Does carbon 14 dating disprove the bible
Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world (See Six Days? He said, This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago.
It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.
This means that the direct quote given in is a pure fabrication.
No part of the article goes “one part of the Vollosovitch mammoth…”, it’s all a table.
CT scans are described as high-tech all the time, even by people complaining about them.
Anthony, “Natures Deep Freeze,” Natural History, Sept. 300Now, I haven’t been able to track down the original source for this so can’t say for sure whether the source does make this claim.And what, may I ask, are “major skeletal differences?””So we find two members of the same species that lived at different times and also have different anatomy.But I suppose we’ll go over it anyway, since being irrelevant doesn’t stop it being wrong.“One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old and another part at 44,000.” Troy L.Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862You can find the paper being cited here and I believe it’s not behind a paywall so you should be able to read it just fine.
Search for does carbon 14 dating disprove the bible:
It’s a site that pumps out creationist commentary at such a rate that there’s already enough there to keep me occupied for many moons.