Quote# 50893

Q u o t e:
Since it hasn't been demonstrated otherwise, I'm going to assume that the objections against Carbon dating are the same bunk I've already heard about. All sources I find tell me that Carbon dating is still accurate up to around 45000 years, and still can't be used on things older than 60000 years or so, which is most definitely not a new development.

It doesn't even matter, because we have other methods of dating which work just fine for longer periods in the past.

Well sorry, you are wrong. If you look up the scientology of those methods, you will see they don't agree because decay rates can't be standarized. It's a guesstimate, nothing more. Water exposure proves those results to vary extraordinarily.

I give it another 20 years and I'm sure they'll debunk carbon-14 dating entirely, as well as radio-carbon dating and replace it tenfold by then, coming up with a new age for the earth that everyone will happily agree is "fact".

Brielé, WoW Offtopic 11 Comments [10/31/2008 2:15:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 2
Submitted By: L

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 | bottom


"...I'm sure they'll debunk carbon-14 dating entirely, as well as radio-carbon dating..."


12/31/2008 11:30:15 PM


The scientology of those methods?

12/31/2008 11:45:44 PM



Please give us your answer once you're out of the third grade.

1/1/2009 6:18:14 AM


If you look up the scientology of these methods, you will see that they were given to us billions of years ago by an alien from another galaxy. Now give me money.

1/1/2009 6:39:40 AM

"... the scientology of those methods..."

Enough said. I don't believe I have to add to this.

5/16/2009 3:50:33 PM

Guys like this just repeat the same thing over and over and over again. Doesn't surprise me one bit (except for defense of morally wrong acts, of course).

2/4/2011 11:26:08 AM


Another 20 years you say? Like I'm going to take the word of someone who thinks carbon-14 dating and radio-carbon dating are two different things.

Scientology? You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

2/4/2011 11:39:03 AM


For the N+1_th time:

Radiocarbon dating has nothing to go with the age of the Earth. The decay happens a factor of ten or a hundred thousand too fast.

You want potassium-argon or uranium-lead, and both of these have been very precisely calibrated.

Why is this so hard to understand?

2/4/2011 12:41:12 PM


Isn't carbon-14 and radio-carbon the same thing? And isn't that just used on fairy recent things, like only 60 000 years into the past, or so?

That's the beauty of science (not Scientology, as that is a tad more crazy than even your religion), it can, and must change as new knowledge emerges.

2/4/2011 1:03:41 PM


..."the scientology of these methods"??

Get out of here, you rube.

2/4/2011 1:13:54 PM

Dr. Shrinker

"I give it another 20 years and I'm sure they'll debunk carbon-14 dating entirely,..."

Your lot has been predicting the imminent death of evolution for about 150 years. It is now recognized throughout the entire modern scientific world, and its acceptance shows no signs of abating. Why should we give your predictions about carbon-14 dating any more credence.

2/4/2011 1:32:23 PM

1 | top: comments page