Wouldnt the age of 90, let alone 1000, leave a person with exceptionally frail bones?
5/10/2008 12:34:21 AM
5/10/2008 4:27:36 PM
It's not the amount of carbon, but the half-life of the carbon that counts, no?
6/3/2008 1:36:36 AM
Except the bible was just making shit up again dude. Sorry.
7/26/2009 5:30:33 PM
Close to 1000 months, not years.
That is, if they were lucky enough to avoid epidemics and wars... and smoked good tobacco... and jangled gently as they walked... and bathed once a week...
7/26/2009 6:46:05 PM
Bones do not work that way.
7/26/2009 8:05:45 PM
1. The age of an organism does not influence it's C14 ratio.
2. Even if it did, more C14 would make the organism look younger if dated with C14.
3. C14-dating only works up to 60.000 years. Other isotopes are used for dating older things.
4. You're a creationist. Stating this fact should be insulting enough already.
4/17/2013 12:32:20 AM
So, they're not a million years old, just 999000 years old, then. Big deal!
Btw, the Bible can state whatever it wants; it's still a book with a lot of unsupported statements, not to be taken literally.
You do know that they can deduce a probable age (as in life-span) of a fossil, right?
Oh, and they're not as rare as you think. The first ones of a particular species get a bit of fame, the next thousands or so of the same species nobody bothers to mention to laymen.
4/17/2013 2:12:18 AM
That "humans living close to 1,000 years" stuff was just made up to deceive the ignorant masses into believing that "accepting Christ as your savior" somehow automatically gave you longevity. Fact of the matter is that very few people actually made it even to 50 in those days.
4/17/2013 2:15:43 AM
In science, we don't ASSUME anything. And you have no idea how carbon dating works.
4/17/2013 6:40:12 PM
Another creationist complaint that scientists don't assume that magic happened.
4/18/2013 3:36:38 AM