And I meant in your own words, what dinosaur could Job 40 be talking about? Not copied from a website, your own words.
Dinosaurs may not be as ancient as we think
Sort:
Oct 23, 2019
0
#63
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
And I meant in your own words, what dinosaur could Job 40 be talking about? Not copied from a website, your own words.
You're presuming that a type of dinosaur is being described. I think that's ridiculous & I don't have anything to add.
Oct 23, 2019
0
#64
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
You brought up carbon dating.
No, I did not! I referred to long half-life isotope decay & that does not include the Carbon isotopes.
Carbon dating is of no use in dating non-organic material & then is only of use for samples of less than 40,000 years of age.
The why does everyone talk about it proving evolution?
stephen_33 wrote:
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
And I meant in your own words, what dinosaur could Job 40 be talking about? Not copied from a website, your own words.
You're presuming that a type of dinosaur is being described. I think that's ridiculous & I don't have anything to add.
No and I'm asking what dinosaur could be described by Job 40. I'm not asking you to believe it.
Oct 23, 2019
0
#67
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
The why does everyone talk about it proving evolution?
The question doesn't even make sense! I've never heard anyone suggest that Carbon-dating somehow 'proves' Evolution if that's what you mean?
Where have you come across such nonsense claims?
Everywhere...
Oct 23, 2019
0
#69
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
No and I'm asking what dinosaur could be described by Job 40. I'm not asking you to believe it.
First, I haven't the slightest idea & secondly, I have not the least interest in trying.
Oct 23, 2019
0
#70
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
Everywhere...
Everywhere ...... on creationist websites perhaps? Otherwise, please provide a link.
Ok then... It could describe an apatosaurus or stegosaurus
Oct 23, 2019
0
#72
stephen_33 wrote:
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
Everywhere...
Everywhere ...... on creationist websites perhaps? Otherwise, please provide a link.
Still waiting ........
Oh sorry I didn't see it. I can't give you a link. It has been on nova several times and other non-Christian website. I don't get all my info from creationist recources.
Nov 14, 2019
0
#74
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
You brought up carbon dating.
Why is it that creationists can't understand the difference between carbon-14 dating (one isotope that is only useful for dating specimens up to an absolute maximum of 50,000 years old and mostly useful for substantially younger specimens) and general isotopic dating, using hundreds of different isotopes of dozens of elements, which can be used for independently dating specimens of any age (up to and exceeding the age of the Earth).
Carbon dating is the one most talked about.
Nov 15, 2019
0
#76
We have a monthly astronomy programme on the BBC called The Sky At Night.
This month they spent some time studying Calcium-Aluminum-rich Inclusions (or CAI's). I hadn't heard of these before but they provide an ideal way to date the age of the Solar System.
They arrive on Earth in the form of meteorites & are believed to have remained unchanged since the Solar System formed & therefore provide one means of calculating its age. Those ages consistently come out in the area of 4565(+/-) million years old.
How does anyone know how to calculate the age of them, and how do they know it is accurate?
Nov 15, 2019
0
#78
JayHunterBrickwood wrote:
How does anyone know how to calculate the age of them, and how do they know it is accurate?
Did you read the Wiki article? Isotopes within the meteorite enable scientists to calculate when those isotopic materials were formed.
No I didn't see the link.
Ok, there is no magic used here. Now please, stop dodging my question. answer my question. What dinosaur do you think could be described by Job 40:15-24?
You want to play the answer my question game? O/k, then what's being described is a mythical beast.
Now you answer the question of why we should believe dating techniques such as those based on long half-life isotopic decay, are so much in error? Scientists have spent most of the last century developing & refining such methods & they're regarded as being utterly reliable. Can you find a reputable (non-creationist) scientist that claims they're not?
And those dating techniques along with other ones show that the last dinosaurs died out over 60 million years ago, so there can be no question that they were all extinct long before our species evolved.
You brought up carbon dating.