” The bible tells us that God will love you so, so very much, that he will ensure your eternal torment and agonizing pain in Hell if you don’t believe in him, even if you are otherwise a good person. Beware, heathen scientists! God will love you while roasts your flesh for all eternity! ”
Your biblical understanding is either pathetic or you are deliberately distorting the message to make God look bad and people look good.
It’s not God will but God does love us.
That He will ensure that you escapethe wages of sin if you believe in the One He sent to save us.
And He tells us that we are not good. Not good enough for a Holy God, even if we think that we are good in a world of people who obviously are not.
” The bible tells us that God will love you so, so very much, that he will ensure your eternal torment and agonizing pain in Hell if you don’t believe in him, even if you are otherwise a good person. Beware, heathen scientists! God will love you while roasts your flesh for all eternity! ”
Your biblical understanding is either pathetic or you are deliberately distorting the message to make God look bad and people look good.
It’s not God will but God does love us.
That He will ensure that you escapethe wages of sin if you believe in the One He sent to save us.
And He tells us that we are not good. Not good enough for a Holy God, even if we think that we are good in a world of people who obviously are not.

The word “dinosaur” (terrible lizard in Latin) was not coined until 1800s, 200 years after the first English Bible was written. What word would the Bible use for such beasts?? Dragons. Carbon dating is based on circular reasoning, not science proper.

Bahaha, evolution has nothing to do with those things. Evolution may use those things as possible methods, but evolution has nothing to do with the application. It makes more sense for a recent Creation to have a reserved dinosaur skin and tissue of thousands of years, than millions.

Carbon dating does rely on carbon, thus its name. You likely mean that not all radiometric dating is dependent on Carbon. Carbon 14 dating is just one sort of radiometric dating.

What many people do not realize is that Carbon 14 dating is applicable only to things that were once living creatures. Other forms of radiometric dating may not require that, but carbon 14 dating does. it is based on the idea that there has always been the same ratio of Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 in the atmosphere thus all living creatures were taking in that ratio of carbon but, once they died, the took in no more Carbon 14 thus, as the Carbon 14 decays to Carbon 12, the ration in their remains changes thus enabling scientists to extrapolate their age.

Of course, this makes Carbon 14 dating subject to at least two plausible but non-provable assumptions: that the ratio of atmospheric C14 and C12 has always been the same and that the decay of C14 to C12 has always occurred at the same rate. Neither of those assumptions can be tested so it is, at least to some degree, a matter of faith as to whether C14 dating is rellaible.

There will always be a strain between what scientific inquiry can discover and what the Scriptures declare. The reason is philosophical: science is limited to what it can discover by means of the natural senses plus whatever instruments can be invented to convert naturally in-detectible information into detectable information.

But, Scripture, according to its own claims, is privy to the mind of God. Of course, that is a matter of faith for many of its claims are not even possible to affirm or dent via scientific experimentation.

This does not render them falsified, only scientifically unverifiable. As to the age of the earth: Science is limited to applying present processes to the past through a reverse extrapolation. It is a plausible method but it is subject to unprovable presuppositions.

If one were to enter the Garden of Eden on the sixth day of Biblical history and apply present day physics to ascertain the earth’s age, one would have to conclude that the earth was at least 25-30 years old for standing in the garden is a full grown man. If one were to look into the night sky one would see stars and, if limited to the domain of science, would be forced to conclude that the universe was thousands, even million or billions of years old for it would take that long for the star light to reach earth.

But, the universe was six days old. Obviously, God created the universe to look older than it really is by somewhere between 30 years and billions of years.

And I look forward to what scientists say of this foot. It does present them with a difficulty and if they are honest scientists they will be forced to conclude that they have been wrong on some things for the presence of dinosaur soft tissue is simply impossible by present theory. It will be interesting to see which part of the scenario is falsified.

that comment is the dumbest thing I’ve read all day

I think you better revise which articles you take seriously. But maybe this article, along with other tabloid has bestowed deep knowledge that surpasses what scientists have worked their whole lives to achieve. But I’m betting that your pastor and assorted televangelists have told you that science is wrong. That proves it, I agree.

Kim, just because you can’t wrap your mind around the scientific principles at work here, you shouldn’t call other people idiots. We routinely see things in space that don;t exist anymore because it takes light so long to travel these distances, so yes, we can see backwards in time, you’re just too stupid to understand the concept. Have you ever watched a race with a starter’s pistol? You’ll see the smoke a second or two before you hear the sound depending on the distance. This is all very scientific so get someone to explain it to you.

Also I’m pretty sure that foot is of an ostrich or some other large bird.

Carbon dating uses more isotopes than just carbon 14. It’s true that carbon 14 only has a half life of 15 thousands years if I remember correctly off the top of my head. But scientists use other isotopes that have much longer half lives when dating something that’s much older. If carbon dating was the guessing game that people make it out to be, it wouldn’t be a scientifically acceptable method in the scientific community. That’s just not how the scientific method works. You should really do do some research on carbon dating and molecules so that you can truly understand the subject before discrediting it. It’s an easy concept to understand.