objects can easily be dated, because they still emit plenty of beta radiation, enough to be measured after the background radiation has been subtracted out of the total beta radiation. However, in either case, the background beta radiation has to be compensated for, and, in the older objects, the amount of C-14 they have left is less than the margin of error in measuring background radiation. As Hurley points out:

Without rather special developmental work, it is not generally practicable to measure ages in excess of about twenty thousand years, because the radioactivity of the carbon becomes so slight that it is difficult to get an accurate measurement above background radiation. (p. 108)

Cosmic rays form beta radiation all the time; this is the radiation that turns N-14 to C-14 in the first place. K-40 decay also forms plenty of beta radiation. Stearns, Carroll, and Clark point out that ". . . this isotope [K-40] accounts for a large part of the normal background radiation that can be detected on the earth's surface" (p. 84). This radiation cannot be totally eliminated from the laboratory, so one could probably get a "radiocarbon" date of fifty thousand years from a pure carbon-free piece of tin. However, you now know why this fact doesn't at all invalidate radiocarbon dates of objects younger than twenty thousand years and is certainly no evidence for the notion that coals and oils might be no older than fifty thousand years.

once again if you understood measurements at all you would know why I am attacking the dating method. Its because its only assumed to be true. Not that it actually is

and the further you get from its real use in forensics the worse its accuracy is

I don’t believe Abraham existed. But that’s beside the point.

Let’s just agree Abraham existed for argument sake. For him to get married to Hagar, shows there were people in other parts of the world during Abraham’s time (we can even go all the way back to Biblical Adam & Eve). And I’m pretty sure these other people had their own folklore about creation. So, what makes the Abrahamic religions’ story of creation the only legit one?

In the Bible, people were living for 500yrs like it’s nothing. Doesn’t that tell you something?

there is a great deal of overlap in the beliefs of the babylonians/egyptians so forth. The testimony in genesis is an "ark" of sorts that actually is saving ancient knowledge of the past. If you read genesis as a history book without believing in the power behind it its real meaning will never reveal itself to you.

Link on it being designed for crime detection?

As far as time...

Carbon-14 dating, explained

news.uchicago.edu

Willard Libby - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

it is used in forensics because its the most accurate way of determining the true time of death. Other methods are not as accurate

 

[Scustin Bieburr]

Let’s extend it 400 years….

So humans existed for 300,000+ years but until the last 400 is when they finally became smart enough to use technology? 299,600 years of no tech then all of a sudden a boom? You’d think it would be a slow creep of increasing but no. It’s no tech, then hundred years later we have iPhones.. Something’s not adding up

Environmental conditions forced people to innovate. If hunting(something that is already hard to do) yields less and less results over time, you have to try something else. People whose environment changed were forced to try agriculture. From that agriculture, villages and towns are created. In those villages, there is enough food for everyone and even a surplus. Classes of people then start to develop as the farmers have to decide how to manage their surplus harvests. The ruling class emerges from from the farmer with the most land and surplus. The religious class emerges from the farmer who gives his surplus as tributes to the dead ancestors. Eventually stories of those dead ancestors rise up to the point where they are superhuman. The rest of the village starts believing these stories and eventually that farmer's descendants stop farming the land on their own. Eventually their entire purpose to the community is to repeat those stories about the ancestors who eventually start being called 'gods'.

Eventually, there are farmers who start developing new foods(cheese, bread) and harvesting new types of plant that people can eat (corn, legumes, roots) likely due to poor harvests or droughts. and have more time to spend continuing to experiment since they're making enough food for everyone to eat. Their descendents are so well fed they can spend even more time not tending to the farm and start experimenting after observing nature. Eventually creating 'science'.

The ruling class sees these two things being built and decides what it wants to spend its resources to improve. Eventually science starts demonstrating things like predictable weather patterns and soil composition. Farmers now know that it will rain not because someone did a rain dance, but because of patterns in temperature and cloud movement that have been recorded by those who paid attention and had the time to record those patterns. The ruling class see the immediate benefit of science to expand their land and resources. Eventually you get to where we are today.

 

[RedCloakBlackWraithe]

Stop playing lol. Some of the oldest writings are ancient religious beliefs. Maybe not the abrahamic God, but there's a ton of ancient Egyptian writings about deities and ancient summerian writings about deities.

Literally the old

Sounds like humans are more powerful than God

aight...try something for me.

create a new form of life, not from your balls.

 

[Won Won]

and it needs to show with measurement error why i should trust it for data claiming 300000 years

Carbon dating wouldn't be used for that amount of time. You've already been shown this. Still waiting for that "carbon dating was created for forensics" source

you arent apart of the scientific community, nor are you capable of searching for an experiment to back up your claims

i'll do you a solid so maybe YOU learn something for once



so the assumption is that carbon 14 is being formed in the atmosphere at a constant rate (not fully understood or proven)

and assumes our bodies take it in at a constant rate/same quantity

and the half-life is only 5730 years. So at most, you could say 6000 years which is ironically the age given in the bible.

So once again WHERE is your proof that it can be used for 300000 years?

There is no proof, because carbon dating wouldn't be used

Other radioactive isotopes are also used to date fossils.

The half-life for 14C is approximately 5700 years, therefore the 14C isotope is only useful for dating fossils up to about 50,000 years old. Fossils older than 50,000 years may have an undetectable amount of 14C. For older fossils, an isotope with a longer half-life should be used. For example, the radioactive isotope potassium-40 decays to argon-40 with a half life of 1.3 billion years. Other isotopes commonly used for dating include uranium-238 (half-life of 4.5 billion years) and thorium-232 (half-life 14.1 billion years).

 

[Dave24]

carbon dating was designed for forensics within 100 years but is being used to determine ages of things thousands, to millions, to billions of years old (based on the assumption carbon 14 has a unique source billions of years ago which is also unproven)

while noone was there to verify the claims

furthermore no two dating methods agree with eachother on dates

@MMS putting in work this Sunday morning

@010101

 

[Won Won]

Willard Libby - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

it is used in forensics because its the most accurate way of determining the true time of death. Other methods are not as accurate

"carbon dating was designed for forensics within 100 years"

So no source to that claim?

 

[Sterling Archer]

Let us know when the belief in Santa's elves affects politics and society as a whole

That’s not the concern being displayed when people make these threads. It’s almost never about politics when y’all talk about this shyt.