quote:

---

Where did this number range come from?

Counting the lifetimes of the generations from Adam to the modern times gives you about 6000 years. So how do you come up with the 8,000-15,000 number?

---

quote:

---

You know, I'd never thought about it that way before, but New Earth Creationists really have some explaining to do about ancient civilizations that go back earlier than 4004 B.C.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

For the record, archeological dating goes well beyond C-14 dating. If it were just C-14 dating, I wouldn't believe the dates either, because C-14 dating, by itself, is crappy on small time scales. It's good for millions of years, but it sucks for just a couple thousand years.

---

Actually, it's the other way around; carbon dating is only useful for objects going back from a few thousand years to a few tens of thousands of years, because if something's been dead longer than that, the carbon-14 has decayed to the point that accurately measurable quantities are no longer present. Different radioisotope dating methods, like potassium-argon dating, are used for geological time scales.

---

quote:

---

Counting the lifetimes of the generations from Adam to the modern times gives you about 6000 years. So how do you come up with the 8,000-15,000 number?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Major:
Yes, but, not 6,000 years ago more like 8,000-15,000 years ago.

---

You mean you don't believe any of the evidence that the earth is older than that? They found rocks that were billions of years old. It's not arguable. It's cold, hard fact.

---

quote:

---

And please don't give me any of that "to test our faith" stuff. Such poor reasoning causes my eyes to burn out of their sockets.

---

quote:

---

You have a very naive view of what makes a good argument if you want to argue about radiometric dating by saying just saying its arguable and not presenting an argument.

---

quote:

---

Personally, it's insulting that you dismiss this claim out of hand especially when I tend to know a lot about it.

---

quote:

---

Could you please comment on your previous assertion that mutations can create no new genes in light of the documented evidence to the contrary.

---

quote:

---

How do you justify things that are tested and found to be older than the Earth, then? What about fossils?

---

quote:

---

The point with the gene in the bones is that mutations can and do create new properties that can be beneficial or at least are not inherently descructive. In other words, not all mutations are harmful (not directly your claim, but closely related) and the second section shows that new info is indeed added contrary to your claim. Care to comment or would you be willing to refine your stance on genetics?

---

quote:

---

As for the link not working, all I had to do was take off the last parentheses and I got it to work. From there you should be able to use the search engine.

---

quote:

---

As far as old rocks, take any rock found to be in excess of 1 million years as shown by appropriate radiometric dating methods. How do you reconcile the existence of these isotopic ratios consistent with the decay rates and predicted theoretical models?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Major:

quote:

---

How do you justify things that are tested and found to be older than the Earth, then? What about fossils?

---

Yes,I know I still can't figure out how DNA managed to be still there after billions of years.

---

quote:

---

Then again, I may be biased by the total fiasco of attempting to carbon-date the Shroud of Turin. ("It's 1250, give or take a couple thousand years!")

---