{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/19/2015 8:54:44 PM
1
That would assume many things. For example our atmosphere was always the same or the sun's ultraviolet rays were the same.
English
-
Edited by Britton: 3/19/2015 9:02:17 PMRadiometric dating? It takes tons of observed data and uses that. Nothing becomes science just because. Scientists love one thing above all else, proving other scientists wrong. So to assert that we are using bullshit techniques when you apparently haven't researched the answers to your own questions is foolish.
-
If that and carbon dating are scientifically accurate then how come they can produce wildly different answers? Also please do not be so condescending.
-
If samples are allowed to be contaminated then the results will be garbage. When Clair Cameron Patterson was trying to find the age of the earth he had that very problem. In his quest to stop his samples from being contaminated he invented the first ultra clean lab. (With the decontamination suits and all) also if just measure for carbon you will find lots of different results. You have to measure the amount of carbon-14, a radioactive carbon isotope.
-
How do they know if that is not contaminated also?
-
Be doing multiple tests and checking for consistency.
-
They have done that many times throughout history and then something is found to be wrong. What I am getting at is you are "trusting" them and that you have "faith" in that they are correct. Have a good day and God bless.
-
Edited by Britton: 3/19/2015 9:39:59 PMIf you choose not to look up the history of the science and how it actually works then what you go with is irrelevant. I don't need faith in it because its repeatable and testable. I do trust it, because I've done enough research on the topic to understand it.
-
I have been reading about science since I was a kid and I am in my mid 30's. What I am saying is that they have proven things many times that something was "fact" and then has turned out later it was proven wrong. I will try and come back later. I have to go play with my kids. It has been nice conversing with you.
-
Enjoy the time with your kids. Have a good day.
-
Can you point me in this direction of this said data?
-
Google half life decay. There's metric shit tons of info on it. I think the guy who discovered it won a nobel prize. I google life cycle of our sun. The info is out there, just go look for it.
