iNFAMOUS Report post Posted April 18, 2020 Carbon dating! If there is anything more obnoxious to hear from an evolutionists, it's this, "But we know how old it is, because we've carbon dated it". If you're being serious with that statement, you're not using science because you're ignoring a major factor to suit the results you want. The measure of carbon in a thing is accurate, yes, but the amount of carbon in a thing is wildly inaccurate! There are so many unknown variables that add carbon to anything! That, is the very obvious truth. Look up what scientists dated the logs that got blown into the lake at Mt. St. Helens to, and we know exactly when that happened. Example after example of the glaring data is just being ignored! The truth is that we do know the half life of various carbon, and we can accurately measure how much an object has, but we have absolutely know way of knowing how much carbon a thing should have, considering all of the possible outside influences that act upon any given objects carbon content. Not even close. "Does Carbon Dating Go Beyond Biblical History?" Spoiler "Ice Rings Are Not Annual Layers - Kent Hovind" Spoiler "Radiometric Dating Debunked In 3 Minutes." Spoiler "Radiohalos: Evidence of Accelerated Radioactive Decay - Dr. Andrew Snelling" Spoiler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
