Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Let's shoot for 8000 then

So if archeologists found a bone that was buried years ago...before the flood, are you saying they can't possible date it to 7000 years no matter how advanced our science is? Mind you, dating isn't just used in archeology but is also used in forensics. You are discounting a science that is used in archeology by anthropologists including biblical anthropologists that dig up biblical sites and date them using chemical analysis

No I'm not saying that. I know that there are things dated older than 8,000 years. My point is that dating isn't completely accurate. It is based on assumption. It is especially prone to error when dating fossils. In archeology if a coin is found or a pot, through other features, possibly even inscirption we can make a more educated date. But when someone finds a snail shell and calls it 60,000 old thats bogus. (Just an example off the top of my head).

I would argue that we cannot even nail down hard dates for many contemporary things (such as NT manuscripts) yet we accept when someone says a spoon is 40,000 years old. Cavemen used it to eat fruity pebbles.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

No I'm not saying that. I know that there are things dated older than 8,000 years. My point is that dating isn't completely accurate. It is based on assumption. It is especially prone to error when dating fossils.

Fossils are NOT dated directly - if they are actual "fossils" - lithified remains. That's why you get some rather wide ranges in the dates ("+ or - so many years"). What is dated are the volcanic layers, if any, that are present above or below the particular fossil find.

The only "assumption" made here is that 1) Atoms exist, and 2) That atomic nuclei decay at the same observed rates in the environment.

You have yet to address your false claim about "assumptions" from last night.

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

In archeology if a coin is found or a pot, through other features, possibly even inscirption we can make a more educated date. But when someone finds a snail shell and calls it 60,000 old thats bogus. (Just an example off the top of my head).

I would argue that we cannot even nail down hard dates for many contemporary things (such as NT manuscripts) yet we accept when someone says a spoon is 40,000 years old. Cavemen used it to eat fruity pebbles.

Your analogy to finding, say a distinctive amphora (pottery) from the Minoan culture and being able to date it with an "educated date" can also be applied to fossils.

Fossil types appear and disappear throughout the geologic column. If someone turned up in a pawn shop with a certain type of trilobite fossil, the guy behind the counter could consult a record of fossils and date that particular fossil to a particular era. This would be analogous to your "educated date" of pottery remains.

Just what NT manuscripts are you puzzling over? One problem here is that it's only been 2,000 years since the New Testament actually occurred. 2,000 years, unfortunately, is often the "+ or -" in radiocarbon dates. It's too recent for a lot of radiometric dating techniques.

Thermoluminescence is available - but just tell someone that you want to "burn" a portion of their 1,400 year old manuscript. Radiocarbon requires the destruction of a sample as well. That's a hard sell. Most people would just tell you that they'd rather wait for more info or new techniques to be invented.