Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In Forums

Quote# 118

I also understand that the man who 'discovered' carbon dating, the crux of evolutionism, stated that the regular decay of the carbon atom was only 'reliable' up to about 10,000 years, and even that was iffy. So where does that put the age of the universe?

Tamararc, Bibleforums.org 18 Comments [6/21/2005 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 4
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
#38
Crosis

Oy. Three mistakes in one: C-14 dating is NOT the key defense of the known age of the earth (we use isotopes with half-lives in the 10^8-10^10 year range for that), C-14 dating is reliable to within reasonable accuracy out to about 50,000 years (not 10,000), and this problem wouldn't appear at all in a 6,000-year-old universe anyway, even given the poster's mistaken limit on its accuracy!

6/21/2005 5:35:10 PM
#310702
Leareth

and they used background radiation.

10/15/2007 11:13:51 AM
#310737
Dirac

Make up shit much?

10/15/2007 11:48:32 AM
#310749
JasoNF

"So where does that put the age of the universe?"

At least 13.7 billion years, measured by known distances and the known speed of light.
thanks for stopping by.

10/15/2007 11:54:59 AM
#316299
Brian X

What if I told you that C-14 wasn't the only atomic clock used to date the Earth? U-235/U-238 is a good one too -- it's how they figured out the Oklo reactors existed and when they were active.

10/22/2007 12:49:39 AM
#316304
Anon

Uh yeah.. they don't use carbon dating to determine the age of astral bodies and the universe...

I don't think this person could be more ignorant if they tried.

10/22/2007 1:12:37 AM
#316306
anti-nonsense

we don't use carbon dating to date the age of the earth and the universe foo!
Carbon dating is for archaeological artifacts. They used it to figure out when the natives arrived in the Americas and stuff.

We use isotopes with half-lives of billions of years to date the earth.

10/22/2007 1:15:14 AM
#316308
Martin

Even if that were true it still proves your bible wrong.

10/22/2007 1:17:19 AM
#1201289
blayzekohime

The universe is 10 seconds old.

9/1/2010 3:52:33 PM
#1201358
The Duelist

I hope you were joking. If not, then the rest of us need to be inoculated against stupidity.

9/1/2010 7:25:29 PM
#1201403
Last Thursday

About a week.

9/1/2010 8:59:08 PM
#1201419
Amadaun

It puts it...nowhere near carbon, which only has to do with working out the age of things that were alive and are now dead.

Also you don't really know what 'crux' means.

9/1/2010 11:00:42 PM
#1201425
Swede

It puts it where you use other methods of dating than carbon dating.

9/2/2010 12:00:08 AM
#1201728
Canadiest

Same place as before, older then Fundie claims

Most Christians still don't accept the "6000 year old Earth" dogma as it's crap EVEN IN BIBLICAL TERMS (and there's a lot of crap moderate Christians accept ) That genoligical crapmath is a travesty of history and biology

9/2/2010 2:08:47 PM
#1413475


That would be why carbon dating is only used for fairly recent objects, while other forms of dating are used for just about anything pre-human.

6/15/2012 7:40:33 PM
#1443862
Ebon

First off, there are other isotopes which are used to measure the age of the planet. Secondly, C-14 is reliable to about 50,000 years. Third, even if C-14 was only accurate to about 10,000 years, it would still disprove your theory of a six thousand year old earth.

9/5/2012 2:14:07 PM
#1443929


carbon dating is useful to about 35,000 years now , with better equipement and some calibration curves.

There are other redioisotope dating methods that have much larger timespans.

The universe is about 13.5 billion years old.

9/5/2012 4:07:19 PM
#1443932
agentCDE

Good thing we don't fucking carbon date SPACE, because that would be completely moronic.

You don't actually think carbon-dating applies to FUCKING SPACE, do you, Tamararc?

9/5/2012 4:12:59 PM
1