This is a placeholder text
Group text
by beetree on 30 April 2011 - 17:04
Oops, my mistake.
by MAINLYMAX on 30 April 2011 - 18:04
Without getting technical, c-14 was thought to be good at 60,000 years but
has been used for only up to 14000 year dating. By non secular people because the
accuracy was not so good. It has not been reliable..so now the use of potassium argon
and c-14 at archaeological sites. Argon isotopes can be dated well after 100.000 years.
In clay and other minerals.
Oops....disclaimer
has been used for only up to 14000 year dating. By non secular people because the
accuracy was not so good. It has not been reliable..so now the use of potassium argon
and c-14 at archaeological sites. Argon isotopes can be dated well after 100.000 years.
In clay and other minerals.
Oops....disclaimer
by Shtal on 08 May 2011 - 06:05
The troubles of radiocarbon dating are undeniably deep and serious.
Despite thirty five years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon dating may soon find itself how I see it - in a crisis situation. Continuing use of this method depends on a “fix-it-as-you-go” approach, allowing for contamination here fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible.
It should be no surprise, then that fully half the dates are and is rejected. Out of thousands carbon dating that have been done; half of the numbers has being thrown out. How do they know first half is wrong? And also how do you know the other half is right. If half of the tests results have to be thrown out: This is stupid – it’s a waste of time This is shocking to me - that the remaining half have come to be accepted.
As with my other post “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.
Despite thirty five years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon dating may soon find itself how I see it - in a crisis situation. Continuing use of this method depends on a “fix-it-as-you-go” approach, allowing for contamination here fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible.
It should be no surprise, then that fully half the dates are and is rejected. Out of thousands carbon dating that have been done; half of the numbers has being thrown out. How do they know first half is wrong? And also how do you know the other half is right. If half of the tests results have to be thrown out: This is stupid – it’s a waste of time This is shocking to me - that the remaining half have come to be accepted.
As with my other post “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.
by Shtal on 08 May 2011 - 16:05
All what I'm trying to proof that believing that earth is millions of years old is just a plain religion with no solid proof or any kind proof.
Shtal :)
Shtal :)
by 4pack on 08 May 2011 - 16:05
Oh so we need carbon dating to prove the earth is millions of years old? LMFAO. Sure, God just poofed the Grand Cayon out of his ass, after he poofed himself some refried beans.
When do we assume the earth was made? Only days before we have proof of mans existance?
When do we assume the earth was made? Only days before we have proof of mans existance?
by Shtal on 08 May 2011 - 17:05
Do you want to talk about Grand Canyons?
by Sock Puppet on 08 May 2011 - 18:05
You are right Shtal. I would believe a thousands of years old book written by some delusional human against science. That old book has to be right, it just has to, but science nope it can't be. Science can't be right because some book written and rewritten has to be right. Why, because it is the whole premise of your religion. A book written by mere mortal man, but it has to be, because it is your belief, but forget the other religions that predated Christianity, because you guessed it your book has to be right. It just has to be and if it is not, you have nothing, but hope.
by Shtal on 08 May 2011 - 18:05
I' going to prepare an article for you - it will take me a bit of time to write - I'm going to be busy this week but I promise that I will give proof for Grand Canyons that they are NOT millions of years old.
by Shtal on 08 May 2011 - 19:05
Hey Sock - LOL please don't mix up science with evolution, because I love science :)
Because you are going to argue with me that science is evolution with your limited brain.
Because you are going to argue with me that science is evolution with your limited brain.
by Sock Puppet on 08 May 2011 - 20:05
You are probably right Shtal with my limited brain and your massively superior brain and religion, I should just bow to your supremeness. It is no wonder people are running from Christianity.
Does your bible allow you to make fun of people?
When simple questions are asked you and your fellow bible spinners either deflect or throw up a persons limited brain power, because it is the Christian thing to do. Your God needs to teach you some patience.
Does your bible allow you to make fun of people?
When simple questions are asked you and your fellow bible spinners either deflect or throw up a persons limited brain power, because it is the Christian thing to do. Your God needs to teach you some patience.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top