Thanks xelder for the reference about the C14 from the cave!!
This is an example of actual research. That is, someone like me who sticks to the strict Biblical timeline which would date mankind less than 6000 years and evidence from a cave that dates charcoal used in some paintings on the wall back to 32,000 years. This is a definite, potential conflict between "science" and particularly C14 and the Bible. Here's there reference from the link regarding the dating:
Dating
The cave contains the oldest known cave paintings, based on radiocarbon dating of "black from drawings, from torch marks and from the floors", according to Jean Clottes. Clottes concludes that the "dates fall into two groups, one centred around 27,000-26,000 BP and the other around 32,000-30,000 BP." [1] As of 1999, the dates of 31 samples from the cave had been reported. The earliest, sample Gifa 99776 from "zone 10", dates to 32,900±490 BP. [5]
However, some archaeologists have questioned these dates. Christian Züchner, based on stylistic comparisons with similar paintings at other well dated sites, is of the opinion that the red paintings are from the Gravettian period (c. 28,000–23,000 BP) and the black paintings are from the Early Magdalenian period (early part of c. 18,000–10,000 BP). [6] Pettitt and Bahn also believe the dating is inconsistent with the traditional stylistic sequence and that there is uncertainty about the source of the charcoal used in the drawings and the extent of surface contamination on the exposed rock surfaces. [7] [8] New stylistic studies show that some Gravettian engravings are superimposed on black paintings proving the paintings' older origins. [9]
By 2011, over 80 radiocarbon dates had been taken, with samples from torch marks and from the paintings themselves, as well as from animal bones and charcoal found on the cave floor. The radiocarbon dates from these samples suggest that there were two periods of creation in Chauvet: 35,000 years ago and 30,000 years ago. [10]
Now this presents a real conflict, right? This disproves the Bible's timeline, right? Not exactly. Because the same article states that "contamination" might affect the C14 dates! This is similar to using argon gas to date things. It seems to have a reasonably theory for dating, but in the case of a lava flow in Hawaii which was clearly dated at the time of an eruption, argon dating dated the event millions of years into the past based upon incidental high-level pockets of argon gas. So every sample does not represent true dating. It has to be isolated from exceptions to the rule, like contamination or irregular concentrations.
But this leaves the classic creationists/WTS explanation which is the introduction of some irregularity in the sample that is giving the false positive. Further, as I noted, it has been demonstrated that C14 veers off track from dendrochronology at bout 1500-1600 BCE, so all dates from C14 beyond c. 1600 BCE would be considered artificially earlier than they really are.
So I'm back at square one. But I can't blame scientists who see this potentiality for questioning the Bible. Questioning the Bible works for them at this level. But for the elect or myself, who have more direct contact via holy spirit or who have experienced miracles or even seen Christ or Jehovah themselves, there is no doubt there is a God and since we believe he inspired the Bible and the current interpretation of the timeline is correct, we tend to doubt the results based on inexpertise in understanding fully C14 dating and variables.
But providing the specific reference was important. It allows us to get to this point based on the actual reference, rather than the presumption that any real credible evidence from C14 exists prior to c. 1600 BCE.
Thanks, again, for providing this reference.
LS
