DeletedUser11019
i hear carbon dating is even,,"out of date and incorrect"
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
That's hilarious. Like saying the law of gravity is out of date.
Where did you hear this? In the queue at the Post Office? Better get your findings published in 'Nature' quick - the whole of the scientifice world will be quaking at its foundations!
DeletedUser11019
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_080__Radiometric_Dating__.html
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat5.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/carbon-dating-accuracy.html
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/beyond/articles/ExpDecay/Carbon14.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
the first one has some pictures in it, and i even took the time to get one article that's is called a "red herring"
im surprised you were not told this or learnt this.
it was one of the very reasons certain institutes have been redeveloped and now having to restudy almost All of there past studies.
a rather laborious task, to find true accurate dates and puzzles peace's together.
its a mountain of a task.
http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_080__Radiometric_Dating__.html
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/06dat5.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/carbon-dating-accuracy.html
http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/beyond/articles/ExpDecay/Carbon14.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
the first one has some pictures in it, and i even took the time to get one article that's is called a "red herring"
im surprised you were not told this or learnt this.
it was one of the very reasons certain institutes have been redeveloped and now having to restudy almost All of there past studies.
a rather laborious task, to find true accurate dates and puzzles peace's together.
its a mountain of a task.
DeletedUser
Thank you for taking the time to provide this information. I tried to do you the courtesy of following your links but unfortunately found the first three were so full of schoolboy errors and misunderstandings that I then skipped straight to the wikipedia link, which seemed a good precis of our current understanding, however.
I do wish people would respond, if they feel the need, to what I actually say though, rather than what they think I might be trying to say, or a vague approximation thereof.
The endeavour of science is based on the assumption that the laws of nature do not change over time.
DeletedUser11019
yup
and that we still have loads to learn
here is a few thousand years of mistakes.
and i dint take the time, i just pressed a few buttons and a few thousand pages came up.
for me what is actually more interesting is the counting.
i have been doing some counting of late, not accounting but counting
of how many different departments and ideas of science all clash and have different meanings to the same thing.
give it a try, key ion the words in the search engine(depending where in the world you are, and see what science departments come up first)
mode trends and frequency of)
and they all clash,
science is even and does act political, they are all kinda connected, all the departments, who is the head, who runs the whole show who is in charge of that study area and work shop, and they as people not science are all in some mad power strugle to be the head of science, so who ever is on top, you know has the most to say, or even has there ideas pushed the most(think company but of science departments and who runs what labs)
like you said.
skip all that give me the brief
and that we still have loads to learn
here is a few thousand years of mistakes.
and i dint take the time, i just pressed a few buttons and a few thousand pages came up.
for me what is actually more interesting is the counting.
i have been doing some counting of late, not accounting but counting
of how many different departments and ideas of science all clash and have different meanings to the same thing.
give it a try, key ion the words in the search engine(depending where in the world you are, and see what science departments come up first)
mode trends and frequency of)
and they all clash,
science is even and does act political, they are all kinda connected, all the departments, who is the head, who runs the whole show who is in charge of that study area and work shop, and they as people not science are all in some mad power strugle to be the head of science, so who ever is on top, you know has the most to say, or even has there ideas pushed the most(think company but of science departments and who runs what labs)
like you said.
skip all that give me the brief
Last edited by a moderator:
nashy19
Nashy (as himself)
I think creationists like carbon dating now, they were pumping out misinformation on it for a while but now they think they've found Noah's Ark again.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html#summary That's a simple explanation.
It also lists what can not be Carbon dated. Obviously if you shouldn't use Carbon dating methods on to date things without any Carbon.
Very basic things like that are sometimes ignored so radio-metric dating can be dishonestly criticised.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html#summary That's a simple explanation.
It also lists what can not be Carbon dated. Obviously if you shouldn't use Carbon dating methods on to date things without any Carbon.
Very basic things like that are sometimes ignored so radio-metric dating can be dishonestly criticised.
Last edited:
DeletedUser10480
I think black penny is just a troll in need of attention.
Maybe she believes the earth is 6,000 years old too..............
Maybe she believes the earth is 6,000 years old too..............