Carbon dating christian point view

The preceding argument may give the impression that the Christianity and science are not or cannot be in conflict (either because they deal with different subjects, or because interpretation adapts to harmonize with science).

It is undeniable, however, that a strictly literal and inflexible reading of the Bible deeply contradicts science, and it is simply not possible to reconcile these opposing points of view. Adam and Eve Scientists, supported by enormous amounts of evidence (including transitions in the fossil record, DNA similarities between species, experimentally induced evolution in laboratories, observed evolution of bacteria, and empirically validated prediction based in theory) argue that all life on earth evolved from microorganisms.

For example, around the year 1600 AD, in response to the scientist Galileo’s support for the heliocentric view of the universe, Cardinal Bellarmine wrote: “I say that, as you know, the Council (of Trent) prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers.

And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe.

This makes radiocarbon dating quite useful, up to a point.

Error factors, plus or minus, involve hundreds of years.

The crucial point here is: if YE theory can be established scientifically, then macroevolutionary theory falls!

Accepted Dating Methods Here we outline some dating methods, both absolute and relative, that are widely accepted and used by the scientific community.

A young earth is considered to be typically just 6,000 years old since this fits the creation account and some dating deductions from Genesis.MANY scientists and theologians have made the argument that Christianity is not at odds with the scientific world view. It is true that many portions of the Bible (for example, the Ten Commandments) do not make empirical claims and hence have no conflict with science, a field which concerns itself solely with those questions that are (at least in principle) of a testable nature.What’s more, in those sections of the Bible that do make empirical claims about the way things were or will be, if one is willing to apply a sufficiently metaphorical interpretation to the text then whenever science and Christianity appear to contradict each other we can simply loosen or relax the religious interpretation until the disagreement disappears.Most people accept the current old-earth (OE) age estimate of around 4.6 billion years.This age is obtained from radiometric dating and is assumed by evolutionists to provide a sufficiently long time-frame for Darwinian evolution.Drori, to gain access to the Qumran parallels to the famous Damascus Document (CD) and the general situation denying access to unpublished Qumran materials to scholars not part of the "International Team or those favored for some reason by it.

393

Leave a Reply