If a great flood happened as the Bible states it did, not to mention nearly every ancient culture having some version of the flood story, carbon dating would not work the way it's stated to.
When science can explain the seashell fossils on Mt. Everest to my satisfaction, I'll accept that it's debunked.
If a great flood happened as the Bible states it did, not to mention nearly every ancient culture having some version of the flood story, carbon dating would not work the way it's stated to.
Why?
Also, we know radio carbon dating works, so that seems to suggest an issue with the person who wrote down the flood myth.
I'm not even going to entertain the idea that a work written down by man is the literal word of god. We wouldn't need the gospels if that were the truth.
The bible is very much a collection written by humans about the word of god. And you are probably reading from an English language bible right? its crazy how much translation can change meaning.
When science can explain the seashell fossils on Mt. Everest
It can. Your satisfaction and acceptance aren't required for it to be the truth.
If you wish to understand how they came to be there, look up plate tectonics and do some research.
Scientists make the assumption the rate of decay has remained constant over time. That assumption is relatively sound and is backed by numerous scientific studies.
Scientists assume cosmic ray bombardment has been constant over Earth's history. If the Great Flood altered the Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratio in the atmosphere, Pre-Flood dates would have to be discarded.
For the same reason, any decline in the Earth's magnetic field over time would have resulted in less protection from cosmic rays as it lowered and means cosmic ray bombardment has not been constant over time.
Atmospheric carbon forms just 0.0005% of the carbon reservoir. 75-80% of the earth's carbon is stored in limestone , 19.66-24.66% in other rocks, 0.31% in oil and gas, and 0.02% in coal.
There are many factors to consider when measuring the radiocarbon content of a given sample, one of which is the radiocarbon content of the plant or animal source when it was alive and its local environment.
This is especially true when comparing samples from terrestrial organisms and those that assimilated radiocarbon from the marine environment. Even if the organisms have the same age, they wouldn’t have the same carbon 14 content and would thus appear to be of different radiocarbon age.
Oceans are large carbon 14 reservoirs. Surfaces of oceans and other bodies of water have two sources of radiocarbon – atmospheric carbon dioxide and the deep ocean. Deep waters in oceans get carbon 14 from mixing with the surface waters as well as from the radioactive decay already occurring at their levels. Studies show that equilibration of carbon dioxide (with carbon 14) in surface water is of the order of 10 years. The degree of equilibration of carbon dioxide in deep water remains unknown.
If even a small percentage of marine organisms were removed by the Great Flood (and their deposits ended up on Mt, Everest and other mountains, merging with existing carbon deposits), this would throw off the ratio, and, again, invalidate the dating of pre-Flood objects and artifacts, as it would cause them to appear to be much older than they actually are.
It can. Your satisfaction and acceptance aren't required for it to be the truth.
If you wish to understand how they came to be there, look up plate tectonics and do some research.
I'm well aware of plate tectonics as well as endogenous retroviruses and every other argument for evolution and the age of the Earth. I rejected religion at an early age and was an agnostic from the age of 13-32 before coming to the conclusion Yashua (AKA Jesus Christ) was the Son of God and died for all of our sins.
Unlike many of my peers, I did a lot of reading on subjects such as these both before and after the advent of the Internet, and before and after accepting what I believe to be the truth of Christianity.
And, yes, you're right. If I didn't have objective reasons for doubting corporate sponsored science, that alone isn't enough reason to reject its findings.
If the Great Flood altered the Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratio in the atmosphere, Pre-Flood dates would have to be discarded.
This is an enormous glaring if.
You are making a god of the gaps argument, I don't buy it.
Do you have any reason to suggest the great flood would affect nuclear decay rates? Or even a proposed mechanism how a flood could affect carbon-14/12 in the atmosphere?
I'm well aware of plate tectonics as well as endogenous retroviruses and every other argument for evolution and the age of the Earth.
Then where does your lack of satisfaction with seashells on everest come from?
Yashua (AKA Jesus Christ) was the Son of God and died for all of our sins.
This doesn't require the earth be 6000 years old.
I think it's rather arrogant to believe that god's plan could have been understood perfectly 2000 years ago by mortals, and somehow survived uncorrupted through multiple translations.
Moreso, the 7 days of creation seem to line up rather well with phases of the big bang.
If a great flood happened as the Bible states it did, not to mention nearly every ancient culture having some version of the flood story, carbon dating would not work the way it's stated to.
When science can explain the seashell fossils on Mt. Everest to my satisfaction, I'll accept that it's debunked.
Why?
Also, we know radio carbon dating works, so that seems to suggest an issue with the person who wrote down the flood myth.
I'm not even going to entertain the idea that a work written down by man is the literal word of god. We wouldn't need the gospels if that were the truth.
The bible is very much a collection written by humans about the word of god. And you are probably reading from an English language bible right? its crazy how much translation can change meaning.
It can. Your satisfaction and acceptance aren't required for it to be the truth.
If you wish to understand how they came to be there, look up plate tectonics and do some research.
Scientists make the assumption the rate of decay has remained constant over time. That assumption is relatively sound and is backed by numerous scientific studies.
Scientists assume cosmic ray bombardment has been constant over Earth's history. If the Great Flood altered the Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 ratio in the atmosphere, Pre-Flood dates would have to be discarded.
For the same reason, any decline in the Earth's magnetic field over time would have resulted in less protection from cosmic rays as it lowered and means cosmic ray bombardment has not been constant over time.
https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle
https://www.radiocarbon.com/marine-reservoir-effect.htm
If even a small percentage of marine organisms were removed by the Great Flood (and their deposits ended up on Mt, Everest and other mountains, merging with existing carbon deposits), this would throw off the ratio, and, again, invalidate the dating of pre-Flood objects and artifacts, as it would cause them to appear to be much older than they actually are.
I'm well aware of plate tectonics as well as endogenous retroviruses and every other argument for evolution and the age of the Earth. I rejected religion at an early age and was an agnostic from the age of 13-32 before coming to the conclusion Yashua (AKA Jesus Christ) was the Son of God and died for all of our sins.
Unlike many of my peers, I did a lot of reading on subjects such as these both before and after the advent of the Internet, and before and after accepting what I believe to be the truth of Christianity.
And, yes, you're right. If I didn't have objective reasons for doubting corporate sponsored science, that alone isn't enough reason to reject its findings.
This is an enormous glaring if.
You are making a god of the gaps argument, I don't buy it.
Do you have any reason to suggest the great flood would affect nuclear decay rates? Or even a proposed mechanism how a flood could affect carbon-14/12 in the atmosphere?
Then where does your lack of satisfaction with seashells on everest come from?
This doesn't require the earth be 6000 years old.
I think it's rather arrogant to believe that god's plan could have been understood perfectly 2000 years ago by mortals, and somehow survived uncorrupted through multiple translations.
Moreso, the 7 days of creation seem to line up rather well with phases of the big bang.