Trailboss - do not open this thread!

[kyle1974]

I'm saying I don't believe them. How accurate can those carbon dating test be? It seems to me that you would have to have a known 60 million y/o standard to compare it to. But since that's not possible....

TO human is to Err....

Carbon dating is actually very accurate, but that's not what they use to age anything in the "millions of years old" category

google search "radiometric dating", and you can see how it works. There are numerous radioactive isotopes that decay into a stable daughter isotopes over known and calculated periods of time. The entire premise of radiometric dating is supported by several isotopes... kind of like a checks and balances. So as far as there being a standard to compare to.. the standard is using multiple isotopes taht have different decay rates to verify each other. Some common methods used are U238 >PB206 and K40 >AR40 (potassium - Argon).


Carbon dating is only good for dead things that are younger than 50,000 years. After that, there isn't enough of the parent isotope left to be accurate. There's a slew of info out there, and most of it that is online is fairly accurate.

[Osceola]

??? We missing something?
Are you saying you dont believe them, or you are amazed that they can date something that old.

big bunch of bs.

[bear]

what if the earth is no where near that old

[D12]

Many thanks to my ancestor, Uncle Ugboss for killing out the species!

Trailboss

lol

[sotx]

I'm saying I don't believe them. How accurate can those carbon dating test be? It seems to me that you would have to have a known 60 million y/o standard to compare it to. But since that's not possible....

TO human is to Err....

I'm with you. I have my doubts about carbon dating. Many scientists doubt Carbon-14 dating's accuracy beyond 3,000 years. Many scientists claim to have nearly infallible methods for determining the age of the earth and its various formations. But all of these methods are built upon two basic and unprovable assumptions: (1) the assumption of starting point or original condition and (2) the assumption of a uniform rate of change from that starting point to the present.

The following statement has been taken from the Anthropological Journal of Canada:

The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a "fix-it-as-we-go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.

No matter how "useful" it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.

In my book if you believe in carbon dating then you must believe in evolution and we/man came out of some pile of goo somewhere.

[sotx]

Carbon dating is actually very accurate, but that's not what they use to age anything in the "millions of years old" category

google search "radiometric dating", and you can see how it works. There are numerous radioactive isotopes that decay into a stable daughter isotopes over known and calculated periods of time. The entire premise of radiometric dating is supported by several isotopes... kind of like a checks and balances. So as far as there being a standard to compare to.. the standard is using multiple isotopes taht have different decay rates to verify each other. Some common methods used are U238 >PB206 and K40 >AR40 (potassium - Argon).


Carbon dating is only good for dead things that are younger than 50,000 years. After that, there isn't enough of the parent isotope left to be accurate. There's a slew of info out there, and most of it that is online is fairly accurate.

Yep and 20 years from now these same scientist will be saying "Well radimetric dating is not as acurate as we once thought bla bla bla"
But all of these methods are built upon two basic and unprovable assumptions: (1) the assumption of starting point or original condition and (2) the assumption of a uniform rate of change from that starting point to the present.

I don't buy it.

[Artos]

I heard they now found his teeth and Dr. Kroll said "no more 54million years.....max

[kyle1974]

Yep and 20 years from now these same scientist will be saying "Well radimetric dating is not as acurate as we once thought bla bla bla"
But all of these methods are built upon two basic and unprovable assumptions: (1) the assumption of starting point or original condition and (2) the assumption of a uniform rate of change from that starting point to the present.

I don't buy it.

you're probably right, it's only been an accepted methodoly for about 80 years.

the funny thing is the "science" against the science has absolutely no data to support any of their claims that radiometric dating isn't accurate.

what are you talking about the "starting point" being "different"? I'd like to see your explanation. As far as "orignial condition", we know that based on the strucuture of certain rocks, that certain conditions had to be present from an original melt (i.e. liquid/molten rock). the "assumption" is that an igneous rock on earth was once in liquid form to create the mineralogical and crystal structure. I guess if you assume rocks just popped into existance, then I see how you have an issue with it.

what is not to "buy"? I don't get why people think that recognizing the data that the earth is old somehow contradicts their religious beliefs.

SOTX, you need research something other than Ken Hovind's website...

By the way.... how long has God been there?

[Sully]

what if the earth is no where near that old

Then your science teacher should be fired.

[scotth89]

big bunch of bs.

X2 the time frame is a big bunch of bs. I dont doubt the size just the umpteen million years.

[rjtkdplus]

Carbon dating is actually very accurate, but that's not what they use to age anything in the "millions of years old" category

google search "radiometric dating", and you can see how it works. There are numerous radioactive isotopes that decay into a stable daughter isotopes over known and calculated periods of time. The entire premise of radiometric dating is supported by several isotopes... kind of like a checks and balances. So as far as there being a standard to compare to.. the standard is using multiple isotopes taht have different decay rates to verify each other. Some common methods used are U238 >PB206 and K40 >AR40 (potassium - Argon).


Carbon dating is only good for dead things that are younger than 50,000 years. After that, there isn't enough of the parent isotope left to be accurate. There's a slew of info out there, and most of it that is online is fairly accurate.

Just reading this made my head hurt!!

[sotx]

SOTX, you need research something other than Ken Hovind's website...

By the way.... how long has God been there?

Who is Ken Hovind and how long has God been where?

[Clay C]

Ah come on. I would just go to take a whizz and scare that little thing away

[sotx]

ah come on. I would just go to take a whizz and scare that little thing away:d

lmao:d

[pickles]

Wow! We have people questioning scientists carbon dating.

You guys are joking.....aren't you?