erawdrah wrote:It doesn't. I was just pointing out where I got 45,000 years instead of 60,000 years that you stated. But Libby did prove the world was less than 10,000 years old. He threw the data out because it didn't fit his presupposed idea. See next for that proof.
Then why did you post a Wikipedia article that extended its usefulness to 45,000/60,000 years into the past?
erawdrah wrote:Libby proved the earth was less than 10,000 years old by C14 equilibrium. He called it an error because it didn't fit the idea that the earth was millions of years old. The saturation of C14 in the atmosphere is less than 10,000 years worth. In other words, the earth can't be older than 10,000 years. This would mean the earth has to be less than 10,000 years old. Definitely not old enough for dinosaurs to live 65 million years ago, but that the earth was less than 10,000.
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/sci ... active.htm
But knowing both the half-life of a radioactive isotope and the ratio of radioactive to stable isotope in a fossil enables us to tell the age of the fossil. As I said, Carbon -14 is useful for dating relatively young fossils (up to about 60,000 years old according to your Wikipedia source), not older ones. Radioactive isotopes with longer half lives are used to date older fossils. There are indirect ways to estimate the age of much older fossils. For example, potassium-40, with a half-life of 1.3 billion years, can be used to date volcanic rocks hundreds of millions of years old. A fossil's age can be inferred from the ages of the rock layers above and below the strata in which the fossil is found. By dating rocks and fossils, scientists have established a geologic record of Earth's history. Estimate the age of a fossil found in a sedimentary rock layer between two layers of volcanic rock that are determined to be 530 and 520 million years old. This is essentially how you are going to get your older dates.
erawdrah wrote:I never said it was physical instead of spiritual. If you look you'll see that I quoted scripture for both. What is spiritual death and what is physical death? Is not spiritual death separation from God? God removed them from the garden after they sinned.
So you are admitting it is both physical and spiritual? Also I noticed you didn't included the animal kingdom being affected here as well..
erawdrah wrote:They were separated. Then God says in Gen 3:19 that now they will return to the dust (physical death) I agree that Adam was the care taker of the garden and I don't believe that meant extremely hard work. But after they sinned the ground was cursed by God. How was it cursed you may ask. Genesis 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee Why was the ground cursed? For man's sake, is this to remind man of his fall or is it to keep man busy working?
So you don't think that stewardship (working the land) was busy work before the fall? How so? If God is going to start creating thorns and thistles, then his work of creating plants on day 3 was not finished.. This would be a contradiction of scripture. Also the Hebrew word "adamah" is not most commonly translated "ground," the most common translation is the word "land." More on that here..
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis3.html
erawdrah wrote:I'm saying if I were going to load an ark with animals why would I take a 60' brachiosaurus adult? I would take the small ones, just make sure you have a male and female. How fast did dinosaurs grow? Do you think the brachiosaurus grew to 60' in months, years, centuries? Young creatures would have a better chance of survival and have more off spring.
The Bible tells us that it was the male and "his" female. Genesis 7:2 seems to be saying that the males had mates. This implies that that they were older. But let's say they are small adults. Did you know that a number of animals reach maturity (size) in the matter of a few months? How does this work out if they were left on the ark for 150 days? (about 5 months)
And how are we going to get these large numbers of animals to fit into the ark..? This is a copy and paste from another section..
Quote: "Robert D. Barnes lists the number of living species for each phylum, ranging from the sole member of Placozoa to the 923,000 in Arthropoda (pp. 12, 85-88). Using his figures, we arrive at a total of 1,177,920 species.
In addition, there are many animals that are as yet unknown.
All of those creatures were known at one time, for Adam gave them all names (Genesis 2:19-20), and, since they exist today, they must have been on the ark. But we shall be extremely generous to the YEC creationists and add only 500,000 undiscovered species to our figure of 1,177,920—thus giving a mere 1,677,920 species with which Noah had to contend.
Of course, we can't forget that Genesis 7:2-3 (particularly in the Revised Standard Version) makes it clear that only unclean animals come in single pairs, male and female; the clean animals and birds come in seven pairs, male and female. That means fourteen of each clean animal and each bird. But since figures for the number of clean animals are hard to find, we will have to let creationists off the hook and ignore them. Birds are another story. There are 8,590 species of birds. Since they have already been calculated into our figure of 1,877,920 species or 3,755,840 individual animals on the ark, we need only six more pairs of each species of bird to make it come out to seven pairs. That brings our count up to a grand total of 3,858,920 animals aboard the ark—two of each species, except birds which number fourteen each."
Source:
http://ncseweb.org/cej/4/1/impossible-v ... %20Animals
In fact when you look at a ship such as the Titanic (882 feet long by 92 feet wide), it was nearly twice the size of Noah's ark (450 feet long by 75 feet wide) but only had the capacity of about 3,547 persons. Yet we are told that Noah could fit all the animals into his ark thought out the whole world (around some 3,858,920 animals) including about a years supply of food to feed them. I wonder how on earth this could ever be accomplished...
On top of this you are claiming that dinosaurs were also put on the ark as well which brings up the total even more...Often I hear that it is a problem to feed all these animals, but also what are all these animals going to drink? The global floodwaters would have been infested with salt and other harmful minerals from the ocean bottom.
erawdrah wrote:Why weren't horses, pigs, parrots, or dogs mentioned? That article doesn't mention the dinosaurs in Job.
Please read the article again... He talks about the Leviathan in Job.
erawdrah wrote:Next, it talks about the creation of plants, which are important to humans, since we eat them, and also important to the animals that we rely upon, which also eat them. Then, it talks about the sea creatures and birds, which we also eat. It next talks about the beasts of the field, which we eat and use for labor." When did man start eating animals and not just vegetation? Gen 1:29-30 These creatures were not for us to eat, they weren't even made to cloth us. The first time an animal was killed for clothing was when God killed it to cloth man because man was naked and knew it. Gen 3:21 We didn't eat flesh until after the flood.
Man and animals ultimately live on plants.. So what is the problem with Gen 1:29-30? Without plant life we would all be dead since it is our main food source. Sometimes however, we don't eat plants but kill other animals that do eat plants.. The cow eats the grass and the lion eats the cow... With no grass there is no cow or lion...
erawdrah wrote:I do agree with the articles conclusion as far as it's really unimportant to list all of the creatures made but I strongly disagree with the statement "The purpose of the creation account is to provide an explanation of how God provided for mankind and created him as the one spiritual animal on earth." Spiritual animal? We are made in God's image, he never said anything else was made in his image. Man is not an animal. Some men act like animals and some men want you to think we came from animals. If we evolved from animals then we are nothing more than just animals. Are we animals or more than animals?
Man is a type of animal, in the animal family, but we are far from animals (made in the image of God). We did not evolve from them if that is what you mean..
erawdrah wrote:Please don't take anything I say personally, it's not directed at you. I value your opinion and your thoughts. I hope I didn't get too mean in my replies. Thanks for your time.
I haven't.. Have you? To be honest nothing you supplied here hasn't been already addressed here on this forum. It's nothing new..
. The bigger point of radiometric carbon dating is equilibrium. According to Libby, C14 would reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in 30,000 years. The rate at which C14 was made would equal the rate at which it decays. He found that the rate of C14 creation was 20% higher than the decay. His findings were 78% less C14 than what he should've found. This showed a earth model that was less than 10,000 years. 