posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 06:52 AM
Originally posted by works4dhs
Christians base the 6000 year concept on their understanding of the Bible, as well as what theologians teach.
Many others base the millions of years concept on their understanding of science textbooks and articles, as well as what geologists and
none of us have been around long enough to prove either one.
seriously; just because Dr. Gizmo says this rock is radiotelemetry dated to 6-8 million years old...do we just take his word for it?
ALL this,on both sides, is theoretical. science is based on *observation*, and we have not been around long enough to observe the march of time. how
far back do our written records go? carbon 14 and other dating methods are based on speculation measuing particle decay. how do we know the decay is
constant? I've heard Christians suggest a 'pre-aged' universe. either way, it can't be *proven*.
Well - actually science can prove it's points. That is was makes it science. This is how it works:
Carbon comes in two stable non-radioactive isotopes (meaning that it won't radioactively decay) Carbon-12 and Carbon-13. There are many other Carbon
isotopes, but the one we want to look at is called Carbon-14. Carbon-14 is produced as a reaction to cosmic rays in the Earths atmosphere. This means
that small amounts of Carbon-14 are present in your body whenever you breathe in, or eat. Carbon-14 unlike Carbon-12 or 13 is unstable and slowly
decays into Nitrogen-14 over the course of thousands of years. Now you ask, how is this related to Carbon Dating?
I'll tell you.
Carbon-14 is not naturally present in your body. It only comes in when you breathe or eat. So when you die, you stop intaking Carbon-14. Now when
scientists dig up your remains thousands of years later, they can measure the amount of decay of the Carbon-14, and if you have died within the last
60,000 years they can determine the exact time at which you died.
Now you might believe that this methode is flawed. But when various people all over the world can do the same experiment, reach the same conclusion,
and do this repetiatly, then it atleast reaches my criteria for what I consider proven.
You don't need somebody who is 6.000 years, or 60.000 years old to know that this stuff is true, when the evidence is consistent.