Carbon dateing & other methods are not provable beyond about 100 years. There are several cases bones found were declared eons old, later to be proved less than 100.
33 comments
He may be talking about the bones of small animals that lived by the side of a road.
They picked up carbon from gasoline burned by the cars driving by, which was infinitely old(made from crude oil that was underground for 100 million years).
They carbon date thousands of years older than they really are.
Carbon dateing & other methods are not provable beyond about 100 years.
Yes, because the Universe was created in 1906.
This is what happens when you put your complete trust about the world in someone who has a vested interest in keeping you completely ignorant about it: You are fed lies, which you then arrogantly and ignorantly help to spread.
Try reading about how reality works instead of taking all your "science information" from a fundie preacher.
~David D.G.
As has been said, carbon-dating is not accurate within 100 years.
And, I concur with David D.G., your Fundie preacher and Fundie pals are not good sources of information, certainly not scientific information.
An important point that YEC always leave out when they talk about dating errors, fossil hoaxes and the like, is that these errors and hoaxes were all discovered and made public by scientists.
do you think it's possible that fundies could get a list of "most often repeated fallacies" - refer to it often and NOT keep on repeating them?
There are plenty of lists available, some on pro-evolution websites like Talkorigins.org, others on pro-creation websites like AnswersinGenesis.org.
It doesn't even matter that a list comes from a pro-creation website, the fuckwits ignore it.
so what hope do we have of convincing them?
NtC -- Isn't radio kind of old fashion. How 'bout DVD carbon-dating? And, as to carbon-dating, personally, I never date an element with an atomic number of less than 18.
@Tiny Bulcher
ITYM 50,000 years, Napoleon.
Ah. Thanks.
And, as to carbon-dating, personally, I never date an element with an atomic number of less than 18.
And right at atomic number 18, you're wasting your time. Argon never hooks up with anyone. The prude.
I dare anyone... anyone to provide a single bone that was ever dated to even a billion years in age by a reputable lab or scientist, without the result being thrown out immediately due to obvious errors.
Especially since, prior to 700 million years ago, there were no animals, and prior to ~400 million years ago, animals didn't have hard parts like bones.
Had someone gotten such a date, I suspect the sample would immediately have been checked for contamination, and/or retested by a different method.
'And right at atomic number 18, you're wasting your time. Argon never hooks up with anyone. The prude.'
Nah, you need to get to potassium at 19 before they get interesting. That extra electron comes in really handy when things get wet 'n' wild. Good times...
P.S. How do you do quotes with this thing?
You're off by a factor of 500 on the upper limit of carbon dating and about seven orders of magnitude on certain other radiological dating methods (K-Ar, for instance).
<<< As has been said, carbon-dating is not accurate within 100 years. >>>
Actually, you can get to a narrower window than that with carbon dating for relatively young items with lots of carbon - according to the Wikipedia article, +/- 30 years is possible. (That's about 0.5% of one half-life, which is probably near the upper limit of precision.)
Most of these "mistakes" were in the infancy of the process, when they were figuring out it's limitations and fault effects. Scientists published the problems and what to avoid in future, this is how we know about some false conclusions.
Other methods are what they use with or instead of carbon dating for more accurate results
But, you know that, don't you.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.