Register User Options	Site: Vanderbilt -------- Alabama Arkansas Auburn BB Recruiting Florida FB Recruiting Kentucky LSU Mississippi State Missouri Northwestern Ole Miss SEBaseball South Carolina Texas A&M Tennessee TnVarsity.com Georgia Forum: Coffee Shop -------- Commodore War Room Premium Recruiting Board General Sports Forum Tailgate and ticket forum

Views: 786, Replies: 64

Thread Tools     Rate Thread     Display Options

---

Originally posted by force10jc:
c) In general I agree with this statement but I also believe that while if something cannot be explained you don't jump right into "God did it", I also do not believe that you can necessarily explain away some theories that may seem outlandish just because we can't prove them with today's technology. Today's science fiction has on many occasions become tomorrow's science.

This post was edited on 2/1 12:45 PM by force10jc

---

---

Originally posted by force10jc:
d) Agree with the general premise of this but I also feel like there are scientists that hold on to some theories as fact out of arrogance making them no better than biblical literalists.

---

---

Originally posted by force10jc:
f) I do feel that carbon dating as we understand it is accurate within 500 to 1000 year anyway. In many cases this is close enough. The problem usually arises when bones or ashes that can be carbon dated are found within a stone structure. An example would be carbon dating dates the bones and ashes to a couple of thousand years ago so it is assumed that the stone structure is the same age. Since stone cannot be carbon dated, there is really no way of knowing how old the structure really is. Baalbek in Lebanon might have gone down as a Roman structure forever had someone not realized the Roman architecture was built upon a much older structure. How did they move those giant stone slabs anyway?

---

Previous in Thread | Next in Thread | Back to Threads