Hans Blaster
Raised by bees
- Mar 11, 2017
- 22,109
- 16,626
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
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.
(emphasis mine)Geologists do not use carbon-based radiometric dating to determine the age of rocks.
@Hans Blaster - Well here you go; apparently argon gas dating has more problems than carbon 14 dating.
Argon Geochronology Methods
@Hans Blaster - Well here you go; apparently argon gas dating has more problems than carbon 14 dating.
Argon Geochronology Methods
You really really should learn the basics of science.
Optimistic, I know.
Do you even read your sources?
The first line was:
(emphasis mine)
Could you detail how Argon methods have more problems than C-14 dating?
What I see in that article is people who understand the limitations of the method they are using.
You want another article about "carbon 14 dating" - well here you go.
Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable
You want another article about "carbon 14 dating" - well here you go.
Dating Rocks and Fossils Using Geologic Methods | Learn Science at Scitable
your link said:However, if the bone is 70,000 years or older the amount of 14C left in the bone will be too small to measure accurately. Thus, radiocarbon dating is only useful for measuring things that were formed in the relatively recent geologic past. Luckily, there are methods, such as the commonly used potassium-argon (K-Ar) method, that allows dating of materials that are beyond the limit of radiocarbon dating (Table 1).
Are you just spamming links you havent read or understood?
Please explain your (imagined) point(s).
Why should I explain when you don't believe me anyways? That's why I post the articles. You can read them yourselves.
LOL - you didn't read their conclusions did you?
THere was no section labeled conclusions or similar in the Ar dating article.
In summary, this creationist is not a reasonable interlocutor. He is either badly misinformed, sloppy, or dishonest.
How long do you want to play this game:
THere was no section labeled conclusions or similar in the Ar dating article.
In summary, this creationist is not a reasonable interlocutor. He is either badly misinformed, sloppy, or dishonest.
LOL - and what game is that? All I'm doing is throwing you articles that refute your presupposition that the earth is billions of years old.
There's no reliable evidence for the methods of dating. Scientists admit this.
So.... don't get mad at me.
A creationist didn't write that article. Read it. It didn't take me long to find the information and I just skimmed it.
LOL - and what game is that? All I'm doing is throwing you articles that refute your presupposition that the earth is billions of years old.
There's no reliable evidence for the methods of dating. Scientists admit this.
So.... don't get mad at me.
The age of the earth is very well supported by data and observations (i.e. science).
Then quote it.
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?