Where are the dinosaurs?

[JoeyArnold]

there is no such thing as an air molecule

is there such a thing as a water molecule?

 

[Elendur]

is there such a thing as a water molecule?

Yes.
H20, dihydrogen monoxide.
Water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeyArnold]

Water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Elendur]

Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dunno where you're going with that, but I'll answer in kind:
Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[razeontherock]

I think that would be me. And no, there is no such thing as an air molecule.

Edit: I think a parallel with 'earth molecule' or 'fire molecule' would make my point clearer.

I call foul! It is Earth, wind and Fire (or EWF for short)

NOT Earth Air and Fire.


Earth, Wind and Fire Trumpet Solo from Bobby Burns Jr (Stuttgart July 2010) - YouTube

 

[Tiberius]

Raze, you're either quibbling about minutiae or taking the thread off topic.

Naughty boy.

 

[razeontherock]

Hmmm ... the discussion had turned to air molecules; doesn't seem I could take it more off-topic than that. And exactly which part of this thread hasn't quibbled minutiae?

If I'm that transparent, it seems I've learned how to communicate more effectively.

 

[JoeyArnold]

the discussion had turned to air molecules; doesn't seem I could take it more off-topic than that

why is talking about molecules off the topic of dinosaurs? were the dinosaurs not made of molecules? i was asking about air molecules and water molecules. sure, air is a collection of gases. but when i say air, i am not thinking about the other gases. when i think about water, i do not think about lemonade. there could be other molecules mixed in there in the water, sure. the problem with carbon dating dinosaur bones is that there are so many variables that can throw off the date

 

[razeontherock]

Who discovered the dinosaur molecule?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

the problem with carbon dating dinosaur bones is that there are so many variables that can throw off the date

1) We don't carbon date dinosaur bones. Carbon dating doesn't work on things older than 60,000 years, and dinosaur bones are over 65 million years old.
2) Radiometric dating is a very robust system, complete with both internal checks and balances and external corroboration - these these dates garnered by mechanically independent techniques, all slot together perfectly.

So, if you think there are too many variables to allow for a reliable date, please tell us what these variables are.

 

[someguy14]

Where are the dinosaurs?

Nirvana - Breed - YouTube

 

[JoeyArnold]

2) Radiometric dating is a very....

is radiometric dating reliable?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, radiometric dating is reliable. There are several different radiometric techniques which we can use to cross check, by dating a sample by more than one of the methods. There are also other, non-radiometric methods which we can use to check the results as well.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Yes, radiometric dating is reliable

how is radiometric dating able to outdo the limitations of carbon dating?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

is radiometric dating reliable?

Yes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

how is radiometric dating able to outdo the limitations of carbon dating?

It's not. Carbon dating is radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is a broad spectrum of techniques that use radioactive decay to measure the ages of things. Carbon dating uses the radiometric decay of carbon to measure the ages of things.

 

[mzungu]

It's not. Carbon dating is radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is a broad spectrum of techniques that use radioactive decay to measure the ages of things. Carbon dating uses the radiometric decay of carbon to measure the ages of things.

Indeed; The unit of measure or the method depends on what one is measuring. There are limitations to each method and those limitations are important when the accuracy of the measurements are vital.

Suffice it to say that many methods may be needed in order to correlate the results and reach a more accurate conclusion.

An example being the Antikethera machine. The dating of this machine was done through correlating the dates of the surrounding artefacts found on the shipwreck that carried the machine. Geologists, historians, physicists, chemists etc all joined forces to date the pertinent artefacts and the resulting dates each corresponded with each other. Thus we know that the machine was built around 100 BC.

The longer the time spans the more tolerance deviation is allowed. An example being: a few centimetres difference when measuring the distance between the Earth and the sun make little to no difference. But, when measuring shoe size then a centimetre difference will be a large deviation and thus be very important.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Carbon dating uses the radiometric decay of carbon to measure the ages of things.

is radiometric decay constant? is the decay constant? is it decaying at a constant rate?

 

[JoeyArnold]

Indeed; The unit of measure or the method depends on what one is measuring....... An example being the Antikethera machine. The dating of this machine was done through correlating the dates of the surrounding artefacts found on the shipwreck that carried the machine. Geologists, historians, physicists, chemists etc all joined forces to date the pertinent artefacts and the resulting dates each corresponded with each other. Thus we know that the machine was built around 100 BC.

What about with dinosaur bones? How do we figure out how old they are? farther, can we get correlating help from other sources? from your above example, we have historians and others who can tell you the date of certain things. if something is found next to something else then that may help us assume that the two are of the same age. if we know how old one thing is then we can tell how old the other thing is. the problem is with the dinosaur bones. if we had a five million old man who had an eye witness account of the dinosaur bone then we can take his word on it. if the bone was sandwished in the grand canyon then we may want to assume the bone is however old that the layer is. then we have to ask ourselves how do we know how old the grand canyon is? some people may say that each layer of the grand canyon may be however old as the dinosaur bones are that are found in those layers. then we reach circular logic, circular reasoning. we know how old the dinosaur bones are based off how old the grand canyon is. and we know how old the grand canyon is based on how old the dinosaur bones are. and we tell our kids this is science and that religion is much worse than this....... well, other people may date the grand canyon based on how long of a process it may have taken to form the grand canyon... that is then taken on assumptions and theories and hypothesises... nobody was there when the grand canyon was being made...... so we cannot know for sure how long it took to make the grand canyon....... so it either took millions of years to form..... or it probably had to be formed really quickly through the religious world-wide flood.... which some people want to label as a fairytale for nintendo lovers

 

[razeontherock]

if we had a five million old man who had an eye witness account of the dinosaur bone then we can take his word on it.

I wouldn't take the word of a 5 million year old man. Besides, he'd probably smell bad.