303
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 41:
Line 41: − + − On this basis, flood geologists argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
→Dating: Further reword. This is quite a bit shorter than Phillips original, but I think it addresses the key points and avoids repetition.
Flood geologists date the flood to around 2350 B.C., based on [[biblical chronology]].
Flood geologists date the flood to around 2350 B.C., based on [[biblical chronology]].
They argue that uniformitarian dating methods are unreliable, reasoning that the Flood would invalidate some of the presumptions behind uniformitarian dating methods.
They argue that archaeological dates which purport to show civilisations and artifacts being older than the Flood (see Criticisms) are incorrect because they are based on the presumption that none of these methods would be altered by the effects of a global flood in such a way as to render conclusions drawn from them invalid.<ref>One example is Carbon Dating which is calibrated according to known background levels of C14 in the atmosphere, but this calibration does not account for likely altered levels due to extensive volcanism during the Flood. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5026/ Carbon dating into the future] (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
== Common Criticisms ==
== Common Criticisms ==