{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/18/2015 3:56:03 AM
1
-
Carbon 14 dating (radioactive decay) is limited to 40-60k years. Anything extended beyond that is done so at extremely low confidence (1% and decreasing every ~5-6k years). The timeline required for the theory to hold true is not supported by the scientific methodology that it claims to use. Taking it to the extremes of "special consideration" which is the common explanation given, it still doesn't overcome the inate limitations of the method itself or any principles of radioactive half lives. The science simply doesn't support it.
-
Carbon dating has almost nothing to do with evolution. You need to be talking about the fossil record.
-
Fossil records are a part of the theory of evolution. The claim being that some animals evolved from dinosaurs millions of years ago based off a technology limited to going back 60k years. See the hole?
-
Edited by Stickman Al: 7/19/2015 6:58:30 PMCarbon dating is only one part of radiometric dating. There are other isotopes that have much longer half lives that are used in dating older things. Whilst you are correct that carbon dating is only accurate to about 60,000 years, that's not what scientists are using to date fossils. This is a common misconception. I suggest you do some reading about the dating methods they use and address those instead. Here's a quote; The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age. Scientists can check their accuracy by using different isotopes.
-
The creatures that revolved from dinosaurs are birds. (They specifically evolved from theropods.) There is fossil evidence of this.
-
It is a shame that the dating of those fossils is limited to 60k years. Otherwise it would be relevant to the theory.
-
Carbon-14 dating isn't the only way to date things. Scientists can date the rock layers that fossils are found in, and even if they couldn't, the simple presence of fossils makes them hard to deny, even if the dating isn't 100% accurate.
-
[quote]Carbon-14 dating isn't the only way to date things. Scientists can date the rock layers that fossils are found in, and even if they couldn't, the simple presence of fossils makes them hard to deny, even if the dating isn't 100% accurate.[/quote] It isn't the only way to date things but is the only method used to date fossils. Indirect measurements even using thorium dating are still indirect and are of low confidence by the nature of an indirect measurement. The radiocarbon dating accuracy is closer to less than 0.001% accurate (It is actually magnitudes less accurate than that as it is not a linear extrapolation). So by your logic, the Shroud of Turin, by its simple presence, makes Jesus and ergo Creation by the Christian God hard to deny (even if dating isn't 100% accurate). Every theory has its holes when you pull it apart (both creation and evolution).
-
Did you skip over the part where I said they used other methods to date the rock layers?
