Evidence against creation

[Esquilax]

Yeah this is a very interesting thing i was thinking about. How would the formation or in a sense reformation of rock determine the real age of the rock.

It's all a bit over my head, but radiometric dating- of which carbon dating is just one of a whole genre of dating methods- works by measuring the radioactive half life of given atoms within an object; they decay at a certain constant rate, and so one can determine the age of the materials of a thing by examining the rate of decay and working backwards from there.

Of course, I am a layman at this: I had to do my research, much as I'd recommend you do.

Anyways getting to the point, since i couldn't find too much argument against wrongly dating the rocks due to already being formed i assume there when it undergoes volcanic activity it heats up so much that the actual structure of the rocks changes completely to essentially being formed again at its core but i could be wrong.

Well, the atoms that compose the object don't change, and that's what is measured when we do radiometric dating.

Regardless though, the dating measurements should show in millions or billions of years according to the current estimates on the age of earth according to current measurements, though i definitely think there's something more complex going on here? My lack of knowledge on the formation of rocks leaves much to be desired here though.

Well, the upper limits of our dating capabilities have provided us with mineral samples that are billions of years old.

Another interesting thing to think about would be how do they determine the formation of rocks, i'd assume all rocks should be in essence the age of the earth at ~4.8 billion years,

You can measure stuff like that via radioactive decay; as isotopes decay they produce other, daughter components in predictable patterns, and we can use the presence of those to determine more about the nature of the formations.

Animals with the eyes the size of a greek shield would lend itself to being a dinosaur, that was the recount of Alexander the great. Elephants are what the biggest, otherwise it'd need to be a large sea creature, but the instance of Alexander the great's was that his army was walking through a foreign nation and those people referred an animal with huge eyes and told them not to annoy it, but as Alexander's Army marched across the valley they heard a huge roar and were terrified, and some had sighted the great beast.

Yeah, the thing you need to keep in mind when reading that stuff is that accounts from that time are prone to exaggeration and, frankly, mysticism. They speak of portents and magic and so on; if you're not going to take that stuff at face value, why take the rest? In this case, you're taking second hand reports from terrified people, if we take it all to be true, and assuming it all to be accurate; I don't see why you'd do that.

That picture if it depicts a dinosaur and is not somehow from an artists imagination would just be evidence that dinosaurs roamed within the last 6000 years, throwing out general thinking that they exist only million years ago. The topic is mores evidence against creation not against evolution, since imo creationist evidence is far less abundant seemingly at this stage.

Well, it's not a dinosaur. It's some other kind of animal, plus a pattern that has been conflated to be part of the pictograph by people who want it to be a dinosaur.

And frankly, I wouldn't mind if we found dinosaurs alive even today, but the time to believe that is when there's evidence for it, not merely spurious stone carvings. Our time scales for this kind of thing are more elastic than you'd think; we once thought the Coelacanth to be extinct too, before we found living populations of it, fished up from certain rivers.

Interesting. I could only find this occurrence with the T-rex they found of possible soft tissue, so it doesn't seem to point anyway.

Yeah, that's why you don't want to go to creationist sources for your information: they'll lie to you if they think it'll help the conclusions they've come to before they even look at the evidence.