A child mummy is found high in the Andes and the archaeologist says the child lived more than 2, years ago. How do scientists know how old an object or human remains are? What methods do they use and how do these methods work? In this article, we will examine the methods by which scientists use radioactivity to determine the age of objects, most notably carbon dating. Carbon dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50, years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour.
In this article, we will examine the methods by which scientists use radioactivity to determine the age of objects, most notably carbon dating.
Carbon dating is a way of determining the age of certain archeological artifacts of a biological origin up to about 50, years old. It is used in dating things such as bone, cloth, wood and plant fibers that were created in the relatively recent past by human activities. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms.
When the neutron collides, a nitrogen seven protons, seven neutrons atom turns into a carbon atom six protons, eight neutrons and a hydrogen atom one proton, zero neutrons. Carbon is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5, years. For more information on cosmic rays and half-life, as well as the process of radioactive decay, see How Nuclear Radiation Works. Animals and people eat plants and take in carbon as well. The ratio of normal carbon carbon to carbon in the air and in all living things at any given time is nearly constant.
Maybe one in a trillion carbon atoms are carbon Before this can be done, the sample must be treated to remove any contamination and any unwanted constituents. Particularly for older samples, it may be useful to enrich the amount of 14 C in the sample before testing.
This can be done with a thermal diffusion column.
Once contamination has been removed, samples must be converted to a form suitable for the measuring technology to be used. For accelerator mass spectrometrysolid graphite targets are the most common, although gaseous CO 2 can also be used.
The quantity of material needed for testing depends on the sample type and the technology being used. There are two types of testing technology: detectors that record radioactivity, known as beta counters, and accelerator mass spectrometers. For beta counters, a sample weighing at least 10 grams 0.
For decades after Libby performed the first radiocarbon dating experiments, the only way to measure the 14 C in a sample was to detect the radioactive decay of individual carbon atoms. Libby's first detector was a Geiger counter of his own design.
Theme why carbon dating works opinion you
He converted the carbon in his sample to lamp black soot and coated the inner surface of a cylinder with it. This cylinder was inserted into the counter in such a way that the counting wire was inside the sample cylinder, in order that there should be no material between the sample and the wire.
Libby's method was soon superseded by gas proportional counterswhich were less affected by bomb carbon the additional 14 C created by nuclear weapons testing. These counters record bursts of ionization caused by the beta particles emitted by the decaying 14 C atoms; the bursts are proportional to the energy of the particle, so other sources of ionization, such as background radiation, can be identified and ignored. The counters are surrounded by lead or steel shielding, to eliminate background radiation and to reduce the incidence of cosmic rays.
In addition, anticoincidence detectors are used; these record events outside the counter and any event recorded simultaneously both inside and outside the counter is regarded as an extraneous event and ignored. The other common technology used for measuring 14 C activity is liquid scintillation counting, which was invented inbut which had to wait until the early s, when efficient methods of benzene synthesis were developed, to become competitive with gas counting; after liquid counters became the more common technology choice for newly constructed dating laboratories.
The counters work by detecting flashes of light caused by the beta particles emitted by 14 C as they interact with a fluorescing agent added to the benzene. Like gas counters, liquid scintillation counters require shielding and anticoincidence counters. For both the gas proportional counter and liquid scintillation counter, what is measured is the number of beta particles detected in a given time period.
This provides a value for the background radiation, which must be subtracted from the measured activity of the sample being dated to get the activity attributable solely to that sample's 14 C. In addition, a sample with a standard activity is measured, to provide a baseline for comparison. The ions are accelerated and passed through a stripper, which removes several electrons so that the ions emerge with a positive charge.
A particle detector then records the number of ions detected in the 14 C stream, but since the volume of 12 C and 13 Cneeded for calibration is too great for individual ion detection, counts are determined by measuring the electric current created in a Faraday cup.
Any 14 C signal from the machine background blank is likely to be caused either by beams of ions that have not followed the expected path inside the detector or by carbon hydrides such as 12 CH 2 or 13 CH. A 14 C signal from the process blank measures the amount of contamination introduced during the preparation of the sample.
These measurements are used in the subsequent calculation of the age of the sample. The calculations to be performed on the measurements taken depend on the technology used, since beta counters measure the sample's radioactivity whereas AMS determines the ratio of the three different carbon isotopes in the sample.
To determine the age of a sample whose activity has been measured by beta counting, the ratio of its activity to the activity of the standard must be found. To determine this, a blank sample of old, or dead, carbon is measured, and a sample of known activity is measured. The additional samples allow errors such as background radiation and systematic errors in the laboratory setup to be detected and corrected for.
The results from AMS testing are in the form of ratios of 12 C13 Cand 14 Cwhich are used to calculate Fm, the "fraction modern". Both beta counting and AMS results have to be corrected for fractionation. The calculation uses 8, the mean-life derived from Libby's half-life of 5, years, not 8, the mean-life derived from the more accurate modern value of 5, years.
Libby's value for the half-life is used to maintain consistency with early radiocarbon testing results; calibration curves include a correction for this, so the accuracy of final reported calendar ages is assured. The reliability of the results can be improved by lengthening the testing time. Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50, years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14 C to be measurable.
Older dates have been obtained by using special sample preparation techniques, large samples, and very long measurement times. These techniques can allow measurement of dates up to 60, and in some cases up to 75, years before the present.
This was demonstrated in by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The measurements included one with a range from about to about years ago, and another with a range from about to about Errors in procedure can also lead to errors in the results.
The calculations given above produce dates in radiocarbon years: i. To produce a curve that can be used to relate calendar years to radiocarbon years, a sequence of securely dated samples is needed which can be tested to determine their radiocarbon age.
The study of tree rings led to the first such sequence: individual pieces of wood show characteristic sequences of rings that vary in thickness because of environmental factors such as the amount of rainfall in a given year. These factors affect all trees in an area, so examining tree-ring sequences from old wood allows the identification of overlapping sequences. In this way, an uninterrupted sequence of tree rings can be extended far into the past. The first such published sequence, based on bristlecone pine tree rings, was created by Wesley Ferguson.
Suess said he drew the line showing the wiggles by "cosmic schwung ", by which he meant that the variations were caused by extraterrestrial forces. It was unclear for some time whether the wiggles were real or not, but they are now well-established.
A calibration curve is used by taking the radiocarbon date reported by a laboratory and reading across from that date on the vertical axis of the graph. The point where this horizontal line intersects the curve will give the calendar age of the sample on the horizontal axis.
This is the reverse of the way the curve is constructed: a point on the graph is derived from a sample of known age, such as a tree ring; when it is tested, the resulting radiocarbon age gives a data point for the graph. Over the next thirty years many calibration curves were published using a variety of methods and statistical approaches. The improvements to these curves are based on new data gathered from tree rings, varvescoralplant macrofossilsspeleothemsand foraminifera.
The INTCAL13 data includes separate curves for the northern and southern hemispheres, as they differ systematically because of the hemisphere effect. The southern curve SHCAL13 is based on independent data where possible and derived from the northern curve by adding the average offset for the southern hemisphere where no direct data was available.
The sequence can be compared to the calibration curve and the best match to the sequence established. This "wiggle-matching" technique can lead to more precise dating than is possible with individual radiocarbon dates. Bayesian statistical techniques can be applied when there are several radiocarbon dates to be calibrated. For example, if a series of radiocarbon dates is taken from different levels in a stratigraphic sequence, Bayesian analysis can be used to evaluate dates which are outliers and can calculate improved probability distributions, based on the prior information that the sequence should be ordered in time.
Several formats for citing radiocarbon results have been used since the first samples were dated. As ofthe standard format required by the journal Radiocarbon is as follows. Related forms are sometimes used: for example, "10 ka BP" means 10, radiocarbon years before present i. Calibrated dates should also identify any programs, such as OxCal, used to perform the calibration.
A key concept in interpreting radiocarbon dates is archaeological association : what is the true relationship between two or more objects at an archaeological site?
It frequently happens that a sample for radiocarbon dating can be taken directly from the object of interest, but there are also many cases where this is not possible. Metal grave goods, for example, cannot be radiocarbon dated, but they may be found in a grave with a coffin, charcoal, or other material which can be assumed to have been deposited at the same time. In these cases, a date for the coffin or charcoal is indicative of the date of deposition of the grave goods, because of the direct functional relationship between the two.
There are also cases where there is no functional relationship, but the association is reasonably strong: for example, a layer of charcoal in a rubbish pit provides a date which has a relationship to the rubbish pit. Contamination is of particular concern when dating very old material obtained from archaeological excavations and great care is needed in the specimen selection and preparation. InThomas Higham and co-workers suggested that many of the dates published for Neanderthal artefacts are too recent because of contamination by "young carbon".
As a tree grows, only the outermost tree ring exchanges carbon with its environment, so the age measured for a wood sample depends on where the sample is taken from. This means that radiocarbon dates on wood samples can be older than the date at which the tree was felled. In addition, if a piece of wood is used for multiple purposes, there may be a significant delay between the felling of the tree and the final use in the context in which it is found.
Carbon dating, method of age determination that depends upon the decay to nitrogen of radiocarbon (carbon). Carbon is continually formed in nature by the interaction of neutrons with nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere. Learn more about carbon dating in this article. This is how carbon dating works: Carbon is a naturally abundant element found in the atmosphere, in the earth, in the oceans, and in every living creature. C is by far the most common isotope, while only about one in a trillion carbon atoms is C C is produced in the upper atmosphere when nitrogen (N) is altered through the. Nov 27, Radiocarbon dating works by comparing the three different isotopes of carbon. Isotopes of a particular element have the same number of protons in .
Another example is driftwood, which may be used as construction material. It is not always possible to recognize re-use.
Are why carbon dating works delirium understand this
Other materials can present the same problem: for example, bitumen is known to have been used by some Neolithic communities to waterproof baskets; the bitumen's radiocarbon age will be greater than is measurable by the laboratory, regardless of the actual age of the context, so testing the basket material will give a misleading age if care is not taken.
A separate issue, related to re-use, is that of lengthy use, or delayed deposition. For example, a wooden object that remains in use for a lengthy period will have an apparent age greater than the actual age of the context in which it is deposited. Archaeology is not the only field to make use of radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon dates can also be used in geology, sedimentology, and lake studies, for example. The ability to date minute samples using AMS has meant that palaeobotanists and palaeoclimatologists can use radiocarbon dating directly on pollen purified from sediment sequences, or on small quantities of plant material or charcoal.
Dates on organic material recovered from strata of interest can be used to correlate strata in different locations that appear to be similar on geological grounds. Dating material from one location gives date information about the other location, and the dates are also used to place strata in the overall geological timeline. Radiocarbon is also used to date carbon released from ecosystems, particularly to monitor the release of old carbon that was previously stored in soils as a result of human disturbance or climate change.
The Pleistocene is a geological epoch that began about 2. The Holocenethe current geological epoch, begins about 11, years ago when the Pleistocene ends. Although one may disagree, if they are true to Science they must have an open mind that such errors are possible and have been found before in Science. The exponential rate of C decay is very constant, with a tolerance of plus minus 40 years.
The discrepancies you have mentioned can be circumvented by using various calibration methods to create calibration charts to plot out very accurate ages of carbon dating. Science doesn't stay stagnant, Mr Bullshiter. Only the bible does. I actually do realize that you are no longer "banned" so to speak. All the better. I never supported it anyway. I prefer that you be allowed to pander your bullshit, so that I can refute them and irritate the shit out of you, and in the process inflate my own ego, so to speak.
I don't think scientists would just disregard something possible errors with carbon dating just to prove their points However, the above article still seems to raise questions, but I am not qualified to even look into it, haha. Could you please post something in reply to this article and its points in partiular, Beast? So if you admit that Carbon Dating can only be truly effective up to 60, years and the "newest" dinosaurs died out over 1, times longer than that, even with calibration methods how do you expect to get a realistic figure with no point of reference to calibrate from.
What is Radiocarbon Dating? Radiocarbon dating is a method of what is known as "Absolute Dating". Despite the name, it does not give an absolute date of organic material - but an approximate age, usually within a range of a few years either way. The other method is "Relative Dating" which gives an order of events without giving an exact age (1): typically artefact typology or the study. Jul 10, Carbon dating only works for objects that are younger than about 50, years, and most rocks of interest are older than that. Carbon dating is used by archeologists to date trees, plants, and animal remains; as well as human artifacts made from wood and leather; because these items are generally younger than 50, years.
Their are over active volcanoes on Earth and we have no idea what it was like then and with the release of carbon dioxide the plants take in less c and the whole chain effect.
That is like saying we can compare money from now to years ago without any knowledge of inflation or gold standard. I understand there are dozens of ways to date, but again I go back to without a point of reference we are proposing we know the environment and atmospheric differences of millions of years.
Scientific "facts" change almost daily as new things are discovered and these are present findings. Don't you find it kind of arrogant as a community to "guess" about things and propose them as fact. Vince probably has not heard of "potential falsifiability". I have.
I took Bio just like everyone else in college and this quote "Any scientific phenomenon or observation has the possibility of being proven false," is exactly my point. The Theory of Evolution which I do know differs from evolution cannot be proven false nor true therefore making the whole argument a case of he said she said.
No one was there and cannot "prove" anything. I am willing to let people teach The Theory of Evolution if they can open up their view points to realizing they don't know everything and there maybe another plausible yet again not provable beginning. Vince: Science is not about dogma; its about discovering the truth.
There is a bit of science that the writer of this article fails to grasp. Humor me for a moment Nearly every culture has a story about a flood. Let's say there is something to this or that at some time in earth's history the atmosphere was different a canopy of water would have existed over the earth before the flood occurred.
If that is the case less C the carbon dating measurement would penetrate the field. Something prior to this canopy state would have a much smaller concentration of C According to the current carbon dating method something dated prior to this event would appear much older than it really is. It would be like someone trying to judge how long people were outside by their suntan.
Just coming in was a man who was out in the blazing sun for 3 hours. He is burnt badly. A second man was out earlier for 5 hours but there was heavy overcast the shielded the sun from him. He barely has a tan. The man judging says the first man was out longer because his tan is brighter.
The fact is the second was out longer, but because conditions were different his method of judging was wrong. This story sums up a major flaw in the belief that carbon dating is accurate.
Oct 18, Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material - in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more. Jun 17, The reality is that carbon dating works with a high degree of accurate in very limited circumstances, such as when the original ratio of 14C to 12C is known OR when a highly reliable calibration is possible by having a secondary way to validate the age (e.g. dendrochronology). Radiocarbon dating can give us dates with a high degree of accuracy. Carbon dating is something that you hear about in the news all the time. Everything from mastodons to the Shroud of Turin has been dated using this technique! Learn about how carbon dating works and why it is so accurate!
Accept carbon dating works in reverse of the method used in the short story. I think putting so much trust in this kind of science or technique is rather naive. Carbon dating is quite frankly, a crock of shit.
Here's the problems: You don't know when the Carbon became part of the structure you choose to date by measuring it. You don't know how or when the carbon molecule was created, nor do you know whether the rate of decay was constant you assume it instead because you can't measure the conditions in the past. You certainly can't take a time machine and measure it.
The only reason atheists, especially I know, I used to be onefight so hard for this ridiculous method is so you can try and hang on to the little threads of lies in order to prove the already 'disproven' theory of evolution to further the idea that 'God doesn't exist'.
Ironically, it doesn't even take science to figure that out As stated by others, the scientific communtiy assumes that the carbon ratio and the rate of decay in the past is the same as it is today.
It's like the dinosaurs: Scientists assume that they grew so large because they ate a lot, but do they ever consider that carbon and oxygen levels could have been MUCH higher back then?
Carbon dating is heavily flawed, and I see no proof that would lead me to believe that the ratio and amount of carbon present in the present day is the same as it was in the past. Tim - You're funny. You're going to sit here and dispute scientific methodology while at the same time expounding upon "a canopy of water would have existed over the earth"? Even if I assume you meant "a thick cloud layer", you do realize that atmosphere exists above the clouds right?
Planes fly in it, using scientifically proven principles of engineering and aerodynamics. Yes, there are some clouds that exist at higher altitudes, but they don't produce condensation that reaches the earth.
That being said, cloud formations, do not significantly effect the type of radiation that forms 14C, since that formation occurs well inside the upper atmosphere. We have environmental data going back millions of years that tells us exactly how much carbon was in the atmosphere. It comes from multiple different, yet corroborative sources, such as deep ice cores, deep ocean cores, speleothems, and dendrochronology. That's how we got the calibration curves in the first place.
Also, there is no scientific evidence of a "Great Flood".
I guess all the people in the mid-west can thank God, not that their lives were spared, but that their homes and livelihoods were all washed out in the the Mississippi. So, if you're going to refute evidence accumulated by thousands of scientists in all kinds of different disciplines, try to come up with something better than stories. One last thing. Don't try to refute a result by saying "we don't know what the conditions wereyears ago".
Why carbon dating works
You already said that there was no ", years ago". So, either it doesn't exist, or it existed and we don't know. Pick one and stick to it.
Interesting, I really liked this article and tend to agree with your findings. However, I did not agree with the generalizations made about Creationists as uneducated morons. I know some very smart Creationists I would be slow to get in an argument with. I also was a little turned off by the language - not that I'm a prude, it just seemed uthatliz.comofessional and definetely made me think twice about reading the article as an informative text.
Sort of like something a "huckster" would have written. Not very good choice of words to support a theory. Not only that but you do know the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has drastically changed in the past 11, years which affects a great deal of determining the age of a fossil. May I point out a very important fact: Creationism is not science. Evolutionism is also not science.
They are merely a set of assumptions, based on one's own beliefs, on which data is interpreted. For example, a piece of carbon dating data would actually be perfectly valid under both the Biblical-Creationist model as well as the Evolutionary model.
But that data being interpreted by both models would give different dates. Note, same data, i. You're going to sit here and dispute scientific methodology while at the same time expounding upon " a primordial soup "? Modern chemistry repeatedly tells us thatusing scientifically proven principles Yes, the Miller experiment in synthesised amino acidsbut note that he used a cold trap to isolate those amino acids.
Don't try to support a result by saying "we do know what the conditions wereyears ago". You already said that there a possiblity of error in the readings. So, either it has huge potential for error, or that we mere humans have God-like omniscience. However, I do not view that Evolutionists are "moronic beasts. We Creationists should make sure we use accurate data before we launch an attack. There are many examples of both Creationists AND Evolutionists who talk crap because either of them have inaccurate facts on their hands.
For example, Tim, you don't accuse the writer for not being able to grasp science when you don't explain the "water canopy" model to him first. Of course everyone will disagree with you! Nobody except people like me who already agrees with you knows what the heck you're talking about. Ahh so now I'm awaiting for someone to criticise me. I know plenty of experiments that give inaccurate data because the experimenters took great care to eliminate errors caused by external factors: their mistake is that they miss out on some other factors they did not view as important.
Anyone wants to fight with me in the field of musical instrument acoustics? I can give some very good examples in that field.
I hope this comment is objective enough. We should stop accusing everyone else of using deceitful language, being too emotionally not spiritually, mind you, emotionally propelled or just for being plain stupid. Great discussion I have to add that science needs to be blind as to the outcome It seems that the author wants to believe something and tries to prove or disprove the other side with science.
If the author wasn't so vitriolic towards his opposers and was truly impartial, it would give the argument more power. He sounds like the same "narrow-minded" zealots that he is against. I would bet that in the authors mind, there is no way that carbon dating is wrong and that bias instantly disregarding a viable possibility is not scientific at all. In fact the author is using faith to help his point while hiding behind science. Funny how he hates the other side for doing the same thing. At least the other side is open about their faith.
Science does not need persuasion or hate, It stands on it's own.
How Does Radiocarbon Dating Work? - Instant Egghead #28
Unfortunatly for the author, carbon dating does not. Isn't that what you claim that most Christians do? Just believing without understanding? It happens a lot in schools too where people just believe whatever they're taught without actually knowing how things work.
Apologise, why carbon dating works for
We all have to accept the fact that there is so much that we don't know and that science will never explain. For example, the law of conservation of mass states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. If this is true, then where did everything come from? It had to be created by something, even if that wasn't a god. Just saying everyone should keep an open mind. While it is incorrect to say that carbon dating doesn't work, it is equally incorrect to say that it does work.
The reality is that carbon dating works with a high degree of accurate in very limited circumstances, such as when the original ratio of 14C to 12C is known OR when a highly reliable calibration is possible by having a secondary way to validate the age e.
Radiocarbon dating can give us dates with a high degree of accuracy for land-dwelling plants and animals less than years old. Beyond that, the possible date ranges begin to diverge so wildly that other dating methods would be more appropriate. Part 1 Sorry to burst your bubble about carbon dating but its an inaccurate method of dating any artifact or remains. Every single theory of evolution is so far fetched and based on Darwin who himself never claimed it to be a fact but a theory which is really based on no real evidence, especially when we are now finding that carbon dating is not accurate.
Time will always show mistakes, as technology advances.
There is also the misconception that carbon dating can date millions of years when it can only date thousands. Also archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies, external factors like the environment can affect everything, thus speeding up the speed of decay. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the Earth will vary with the suns activity. As we can see today, there has been a huge increase in solar activity. Do we know what the environment was like back in ancient Egypt?
Were the objects whatever they are, always in the same place or were they around a heat source or even a cold place?
Sure, radiocarbon decomposes at a steady rate if the environment surrounding the object is around the same temperature. When someone is murdered, does the body always decay at the same rate if the environment is changed? If its in a hot place and then moved to a freezer or extremely cold place what would happen? Also its a well know fact that the Earths magnetic field has been decreasing, so more C than N is being produced today, than it has in the past.
Maybe the conditions were more extreme and a lot more C was being produced. This shows that carbon dating is far off from being an accurate dating. People used to think that the flood is a fairytale, that 8 people did not get into an ark and that the earth was covered with water but as we now advance in time, the truth comes out more and more.
We have hundreds of accounts of the flood, even the chinese have it with their words being symbols. The Bible has been criticized for years as being a fairytale with no historical value. Back in the days they had a field day disproving the Bible because there were no historical evidence to prove differently.
As time goes on, more and more is being proven. For someone to think that absolutely nothing can create something, that life can come out of nothing is ludicrous. The perfection of our system is so complex, that one piece could collapse the entire system and life as we know it would not exist. Do you believe in alien life? Most scientists do, so the probability of us coming out of nothing is a number thats impossible, so imagine if there was other life forms, where did they come from?
The same nothing as we did or their own nothing. That number would increase with every life form that is introduced into the equation, to a number that would be incalculable. Part 2 There is one last piece that I believe is important and that is the Genesis account of creation. But even if it isnt. What was the time period between the 8th day until Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden? The Bible teaches that we must have faith, so maybe that time period was left out on purpose. No one can prove that the Genesis account is wrong because even if the millions of years is correct in the dating, we can never say that the 8th day until the removal from the Garden is not millions or billions of years.
Adam and Eve could not die in the garden, so any time outside of it is separate from when they were inside. The amount of years they lived outside does not become relevant in determining how long they lived, since death did not exist. Their years were counted outside the Garden. Did time exist in the same way before the fall of man or was it a day for years? All Im saying is that Science has in no way disproved the Genesis account because we can never know those days.
The problem is that carbon dating is so inaccurate and the only reason people are atheist is because of these lies being used by the main stream scientific community. They used to say that Goliath was not a giant, that there were no such things as giants.
Again, as time goes on we see the truth comes out. I have never read in any magazine that they discovered the skeletal remains of humans who measured over 30 feet. For those who never heard of this, youre probably saying I'm crazy or its a lie. Stop allowing the mainstream media and science dictate to you, what is the facts or the truth. Anyone interested in science knows about patterns. Cant you see the pattern that the more time passes, the more we are finding out that the Bible is accurate and that the accounts of the Bible are not fairytales or lies.
Many scientists today are starting to wake up and see that creation by a supreme being is possible and that the evidence is pointing to this fact.
Faith is one of the biggest teachings in the Bible and what a better way to just accept on faith, that to not tell every little detail. When we look at everything, we see that its perfection is not the product of an accident out of nothingness, but in fact a very complex, and very intentional plan by a supreme being. I am not so sure that science is what GOD wanted from us. The Genesis account was about living on the earth in the garden and making it a beautiful place, expanding that very garden to cover the entire earth.
This tells me that the rest of the earth might have been less habitable, that the environment was not a fertile as the garden. We were not supposed to eat from the tree of Knowledge. There are many facts and truths out there about the earth only being thousands of years and that carbon dating is in no way an accurate method. There is an accurate method which I will intentionally leave out, so its up to you to search for it, unless you want to continue to live a lie or let others dictate whats the truth.
Part 3 Look up the giants and see how the mainstream media and science have hid this from you, how it was discovered years ago and if there was any reference made it was very minor.
Conversations! Thanks why carbon dating works something is
This is a huge discovery, literally. Its not about being right or wrong people, its about the truth and lies that are being propagated to deceive and control us all, so that we can never reach our full potential, which GOD is the main part of our existence.