Is carbon dating accurate? why?

Nicole replied: "it is probably the most accurate thing we have right now and it is very effective but the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years"

|2E|) replied: "possibly.. it has already reached many help.."

Dana replied: "When you find something more accurate – ask this question again."

In carbon dating, how can we get away with making the assumption of initial quantity? In order for carbon dating to work with any degree of success, we need to compare quantity now with quantity then in order to compute the time elapsed.

It seems to me that we make two assumption. One, that decay cannot be and is not slowed or sped up by any outside variables. Two, that there was a certain amount of carbon in the biological to begin with.

I think both of these assumptions are faulty. The science behind a nuclear power plant proves that nuclear poisons slow reaction and concentration and density speed up decay.

And we never truly know how much carbon was in the biological to begin with. Do we? Life evolves and its chemical needs change with time, for one. Two, we never know the concentration of C-14 in the air, water, land, etc, at the time… all of which affect life and its intake.

How and when is C-14 made in the first place? Since all matter in this solar system was created from a neighboring nova? Hasnt C-14 been decaying ever since then?

There is much about carbon dating that I dont get. (That is not an invitation to sent me a wiki link or an overly technical resource no layman would understand anyway – a simply worded but thorough answer would suffice)
Deadfish has been blocked and reported
"Unsolicited insults against me for asking a question. Mocking the fact that I asked a question instead of just answering it. If I didnt need to ask it I wouldnt have in the first place, what is the point of posting a question if youre going to get insulted for having to ask? This person is an anti-religious bigot who turned an innocent question about science into a religious issue; this person is abusing me and the forum and using my post as a platform to criticize religion, which is completely off-topic. Further, this person never actually appreciated the question for what it was asking in the first place."

Open questions: If C14 is generated on Earth then Earth’s chemical content affects its production, since we know that the atmosphere has changed over time how then can we be sure of the C14 concentration?

When was the last time we travelled through time to verify a C14 dating estimate?
Assumption is assumption, no matter how arrogant you are, no matter how blindly over confident you are in your science, no matter how bigoted you are against religion, and no matter how offended you might be by the implications of a question.
Deadfish, your stupid answer still makes the assumption that we know exactly how much C14 is in a biological to begin with. FALLACY.
Now, does anyone want to provide an INTELLIGENT answer without a bigoted agenda?

The last sentence of the main body of my details section, the parenthesized portion… that was sort of my way of asking you people not to be stupid douche bags. I didnt think I actually had say it explicitly.

deadfishfactory replied: "The amount of ignorance in what you think you know about carbon dating is laughable. It’s as if you copypasta’d from a creationist site. Can I assume Answers in Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research?

The decay rate is essentially constant over the lifetime of the universe. This has been repeatedly confirmed by multiple radiometric dating techniques. Yes, nuclear interference can change it slightly, but that’s assuming that materials that release high energy particles (uranium, etc.) are all over the Earth in high enough quantities to do this (which it isn’t). People who use radiometric dating techniques know this.

The amount of C-14 in the air is essentially constant, C-14 is always in the air at around 1 parts per trillion, and is calibrated by means of a calibration curve. Life does exchange carbon with the atmosphere, but once the organism dies, it stops this. At the time of death, the clock begins (that is, the date tells us when the organism died).

C-14 is always made because cosmic rays are constantly bombarding the Earth. C-14 decays, but new C-14 is made. However, since the organism has died, it no longer exchanges carbon with the atmosphere, and therefore, does not receive new additions of C-14. This is why the clock starts at the time of death.

If you don’t understand carbon dating, why are you making all these baseless claims against it?"

Yeng replied: "Wait, so that deadfish guy refuted your statements, and you block him from your thing so that he cannot refute you anymore?

I see that you added additional details to your thing. How is that deadfish guy going to refute you again if you blocked him?

You really are stupid."

hellothere replied: "deadfish is right that you got all your information from Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research. I went to their sites and they’re saying the exact same that that you are. In fact, I did some research and found that there is an entire list to debunking this stuff. You can find it at:

And it’s funny, because you claim disrespect, but you turn around and say that deadfish is stupid. I like the hypocrisy among creatards.

You’re a very stupid man."

Jeff replied: "i like how you openly admit that you don’t much about carbon dating. then you decide to post a piss-poor argument on the internet using creationist rubbish.

you can the refuted creationist BS at:

i bet you were sitting there thinking that you wouldn’t get a response to your bad argument, so you wanked in victory. then someone posted a full rebuttal, so you went into full nerd rage and decided to block everyone who owns your pasty ass in an argument.

deadfish did not insult you in any way. calling you ignorant does not mean that you’re stupid. it just means that you do not know what the subject matter is (which you openly admitted to). he also laughed at your patheticness because he’s right that you just used bits and pieces from AIG and ICR.

i know you’re going to block me. so i just want to say this: deadfish owned you, and you’re a stupid ass."

Ronny replied: "ahaha ahahaahaha

look everyone a stupid creationist who thinks that he has a case with his out of date creationist crap. seriously what your saying is like decades old. you may think that being a top contributor in mathematics gives you authoritative power in other areas of science, but it doesnt. people already provided the link to the creation destroyer site that i was going to post, but wow. how stupid are creationststs?

YOU should be reported for spreading ignorance around you dimwit creationist. seriously."

Who thinks the Theory of Evolution is false because Carbon14 radiometric dating is flawed? If you do, please read more about radiometric dating here

Carbon 14 is only good for 6000 years. Other isotopes are used to date dinosaur fossils through geologic testing. Still other isotopes are used to date the Earth itself. There seems to be a lot of misinformation spreading about this as an attack on the TOE.
For misinformation, see SisterZeal’s answer.;_ylv=3?qid=20071020120225AAa1ddN
longhorn, Wikipedia cites sources for anthing it says. If you actually disagree, you can try to prove it. However, what I am explaining, that carbon14 is not used to prove the things that theists are so scared of, is not really refutable.

Silver replied: "the three key underlying assumptions are: 1] that the rate of decay of parent into daughter has remained constant throughout the unobservable past; 2] that the specimen which we are examining hasn’t been contaminated in any way [that is, no parent or daughter has been added or taken away at any point during the unobservable past], and 3] that we can determine how much parent and daughter were present at the beginning of the decay process – not all of the pb206 present today necessarily came from decaying u238; pb206 may have been part of the original constitution of the specimen. if any of these assumptions are wrong, the method can not accurately determine the age of a specimen

The point is that radiometric dating is not the sure thing that it has been made out to be over the last century. There still remains a lot of research to do but as it currently stands, the accuracy of radiometric dating remains ambiguously suspect at best."

longhorn26 replied: "please don’t try to use wikipedia as your sources. it really isn’t valid at all. haven’t teachers/professors told you anything?

also carbon dating isn’t used for anything passed 50,000 years old; geological location and other factors are taken into account then"

SuperAtheist replied: "Beautifully put, curious_

Ain’t they awful? I wonder if these neophyte creationists would still ask these questions if they knew how abysmally stoopid they are – and how comprehensively they have been demolished as arguments.


corrosionfactor replied: "What, no misrepresenting the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?

I’m weeping."

secretsauce replied: "A lot of points to cover here.

1. Carbon-14 has a *half-life* of about 6,000 years. But that doesn’t mean it’s "only good" for 6,000 years, only that half of it decays by that time. Carbon-14 dating is good for about ten half-lives (about 60,000 years) until there is so little carbon-14 left that it is difficult to measure.

2. Carbon-14 is also limited to *once-living tissue* (hair, bone, wood, leather, paper, cloth). It is not good for non-living tissue (like fossils and rock).

3. You are absolutely correct that other isotopes are used for fossils (of which dinosaurs are just a small percentage) into the millions of years, and rocks into the billions of years old.

4. Negative comments about wikipedia are a sign of the truly desperate. Wikipedia is no more, and no less accurate than *any* encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are intended to be *overviews* of the current state of knowledge (in this case, scientific knowledge). As such, encyclopedias are *secondary* sources … everything there is based on other sources, which you can (and should) check yourself, and even dispute if you want. For the most part, wikipedia is *outstandingly* accurate … as far as accurately representing the current scientific consensus on a particular topic.

If someone disagrees, then I challenge you to find a *single* specific fact on the radiocarbon page that is inaccurate w.r.t. the scientific consensus. Don’t just trash wikipedia … if you disagree with a fact, then *put up or shut up*.

In other words, it’s not wikipedia that people have a problem with … it’s the scientific consensus they disagree with.

5. Since this is the Religion and Sprituality section, here’s an excellent resource:
"Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective"
The author, Roger Wiens, is both a Christian, and has a PhD in Physics (his thesis was in radio-isotope dating of meteorites), and has been employed at both Cal Tech and at Los Alamos (so he is probably not a dummie)."

How can we be sure of the age of extremely old fossils? Radiocarbon dating is only accurate to 60,000 years? I asked in this question how scientists knew that Amoebas evolved 2 billion years after the earliest life forms:

Alot of the answers said it was from fossil evidence…

But I have to ask how are these fossils dated? Is it Carbon-14 dating? Because we’re talking about fossils supposedly billions of years old… how do we know this?

Geezah replied: "This is a science question, not a religion question. But I’ll play along.

There is not one and only one method of dating. There are several different kinds, and some work better than others depending on what kinds of things you’re dating.

Read this:

And no, biologists don’t "make this up". Scientists have their reputations at stake, and nobody is going to "make up" up data, especially when there would be other scientists more than happy to verify the data and publish better work."

icarus62 replied: "They’re not dated by carbon, but by elements which have a much longer half life – on the order of billions of years, rather than thousands. We know that radiometric dating is accurate because there are multiple independent methods of radiometric dating which all agree with each other, and all agree with other entirely different (non-radiometric) methods of dating."

drew041779 replied: "There are many radioactive isotopes. Uranium-238 has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. Uranium-Lead dating is good for dating really old stuff."

Dreamstuff Entity replied: "Posting a science question in the religion and spirituality section often means the asker does not really want an answer. His goal is to ask a question that he believes proves some scientific knowledge to be wrong, or that science does not yet answer, and make the implicit claim that the only other explanation is a god, and specifically, the same god he happens to believe in.

It’s the "god of the gaps" – intellectually bankrupt, since it favors ignorance instead of knowledge, and because of the contained logical fallacy.

However, on the off chance that you really want to know the answer:

It seems you’ve confused radiometric dating and carbon dating (which is radiometric dating with a specific element.

Carbon is not the only element with radioactive isotopes."

kyralan replied: "I have fossils from the shores of Lake Erie that are roughly 400 million years old. I know this because I did the research, which tells me they’re rugose & tabulate chorals from the late Devonian era, among the first life forms on earth, long before the dinosaurs or even land-based plant life. No carbon dating necessary.
Depth beneath earth’s surface also indicates age."

MVD34 replied: "Radiocarbon dating is not the method used to date things older than 60,000 years."

steel6in2k replied: "There are more than just the one dating method. We would date the rock the the fossil is found in rather than try to date the organic matter in something that old."

Parallax replied: "Still fighting the facts I see. Why not just spend more time in the "Creation Museum", and learn how Noah kept all the dinosaurs on the "Ark", and how T-Rex was a PLANT EATER!!!! That’s the place for you."

swbarnes2 replied: "Well, we are never sure. We just have the best conclusion we can draw from the evidence.

There are other forms of dating that work well beyond the age at which C-14 dating no longer works.

Below is a really good article about radiometeric dating.

I think that some of the evidence about fossil evolution comes from molecular clock data: that is, we use fossils and DNA to tell us how long it takes to accumulate a certain number of DNA changes, and then we figure out how many relavent changes there are between amoebas and other organisms, and we extrapolate how long ago the last common ancestor was."

elaine30705 replied: "They do not know anything,only God know,s how old anything is he created it."

meissen97 replied: "It’s radiometric dating. There are about 40 different ways. There are also other ways of dating that don’t involve radioactivity."

againstwindandtide replied: "dont know and dont care, but i will trust any scientific telling me the fossil is 1 million years than one priest telling me it is 2 weeks old…
I have faith in science and no in religion, i think with religion is too evident they are after my money"

hunterkyrie replied: "Carbon-14 is exactly how we date fossils. Though I’m sure in most cases, if carbon dating doesn’t go back more then 60,000 years, they might compare fossils of that time to other’s and estimate on how they are."

Creationists! dont look up wiki or any similar sources on this one: (read details)? what other dating methods(except carbon dating) do you, or dr dino knows?
know of… or understand
radioactive halo dating?
you dont know it because your spelling is wrong.
so, sonce you are the only creationist who know something different, how old is your oldest radiologic date? since i didnt study dating stuff myself, what’s the theoretically oldest date that radiologic dating can determine/approximate?
i apologize i was referring to the wrong spelling of patina. are you a creationist btw?
not you… but "my son the creationist"

i spell the plural of halo as "halos"

Pangel replied: "the singles section in the classified ads"

Laci replied: "hehehe…."

sunestauromai replied: "…I was a PAID research assistant on a university project studying radioactive halos, (or as the Brits usually spell it haloes.) How’s that? Have you ever studied radiologic dating?

The primary early researcher was James Joly, his reports are presented in the Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences around 1900 (1890′s – 1911). He used the "haloes" spelling. Others, mostly Americans researched them with articles published in the 1930-40′s and typically used the "halos" spelling. They came to light again in the 70′s when a creationist nut case (Gentry I think was the name) claimed that an element with atomic number around 160 was responsible for some previously unexplained halos.

I was scouting around and found OK… message received.
I AM a "creationist" but feel, along with several other scientists and Biblical scholars, that interpretation of the Genesis creation story to claim a 6,000 year old earth is a mistreatment of the text, that is, it is twisting the scriptures to say something outside their scope or intent…"

My son the Creation Scientist replied: "there is patena dating for archaeology. that proved that the artwork of dinosaurs was really thousands of years old."

dog sneeze replied: "I beg your pardon. The most Victorian of us call it "courtship," not dating. This method employs the participation of both sets of parents in overseeing the development of the relationship."

I heard that some Christians believe the earth is only 10,000 years old!? Is this true?

Some one said to me in my last question that we can’t prove the earth is billions of years old?!

We have hundreds of reliable methods for dating the Earth.
They have all been tested blindly on samples of known age, but more importantly, THEY ALL AGREE WITH EACHOTHER.

I’m not just talking about carbon dating, ya know!
There are loads of methods,

Potassium Argon dating
Dendrochronology (counting tree rings)
Thermoluminescence(used on pottery)
Ice cores
Sediment layers (Varves)
Argon-Argon dating
Rubidium-Strontium dating
Samarium-Neodymium dating
Lutetium-Hafnium dating
Rhenium-Osmium dating

Just to name a few!

All of the above have been riggorously and impartially peer tested and published in scientific journals,

They have all passed blind tests against know samples!
I could understand if one of them was wrong,
I could understand if all them were wrong,
But if they were all wrong, they would produce random results-
They wouldn’t all agree with eachother!

How can people deny this?!

Jesus Fish: Saying "it’s been proven" isn’t enough- Please state what proof your are referring to, and give a reliable source (not a creationist website!)
"The same applies to dendrochronology – that method of dating can take us back no further than the earliest trees"
-Wrong, dendrochology finds trees of different ages in the same sedimentary layers allowing dating to go back way further than the age of one tree using a chain.

"you have to believe in the scientists who feed you this information"
-Do you understand the process of peer review?
After the paper has been submitted, it gets rigorously tested and recreated by independent scientists before it can get published. Do I trust the method?- Yes I do, it’s a damn sight more reliable than the bible.
And the people doing the testing are a damn sight smarted than I am.

"Worse, you’re trying to sell these various dating techniques off as some kind of exact science when they categorically are not"
-I didn’t say they were exact, I said they were reliable… Just because they can’t tell date things to the second doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Sorry, I misread what you said about Dendrochronology, it’s late.
Correct, it works as far back as the earliest trees (what’s that 100 millions years?- just a guess, more than 10,000 anyway! =P)
When I say they all agree with eachother, I meant where the timescales they deal with overlap of course. (in other words, they are all non conflicting).

Michael replied: "Sometimes I think they’re just trolling us. Then I realize they’re serious(ly crazy)."

Jonas VT replied: "there is no actual verifiable proof that carbon dating actually works. this is a known fact. even athiests cannot argue this. challenge them to find absolute proof that carbon dating works. I can’t speak for the others you mention, but it seems logical that if carbon dating has issues, so will the others, but I don’t know."

potnoodle replied: "Yes, and they’re allowed to breed."

eric k replied: "Actually, some of them think that 10,000 years is 4000 years too old.

And you can stop wasting time with all those links that can
verify what you’re saying. They don’t really have the same
respect for citing sources (or having them at all) that you
or I do. These same people believe in a global scientific
conspiracy to keep people from the truth, and that the Theory
of Evolution is not only a pack of lies, but quite possibly the
work of the Devil himself."

Daniel M replied: "you just heard?
you need to get out more
but you are right"

Barry Scott replied: "Yeah some fundamentalists believe that the earth is 6000 years old and we roamed with the dinos 6000 years ago. This is scientifically wrong. There aren’t many people who believe this, but it’s all in the name, fundaMENTALists. I think Sarah Palin believes this actually."

Schmete replied: "Some dude from a few hundred years ago worked out that, according to the bible, the eartch was created in november of 4444bc.

This is of course, balogne. I am a christian so its not like im prejudiced.

Creationists believe that the Bible is accurate in its entirity and as such believe that the earth is much younger than it is. they reason that our ways of measuring the age of the earth must be faulty. Again, Balogne.


Thea replied: "They also believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together."

Jesus Fish replied: "they arent reliable. besides, the earth is only 6,000 years old, and the geology proves it."

Guillem T replied: "Like in every human group you may also meet among Christians backward, ultramountaineous

luv4dunedain replied: "It conflicts with their religion. If the earth isn’t 10,000 years old, then maybe God didn’t create it after all, and wait, maybe there isn’t a God…

If they accept fact, they have to accept God doesn’t exist, and they receive great comfort and pleasure from thinking God is real. And that’s scary to them."

Richard W replied: "to answer jonas VT, there is absolute proof that carbon dating works, it is nuclear decay, that is where the nuclear product has a measurable half life, all living creatures on this earth contain carbon 14 and it starts to decay at the point of deat, it is so accurate they can get a million year old cell dated to the exact year it died (sadly not to the week or day, but that would be cool) and to throw another spanner in the works… why would scientists lie about such things? science is about emprisism (dont believe it till it is proven) they are working to discover truth, why tri to fabricate evidence? (except hendrik schon, he was an idiot)"

loddi replied: "True. Strong Black man is cool."

Michael replied: "I’ve heard 7,000 years, give or take a day (or two).

I never could understand how people believe such a thing but clearly they do, so why would I insult them by challenging it?

I’m happy to believe that the earth is much more ancient. But note that it is what I believe, not what I know.

Your contention that: "We have hundreds of reliable methods for dating the Earth. They have all been tested blindly on samples of known age, but more importantly, THEY ALL AGREE WITH EACHOTHER." is seriously skewed, though.

There are not hundreds, they are far from reliable and they certainly don’t all agree with each other. More, in order to believe in them you have to believe in the scientists who feed you this information.

For example, varve dating takes us back just over 13,000 years (if you believe their findings and accept their calculations given that these have proven to be incorrect in the past). So how does that corroborate any dating beyond 13,000 years? And how does that agree with dating methods concerned with much greater periods?

The same applies to dendrochronology – that method of dating can take us back no further than the earliest trees, and not as far back as varve dating.

You’re simply making a leap of faith based on what you are told and calling it knowledge and in that you are no different at all to creationists. Worse, you’re trying to sell these various dating techniques off as some kind of exact science when they categorically are not – and that is disingenuous to say the least.

Unless, of course, you’re going to tell us *exactly* how old the earth – I’ll be happy to accept something to within, say, 10 years of the exact age along with your sources and methods of calculation. I mean, you obviously have science on your side so it should be a walk in the proverbial park, right?

Ready when you are LOL"

thesplund replied: "Ha forget the oldest trees, we got shrubs older than any of the claims the YECs make

43,000 years old. In your face Kent Hovind :)

It must be a tough life to be a literal creationist. To constantly have to go around denying reality all the time."

does my work cited page look right? i haven’t done a work cited page in quite sometime so i was wondering if this looked right. also what is suppose to be underlined?

[i would have liked to have post all of them, but YA has a 10 link post max >_>]

"Carbon dioxide." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 18 November 2008. 18 Nov 2008 <>.

"climate change." WordNetВ® 3.0. Princeton University. 10 Nov. 2008. < change>.

"Dichlorodifluoromethane." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 8 November 2008. 18 Nov 2008 <>.

"Energy Star" Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 17 November 2008. 13 November 2008 <>.

"Greenhouse gas." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 17 November 2008. 11 November 2008 <>.

"Greenhouse gas." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 17 November 2008. 11 November 2008 <>.

"Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, and Energy ." May 2007. The Energy Information Administration. 18 Nov 2008 <>.

"" 17 November 2008. united states environment protection agency. 18 Nov 2008

"Little Ice Age." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 17 November 2008. 19 November 2008 <>.

"Methane." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. 17 November 2008. 15 November 2008 <>.

twilighter replied: "absolutely perfect!"

Alternating Current replied: "You forgot to rickroll them."

explain to me science buff’s? Since our religion has no proof or evidence. can i ask this

why does science show several promise with no leads: Carbon dating

ok brief overview for u who don’t know what it is.carbon dating, is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years.

Since when did looking a fossil’s ,rock’s, granite and other material’s using their carbon level’s and determine how far they go back to an estimated date?

Evolutionist-Darwinism- The creation of molecules from all life form’s from cell , cell division, Example:MAN—to—Ape..
If u think that the earth has ever been here a billion’s of year’s and somehow out of all the mammal’s an specie’s on the planet human kind is the only upright intellegent specie’s to survive?
Why has their been evidence of sediment layer’s to prove the great flood occured?

Liberal AssKicker replied: "Not sure what you’re asking, but carbon dating is severely flawed.

The dating technique is based on the assumption that a ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 13 in an organism can be known in order to measure the rate and duration of decay.

The first assumption has turned out to be wrong. We DON’T know the original ratio because it varies with atmospheric conditions, and we don’t know the rate of decay because of influences during decay."

Josh replied: "This is a very incoherent question.

If you have a science question, make it specific and ask it in the appropriate section."

Caboose replied: "I notice you’re looking for science buffs in the wrong category.

This means you don’t want answers, you want a pat on the back."

A different angle replied: "The assumption of human intelligence is suspect when one reads how badly this question was written. FAIL."

fire4Christ08! replied: "friend, all truth comes from God, in science and religion respectively. There is no either/or, but both. Have a blessed day/night in Christ! ;-) "

Wise Duck replied: "Well, you’re just wrong.

Carbon dating is not used on rocks, for two reasons. The one you pointed out, the half life is too short. More importantly, they’re rocks. They don’t have any carbon.

Instead a slew of other radiometric dating methods. K-Ar (half life of about 2 billion), U-Pb (4.5 billion), ect.

There are no sediment layers that prove a global flood. In fact all of the rocks on the planet tell a completely different story.

If there was a flood, why are humans and other modern animals never found in the same layer as dinosaurs?

Why are coral reef fossils found sandwiched between two terrestrial biomes?

Edit: To correct Asskicker once more. Carbon dating measures the levels of carbon-14 (which decays to nitrogen-14) relative to the normal carbon-12. We know the atmospheric ratio due to ice cores and the decay rate is constant because that’s how quantum mechanics works. No natural process can influence the stability of an atom’s nucleus.

Arguing about it is silly, since it accurately dates samples of known age. It’s primarily a tool used in archeology, not paleontology."

aaronmsl replied: "Most of your question is unintelligible, but I’ll address this point:

"If u think that the earth has ever been here a billion’s of year’s and somehow out of all the mammal’s an specie’s on the planet human kind is the only upright intellegent specie’s to survive?

It actually makes sense if you think about it. If 2 competing intelligent species arose, particularly in the case where one or both are relatively violent – and all primates tend to violence, not just humans – then it follows that it is unlikely that both will survive. Indeed, "modern" humans and neanderthals existed at the same period of time, and in the same geographic location – one died out, the other survived."

Chester replied: "A bit confused today, aren’t we? Well, take an Aspirin and try again in the morning!"

Richard replied: "This question is a complete FAIL. Just another disgruntled Christian trying to disprove science…"

Torg T. Robot replied: "At least you know carbon dating doesn’t work on fossils. I see many people who should know better claim that fossils are dated using this method. Like Wise Duck said, there are other radioisotopes that have much longer half-lives and they can be used to date rocks.


Purple Moogle replied: "Perhaps you missed this on the Wikipeda article –

"Flood geology directly contradicts current science in disciplines such as geology, physics, chemistry, molecular genetics, evolutionary biology, archaeology, and paleontology.""

Want to see a picture of Jesus? Most of the image can not be explained because scientists can’t determin how it was made or what it was made of…
The coloring in which the image is made is from slightly darker color differences in microscopic areas on the thread of the linen cloth being about 1/1,000 of an inch. These different colorizations are in various places on the thread of the cloth in such a way that the image can only be seen from a distance of around 20ft… if standing close to shroud, the cloth would appear to be wihtout an image and only slight color differentials which would not make out any image. This proves that the image could not have been painted… and even if it could have been, the painter would have had to paint the image with a 20ft long paintbrush.
To this day scientists do not know how to replicate the image even with our modern techknowlegy.

Blood stains were found on the shroud in the areas of the wrists(nails), rib cage(spear), and around the head(the crown of thorns).
Other blood stains resembling whip marks were found in the areas of the legs, abdomen, chest, and back. The shape of the blood stains resembles the two pronged whip made by the Romans called a flagrum… the prongs were about an inch apart, made of rigid metal, and were at least the size of a cherry pit.
These blood stains point to the popular Roman death sentance of Crusifixion, as well as matching the discription of Jesus’ death.

Some say the image is proven to be a hoax since the carbon dating of the linen cloth was in the 13th century, but in reality the carbon dating placed the cloth with an estimate time period between the supposed time of Jesus’ death and the 13th century. The carbon dating could not be exact because the single sample of the cloth that the church would allow to be cut from the rest of the cloth was taken from an area that had already been burned earlier in it’s history, and the church would not allow another sample to be taken from the cloth.

The cloth is now in the St. John’s Church in Turin, and is vacum sealed so that it may be presurved and never be handled again.

Rob D replied: "that’s really cool/bizarre"

Panic Procul Pervideo replied: "Yeah, sure, okay."

Free your mind xo replied: "hmmmm….thanks?"

Rae replied: "Interesting!"

. replied: "wow."

Wednesday replied: "Cool?"

I am a popTart Hear Me Rawr replied: "Gorgeous"

Christians why do you say that dinosaurs and humans existed together? If a chapter of Job says so that cant be true as earth is only 6000years old.The evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back for some 60 million years, as one of the oldest of all surviving placental mammal groupsThere were dinosaurs at that time but no humans.Lucy which was the last common descendend of man and chimpanzee lived 3 to 3.9 million years ago the dinosaurs were extinct.The dates can be fond by Radio Carbon Dating.
I dont believe earth is 6000years old.
If you are an orthodox Christian or I hurt your feelings please visit:-


m_thurson replied: "That is why I support the Theory of Evolution.

That is why I believe in Nature.

Its so SIMPLE."

fish replied: "I am a Christian and I didn’t say that!"

Byakuya replied: "because we are ignorant!

(that’s what you want to hear, right?)"

nycpulpwriter replied: "as an agnostic, i gotta ask. do you mean ALL sects of christianity or evangelicals?"

godsapostolic replied: "I am a christian and I dont believe they existed at the same time."

dukalink6000 replied: "There is a show floating about that presents evidence of human and dinosaur tracks together (I saw it on my local religious channel)"

Shayna replied: "Get out of the dark. Evolution has been proven to be a thoery that cannot be proven."

zeldasmage replied: "Im christian but i personally don’t care. As for an answer, who knows?"

mao_nerd90 replied: "because they are extremly mad: i know a book u can read to figure ot why they do that… antichrist by friedrich nietzche"

maamu replied: "Possibly there was a longer day when the earth was created. So that 6 day theory could have actually been thousands of years."

Angie, Raised by Wolves replied: "I’m a Christian and I don’t believe that. I believe that God did create the world, but you have to take into account that when the bible says "Days" that they are days as God sees them. One day to God may be a million years or more to us."

kelly r replied: "Bones are bones what can we say, kinda hard to say no to that one huh…lol, the thing is, is God is real, and in the end thats all that really matters….He is an awesome God…"

sweetie_baby replied: "Lucy is a contoversial claim. She has been recently scrutinized in the scientific community.

So trying to counter one controversial claim with another is just silly."

Art replied: "Well some people choose to be blinded by their faith instead of being liberated by it-I choose to live by my rules and not religious standards–but yah seriously HOW IN THE HELL CAN YOU REALLY BELIEVE THE WORLD IS ONLY SIX THOUSAND YEARS OLD–IT’S INSANE!!"

inquiring_mind replied: "becaue they did, . there were dinosaurs in the book of Job. the world has only been around for approx. 4,000 years.sorry if that’s not what you wanted to hear"

Chef Bob replied: "your premise is wrong.
we don’t."

Chrissy replied: "actually science said they existed together. ie… Caveman. I don’t believe the earth is only 6000 yrs old, but I think the time the bible was written they didn’t have the technology to do archaelogical digs. So they don’t know what happened before that. There is no way possible to know. Remember…. The bible was written by MAN, not God."

Ashanza replied: "Dinosaurs did not live with humans… in the Creation Story, the seven day earth creation is really unrealistic for me, and I’M a Christian… But who is to say how long God’s 7 days were? God’s time is not our time, and our measurement of time was made by humans. I do not believe that earth was made 6,000 years ago. It’s just impossible."

jesus_junkie2 replied: "I believe that the dinosaurs did exist 60 million years ago, before humans. In the first chapter of Genesis, it says, "…and the earth was dark and void…" To me, it sounds like earth was once full of life, something happened and God renewed it, making us. So, humans and the renewal of earth were created 6000 years ago."

Eve replied: "Maybe that’s how God intended the world to be…full of doubt…so that true believers would have nothing to go on but faith! :~)

One thing is for sure, we don’t have all the answers and we never will, not in this lifetime.

Wikipedia is unverified…meaning anyone can post anything, doesn’t make it fact. It’s just a reference…don’t believe everything you read on the internet."

Father K replied: "1) I am an Orthodox Christian.

2) It takes a lot to "hurt my feelings". You gotta come much harder than that to even scratch the surface.

3) Since I am, in fact, an "Orthodox Christian" – and I don’t say that dinosaurs and humans existed together, then your premise, based on your question being to "Christians", is false, no?"

Little Man replied: "I love people who use wikipedia as their source. No acadmeic paper is ever written using wikipedia, becuase none of the "facts" there can ever be substantiated…

with that being said…

You ask your question on the premise that ALL christians think that dinosaurs and mankind existed together and that ALL christians accept the bible as a literal interpretive. In fact, that is not the case. Many Christians accept science as "another language" of God and that the bible has relevance in it’s context. For example, was the world created in 7 days or is the word "days" used to represent some period of time?

To have a true academic conversation, you need to address your question slightly less insultingly…"

Carol M replied: "That chimp was not a descendant of man. She was a chimp. she was never human. We did not evolve from apes. God created all animals first then He created man. And man was to take dominion over the animals. So man and all animals co exhisted at the same time.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over "EVERY CREAPETH THING THAT CREATETH UPON THE EARTH"

And than includes dinosaurs.

necropolis replied: "Not Christians.
Some scientists.
They found an ancient stone carvings that had pictures of dinosaurs and humans being together.
That carving was denied by majority of the scientists because if they accept it, they had to change everything that was written in the text books, all of their theories about dinosaurs."

J.J. replied: "Sir, I will seek your science if you will check on mine and see why we believe the things we do. This website shows the circular thinking behind dating fossils and the layers that people try to use to judge the earth’s age."

thstuff9946 replied: "Can the method of dating that was used be completely accurate? Obviously not if it was used here.
Apparently remains are getting younger by the day if that’s the case."

JDJ34 replied: "Ive never said that but i will check it out now youve mentioned it!"

spiritwalker replied: "Tracks of BOTH have been found together at the same level in the same river bed in an area out West. Why do you feel it is not possible? Evolution? That is just a theory. No proof to it. Why are ALL the fossils at the same level (give or take for erosion)? They only answer is the Great Flood. How else can you get sea shells on mountain tops? Just because some nut case says a bone is from a dinosaur doesn’t mean it is so. Archeology is FULL of errors and frauds. Merry Christmas."

Dorian V. replied: "Nor should you believe that, and if you talk to somebody who does, you’ll quickly find that they’re not so sure what it is that they believe, either. I’ve heard various rationalizations for the facts that you mention, and those who state that the planet is about 6,000 years old will tell you that the other numbers result from the "unreliability" of carbon dating.
The motive behind this is the extreme fragility of the faiths held by many Christians, especially those who cannot accept the Bible as anything other than literal. The 6,000 figure is arrived at by adding together the ages and generations of figures presented throughout the Bible, and there are many who cannot reconcile fact and faith and so deny the former."

jerome2all replied: "Beacuse they have seen dinosaur’s foot print coexisting with human footprints."

nfreebairn replied: "Ok – SOME Christians say this because they were told that the earth could not be any older than somewhere around 10 thousand years old or so.

People get this date by going by the bibles recorded history.

However, many Christians have changed their stance on this, and have come to the conclusion that just because Adam and Eve and recorded history started at that time… it does not mean that the earth itself did not exist before all that, and that the earth could be older than that.

Also – that dinosaurs could have existed before the creation story."

angeltress replied: "I don’t know how old the earth is, or whether or not dinos and humans lived at the same time.
(It does seem as if it would have been a tad difficult for the humans, doesn’t it? But, I suppose they could have survived, maybe…)
The only thing I am sure of is this:
God knows."

paperback_writer2003 replied: "I think you need to be more precise in your question.

The question should begin with the word "Fundamentalists…" rather than "Christians."

Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and many others have been able to understand that Genesis is not literal in a chronologican sense. However, we do know that there was a big bang, we know there was light, and the planets were formed, and the oceans developed, and that eventually life came forth. Finally, man came into being. So Genesis actually does a good job of describing the general sequence of events, which is a pretty amazing thing if you really think about it.

So you really should address your comments to the knuckle-dragging fundamentalists. Thanks."

lexie_17517 replied: "I feel this is probably a waste of my time,since people like you can’t seem to be able to accept and intelligently process any information that refutes evolution in any way,but here are just a few out of thousands of websites that say and prove that man and dinosaurs DID coexist.


basenjicrazed3 replied: "You know what I am christian!!! Why dont you look at the creation story again you’ll find your answer. By the way keep your religious comments to your self!!!!"

Dinasor76 replied: "Evolution=theory and looks like they missed some Zeros."

silvisgr replied: "we have the same habits …"

nashaahot replied: "they must have existed together god knows but now the dinausers are extinct and so are the humans which r good hearted"