Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
A Question Rgarding Embedded Age
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="RickG" data-source="post: 65771049" data-attributes="member: 293581"><p>I dare say I have had more experience with radiocarbon dating than anyone at that site, and especially the person who wrote that article. Yeah! A lot more.</p><p></p><p>The article runs the same rubbish analogy with Libby as we see with Darwin as if nothing has been learned or improved on the process since then.</p><p></p><p>The article says scientists assume, assume, assume. That is false. When any radiocarbon lab prepares a sample for dating, they assume nothing, except the information pertaining to the sample provided by the submitter which hopefully is correct.</p><p></p><p>The article also ignores the fact that a calibration scale is used for varying 14C atmospheric content over time. The reason we know it has varied over time is because we can measure that variation. Wow! Just wow.</p><p></p><p>The article also contradicts itself.</p><p></p><p><em>"<span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years."</span></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></em></p><p><em><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></em><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'">They discredit 14C dating but then say it is okay for a few thousand years. The same principles apply whether a few hundred, thousand, or thirty thousand years. You can't have it both ways.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #000000"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'"></span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="RickG, post: 65771049, member: 293581"] I dare say I have had more experience with radiocarbon dating than anyone at that site, and especially the person who wrote that article. Yeah! A lot more. The article runs the same rubbish analogy with Libby as we see with Darwin as if nothing has been learned or improved on the process since then. The article says scientists assume, assume, assume. That is false. When any radiocarbon lab prepares a sample for dating, they assume nothing, except the information pertaining to the sample provided by the submitter which hopefully is correct. The article also ignores the fact that a calibration scale is used for varying 14C atmospheric content over time. The reason we know it has varied over time is because we can measure that variation. Wow! Just wow. The article also contradicts itself. [I]"[COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years." [/FONT][/COLOR][/I][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Times New Roman]They discredit 14C dating but then say it is okay for a few thousand years. The same principles apply whether a few hundred, thousand, or thirty thousand years. You can't have it both ways. [/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
A Question Rgarding Embedded Age
Top
Bottom