- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Very interesting article on carbon dating
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:59 pm to Volvagia
Posted on 7/4/17 at 6:59 pm to Volvagia
Still nothing?
Okay.
Let's try a different tack: you didn't feel that maybe there was a faulty premise or assumption when they took samples millions of years apart and got essentially the same age?
Would be more of a smoking gun if the ratio within the group was consistent with the "secular" estimation, but just smaller.
But no, carry on telling others they need to "literally" read the whole article.
Okay.
Let's try a different tack: you didn't feel that maybe there was a faulty premise or assumption when they took samples millions of years apart and got essentially the same age?
Would be more of a smoking gun if the ratio within the group was consistent with the "secular" estimation, but just smaller.
But no, carry on telling others they need to "literally" read the whole article.
This post was edited on 7/4/17 at 7:00 pm
1
Posted on 7/4/17 at 7:01 pm to tigersbh
quote:
The Earth may be much, much younger than scientists think.
You need to stop posting.
Signed,
An earth scientist
Posted on 7/4/17 at 7:01 pm to tigersbh
quote:
You literally need to read the whole article.
Why would I read the entire article when it's main assertion is so easily disproved. If you had posted an article that said the sky is red, but 95% of the population is just colorblind I would react the same way.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 7:16 pm to Volvagia
But the question still hasn't been answered. Can you actually feel it coming in the air tonight?
Posted on 7/4/17 at 7:22 pm to Volvagia
quote:
quote:quote:
Greater education doesn't mean greater intelligence.
That is so true.
Ah the political board.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 7:36 pm to tigersbh
People who think carbon dating is an exact science are the same people who think global warming will destroy the country in 2015.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 7:49 pm to kywildcatfanone
Just as dumb as OP
Posted on 7/4/17 at 7:51 pm to kywildcatfanone
Pretty much anyone who puts their faith in "science" is an idiot. Science today is little more than asking for grants and posting on Facebook, nobody has a clue about anything.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 8:01 pm to tigersbh
quote:
Very interesting article on carbon dating. The Earth may be much, much younger than scientists think.
First of all, carbon dating isn't used for such long timescales.
Second, several independent methods converge on more or less the same answer - 4.5 billion years. Not just radioactive dating is involved here. If it were just one method, maybe. But several leading to the same conclusion? Uh-huh.
Third, your site isn't exactly an objective source.
Posted on 7/4/17 at 8:21 pm to foshizzle
Doin' the devil's work, foshizzle
Posted on 7/5/17 at 12:12 am to dbeck
quote:
Only people with a religious agenda use these terms. I didn't even have to see the source to know it was biased bull shite. It's amazing that in the year 2017 there are still people who don't know that fossils are made of stone.
Evolutionist is ridiculous. I prefer Evolutionite.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 12:16 am to tigersbh
Odd that oxygen and hydrogen weren't asked how they felt about carbon dating. Considering the valence that holds them together is essential for life as we know it. Must be some tranny homo thing.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 2:19 am to tigersbh
Not peer reviewed so basically an editorial
Posted on 7/5/17 at 2:36 am to Mudminnow
Do you guys think, given the massive amount of problems within the article, that the OP still believes said article is accurate in it's way of dating the earth?
Posted on 7/5/17 at 3:08 am to GeorgeTheGreek
100%
Posted on 7/5/17 at 8:03 am to tigersbh
quote:
The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. For example, a series of fossilized wood samples that conventionally have been dated according to their host strata to be from Tertiary to Permian (40-250 million years old) all yielded significant, detectable levels of carbon-14 that would conventionally equate to only 30,000-45,000 years “ages” for the original trees.
wow, that is amazing!
quote:
h://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/doesnt-carbon-14-dating-disprove-the-bible/
NM
Posted on 7/5/17 at 8:15 am to tigersbh
We can see hundreds of millions of light years away, so I think that's all the proof I need to know that the article is full of shite.
Posted on 7/5/17 at 8:17 am to tigersbh
One Key to article is inference that thousands = less than 6,500.
You would love to share observations where they select data point coal from permian and get #notOld from that coal.
Got to see some outside peers confirm that test result. Just saying it is not enough.
Language is also tricky. At one point they allow 100,000 years for c14 dating but at the end jump from #NotMillions to ("thousands", therefore confirms 6,000).
Is it evil to lie in the service of the mission? Sounds Islamic.
You would love to share observations where they select data point coal from permian and get #notOld from that coal.
Got to see some outside peers confirm that test result. Just saying it is not enough.
Language is also tricky. At one point they allow 100,000 years for c14 dating but at the end jump from #NotMillions to ("thousands", therefore confirms 6,000).
Is it evil to lie in the service of the mission? Sounds Islamic.
This post was edited on 7/5/17 at 8:19 am
Posted on 7/5/17 at 8:28 am to OMLandshark
Quibble old miss shark. Is this not so?:
We can see light that began hundreds of millions of years ago. No one "sees" to a point in space such and such distance of light years away. The light is here registering on eyeball receptors and brains and techno-gadgetry.
We can see light that began hundreds of millions of years ago. No one "sees" to a point in space such and such distance of light years away. The light is here registering on eyeball receptors and brains and techno-gadgetry.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News