Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, what standard do you use for an instrument to calibrate it for reading at 50 million years? Just where did you get this sample that is KNOWN to be that age...
I'll tell you.. the sample is presumed or came from some other "old" rocks........
It's not a known sample... its speculation based on assumption and extrapolation.
It would not pass as a certifiable standard in my lab....
No.... we use known, certified samples, not artificial standards, in order to calibrate our instruments. We use blanks and standards in order to ensure that our instruments are reading accurate and certifiable values.....Excuse me, what laboratory doesnt use QC samples? To answer the question, you use artificial concentrations.
Hold on, this is ridiculous. Youre just making stuff up, you wouldnt even use a 50 million year old object to calibrate for radiocarbon dating. that doesnt make any sense.
Youre just spreading false information.
Thanx for your input but God has numbers, times and time periods noted and relevant all through his Word from the beginning of time to the end of time ..
Regardless (of any or no time),and astronomy shows that billions of years passed before the Earth came into existence.
Regardless (of any or no time),
if a no-faith, weak-faith, or strong-faith person places any faith in astronomy,
they will not endure to the end to be saved.
No.... we use known, certified samples, not artificial standards, in order to calibrate our instruments. We use blanks and standards in order to ensure that our instruments are reading accurate and certifiable values.....
How on earth are you going to measure the date of an object if you cannot even calibrate it?
And.........like I said, the further you go from the known calibrated, certified value, the further off and the greater the deviation of the accuracy of the instrument.
Carbon dating is a THEORY and nothing else. All it would take is for one scientist to discover one little, now unknown factor, and the whole thing would fall like a house of cards.
But, that will never happen. If someone discovered an error in the method of carbon dating, that rendered it inaccurate, they would have to keep their mouth shut or face loss of accreditation, condescension, ridicule and face the unemployment line.
Regardless (of any or no time),
if a no-faith, weak-faith, or strong-faith person places any faith in astronomy,
they will not endure to the end to be saved.
You cannot certify that an item is millions of years old by any instrument because you have absolutely no known specimen that is certifiable as being that age... not even one..... it is all built on a foundation of sand.There are numerous examples of correlated results from independent laboratories using independent dating methods for the K-T boundary.
You can call it all made up if you want, but the data says otherwise.
The NT teaches us that we are saved by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ
Amein,You cannot certify that an item is millions of years old by any instrument because you have absolutely no known specimen that is certifiable as being that age... not even one..... it is all built on a foundation of sand.
Nothing else.
Nothing else.
The NT teaches us that we are saved by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ (+/- works - a topic for another thread), not by how we interpret Genesis.
Therefore, I am quite comfortable believing in science, including evolution, and having strong faith. I certainly do not think that I will be condemned due to my evolutionist tendencies, even even I am wrong.
You cannot certify that an item is millions of years old by any instrument because you have absolutely no known specimen that is certifiable as being that age... not even one..... it is all built on a foundation of sand.
Amein,
and
when the storm comes,
the house built on sand
gets washed away.
Radioactive dating was discovered over 100 years ago and has been actively used worldwide since. I don't know what kind of storm youre waiting for, but something tells me the house is built on a bit more than sand if it has been running strong for 100+ years.
Radioactive dating was discovered over 100 years ago and has been actively used worldwide since. I don't know what kind of storm youre waiting for, but something tells me the house is built on a bit more than sand if it has been running strong for 100+ years.
And you still can't explain Polonium halos almost instantly formed in granite without untruthful spin
And you still can't explain Polonium halos almost instantly formed in granite without untruthful spin
Are you sure about that? Why don't you post your source and try me.
Anyway...bottom line...
We have the fundamentals of chemistry and physics supporting ages of millions of years old. We have correlation of numerous dating methods reported by independent laboratories on independently gathered samples of the K-T boundary.
Do you have a better explanation for how varying radioactive dating methods can yield the same results when reported by independent laboratories on independent samples collected worldwide?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?