we know that carbon-dating is useless for all intensive purposes. Potassium-Argon gas dating is also dependent on independent variables and assumptions. As for any radioisotope dating, someone can make a claim that the half-life of an element is a few million years based on what's been observed in a laboratory over the last 100 years, for example. But the truth is that if someone makes a claim that something is 5 million years old, then to prove that, the person would have to wait 5 million years to show that the decay of the isotope was consistent or didn't have any exponential change one way or another over that time frame. All of these dating theories are based on nothing but assumptions.
25 comments
"But the truth is that if someone makes a claim that something is 5 million years old, then to prove that, the person would have to wait 5 million years to show that the decay of the isotope was consistent or didn't have any exponential change one way or another over that time frame."
"we know that carbon-dating is useless for all intensive purposes."40 K
assumption 3) that the sample has been a closed system since the K/Ar clock began "ticking"
Assumption 3 can be tested for using release spectra during Ar/Ar dating.
~
Eh well, they'll be saying the same thing next week too :(
Dude, AFAIK, the change IS exponential. It sure as hell isn't a straight line. Thing is, exponential results of experiments are NOT A PROBLEM for anyone who can do calculus.
<<< All of these dating theories are based on nothing but assumptions. >>>
Redhunter put it perfectly; these morons try to claim certainty from the Bible, yet cast aspersions on science, claiming that IT operates on mere "assumptions" -- yet science seems to work well enough to get probes to the outer Solar System, acquire images of the body's systems, and so on. It certainly has a wildly better track record for explanation and prediction than the Bible.
Everyone by now knows how grammatically anal I am. So I went and looked up intensive in a dictionary just to see if it could be used in this situation. Surprise, it can't. Now, if this moron would go do some REAL research on carbon dating, maybe, just maybe, he might actually learn something, instead of being told what to say by the overlords.
Good that we also have tree ring counting, ice layer counting, and coral layer measurement to verify our other dating methods.
Or do you claim that trees were growing more rings per year, snow fell in shorter periods and corals had faster grow in former times? You, "Tumordoctor" would need to assume this to save the silly assumption of 6000 years as the age of earth.
> we know that carbon-dating is useless for all intensive purposes.image
By the way, carbon dating ISN'T useless for anything younger than 60,000 years.
> But the truth is that if someone makes a claim that something is 5 million years old, then to prove that, the person would have to wait 5 million years to show that the decay of the isotope was consistent or didn't have any exponential change one way or another over that time frame.
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.
