Contradiction between Bible and Archaeological Discovery: Research Methods
Put carbon fourteen and the so-called. Standard fossils? The calculation results of this method are compared. For example, there is a kind of wood, which is 70 million years old by standard fossil method and only 4000 years old by carbon 14. The difference between the two is very far, more than 10 thousand times. So which method can *? For another example, there is a piece of wood and dinosaurs in the same stratum, which is called standard fossils. Where there are dinosaurs, it is called12 million years. If calculated by carbon 14, it is only 12000, with a difference of 10,000 times. Another example is that some wood is with dinosaurs, and the standard fossil is1.200 million years. If calculated by carbon 14, it is only 900 years, with a difference of100000 times. There is such a big difference between the results calculated by standard fossils and those calculated by carbon fourteen method, so we really need to put a big question mark on these results.
As far as science is concerned, there is no correct method to calculate the exact age of fossils. In that case, we don't need to believe that these things are thousands of years ago. What we can know is culture, such as China culture, which has a written record of about 3,700 years, and the rest centuries are legends. What are the names of most of us? Five thousand years of culture in China? . For example, the cultures of Egypt and Israel have a history of thousands of years. All the cultures we know are only thousands of years, not thousands of years, so the most information we can get is human culture.
Some people use carbon 14 to calculate the part of dinosaur fossils that has not turned into stone, and it has been calculated for 20 thousand years. The result was criticized. How can it evolve in such a short time? I haven't read the first report, only the second report. The second report objected to the first report for the following reasons: first, the people who wrote the first report were not scientists. When they went to the Carnegie Museum to ask for fossils, they did not explain to the administrator that they were used for carbon 14 testing; Second, when I brought it from the University of Arizona for them to calculate, I didn't say it was a dinosaur bone. In fact, it does not mean that there is anything wrong with the above two. It would be biased to say so, so the objection raised in the second article is ridiculous! In the research of new drugs, many times, in order to be objective, the experimenter is deliberately not allowed to know whether he is getting a new drug or just a sugar tablet, so as to avoid the psychological effect of the experimenter and cannot be objective.
Contradiction between Bible and Archaeological Discovery: A Scientific View of the Authenticity of Bible
Just talking about science, we don't know the age of fossils; If we say culture, we know that it is only a few thousand years; If you believe in the Bible and the Creator, the world will last for thousands of years. Clear distinction between right and wrong! In fact, what can be learned through science is very limited. Science can only study what is marked with 7b, because it needs observation, experiment and research. What cannot be observed cannot be called. Science? So science can only study the present, not the past. What was it called in the past? History? ; History is the record of predecessors, and studying history can be verified, but it is incomplete; Only the word of God is the truth, which is the most remarkable thing.