tgamble

The really sad part is that he'd probably agree with you but that wouldn't change his views.:boohoo:

thebeave

Consider the following scenario: The scattered remanants of what appears to be a large ancient wooden vessel are found on a mountain in the Middle East. Scientists perfom a standard carbon 14 radiometric dating on a sample of the wood. It is determined to be in the neighborhood of 4000 to 5000 years old, which puts it in the time frame for the Biblical Great Flood. Now, do you think the fundies are still going to question the accuracy of radiometric carbon dating, as they have in the past when it conflicted with their beliefs? I don't think so. Now that they have found something that doesn't conflict with their belief system, radiometric carbon dating is now going to be seen by them as accurate, and they will try to distance themselves from all the skepticism they had about it in the past.

Similarly, if the Shroud of Turin was dated by carbon 14 methods to be from around 0 to 40 AD, do you think the fundies would still question the accuracy of carbon 14 testing? Not likely. They want it both ways.

Coragyps

I've seen it claimed that 14C dating is perfectly reliable back to the date of the Flud, but that all the "accelerated radioactive decay" involved in those "fountains of the deep" makes it useless from that time on back. I think that's why I really follow this whole debate - it's as good as watching the contortionist at the circus!

Loden

This is my problem with religion in general. People are willing to blindly accept whatever the church tells them, even when strong evidence for something else is staring them in the face. They say, "Oh, I'm a Christian (or a Muslim, or a Jew, or what have you), so I must belive this. They don't stop to consider that there could be an alternative.