The Chocolate Dog

*sigh* Read about the problems with carbon dating and every other form of dating which has come after.

Here's the two biggest problems, in a nutshell

1) You have to know, relatively, how much carbon was in the air at the time the bone, jug, or whatever was put wherever you found it. Or, how much carbon was around while the former possessor of the bone was still alive.

2)You have to know, relatively, the date you are aiming for. Which is to say, that a date is assumed, based on certain criteria (like, someone else's jumped up data or how deep the object was in the earth). In other words, it is all highly subjective. Which is why a pair of sweat socks can be found to be 5 billion years old, even though they were just purchased and it can be proven when they were manufactured.

Which leads us to the third thing

3) When Scientists are determining how old a bone, or whatever is, by how deep it is in the ground and what the rock looks like, they are automatically discounting every recorded history of every tribe or civilization in existence. Because, every single one of them says there was a huge flood that covered the Earth, somewhere in their histories and legends. And, yet, when they decide how something got there, they always say "Discounting any ridiculous theories regarding a flood .." or "Barring any great cataclysm .."

They even say that when they are studying the Babylonians.

Yet, the Holy Scriptures, and the original books of the Torah, have been proven accurate in thousands of respects as regards historical happenings; there are thousands of other writings from around those times or which were written about those times, but later in history, that support them, too.

So, scientists are silly. They fail to do what they claim to do. They are prejudiced from the beginning, or they would find very different findings. Or, at least, more than one finding