The Trinity |
Debate Rules
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
- Topics are not to bash others.
- Immature behaviors/comments will not be tolerated.
- Please remember, not everyone thinks like you. People have different ways of thinking and different perspectives. Let's respect each other's thoughts and responses.
- PLEASE, search before making new topics--especially popular topics like "God" and "Abortion" etc.
- PLEASE, read through the thread or at least a couple pages before posting. We have to maintain a certain level of maturity in here.
  |
 Mar 23 2007, 05:55 PM
Post
#101
|
|
 Jake - The Unholy Trinity / Premiscuous Poeteer.  Group: Member Posts: 1,272 Joined: May 2006 Member No: 411,316  |
QUOTE(Heath21 @ Mar 23 2007, 5:03 PM)  It's not innaccurate but accurate. It explains what carbon dating is and why they believe it's not accurate. Actually read it before you assume. How can you say something is innaccurate when you haven't even read it?  Well, I've read about carbon 14 dating before. The tests aren't always accurate. Sometimes when scientists don't get the results they want, they throw them out. I did read the article, and it did explain it a little more than I've read about, but I don't trust it in the first place anyway. The article was good though, thanks for sharing. 
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2007, 08:21 PM
Post
#102
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 728 Joined: Jan 2007 Member No: 495,803 |
QUOTE(JakeKKing @ Mar 23 2007, 3:55 PM) Well, I've read about carbon 14 dating before. The tests aren't always accurate. Sometimes when scientists don't get the results they want, they throw them out. I did read the article, and it did explain it a little more than I've read about, but I don't trust it in the first place anyway. The article was good though, thanks for sharing. Oh okay, I thought you were saying you didn't trust the article lol...yeah I've been trying to read it to my boyfriend but he keeps falling asleep lol He thinks the testing is accurate.
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 23 2007, 08:45 PM
Post
#103
|
|
 Kimberly Group: Member Posts: 1,961 Joined: Apr 2005 Member No: 121,599 |
^ I just skimmed through it, but how is that any more likely to be accurate than what most secular scientists currently think?
|
|
|
|
|
Mar 24 2007, 05:04 PM
Post
#104
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Member Posts: 728 Joined: Jan 2007 Member No: 495,803 |
QUOTE(kimmytree @ Mar 23 2007, 6:45 PM) ^ I just skimmed through it, but how is that any more likely to be accurate than what most secular scientists currently think? Because this guy has studied on it and it isn't accurate and the scientists who claim it is accurate believe in Evolution and want to try to prove the theory, they are just adding years to it too. For an example, my friend recently told me when they did a testing with carbon dating on the Shroud of Turin it came out to say it's 5,000 years old but doing the studies they knew it came from Jesus so it would actually have to be 2,000 not 5,000. As for the stuff they claim that is like millions or billions of years old is false because it says the carbon dating doesn't date that long ago, but only thousands of years not millions. |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: