Sciencescience

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 03:58 PM

Why C-14 is a flawed dating method!

6 replies, 284 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why C-14 is a flawed dating method! (Original post)
nolidad Mar 2019 OP
Bozo Haram Mar 2019 #1
nolidad Apr 2019 #3
SatansSon666 Apr 2019 #4
TendiesForBreakfast Mar 2019 #2
nolidad Apr 2019 #5
SatansSon666 Apr 2019 #6

Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 04:23 PM

1. You do know nobody uses carbon dating for anything older than about 50,000 years or so, right?

It has to do with the half-life of Carbon, which is about 5,700 years. After 50,000 years there isn't enough left.

I'm probably wasting my time here, but other radiometric dating elements with longer half-lives do exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bozo Haram (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 1, 2019, 07:37 AM

3. Yes I know that and all scientists know that!

So , theoretically, if a dino bone is tested, it should not yield an age for there would be no more C-14!

That should be true over and over and over again! But yet over 40 dino bones were tested anonymously (the bones not being identified to the lab), and they all yielded ages from 22k to under 50K!!! Every one of these tests should not yield any age at all!

And the lab does all the prep work so that any potential bacterial or other contamination is removed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #3)

Mon Apr 1, 2019, 07:38 AM

4. Lmao..

You still don't get it.
Poor nolidad.
Totally clueless.. totally fucking clueless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Original post)

Sun Mar 31, 2019, 04:35 PM

2. Which is why ages are typically verified by using uranium-lead or rubidium-strontium

to date the rocks in the same layer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TendiesForBreakfast (Reply #2)

Mon Apr 1, 2019, 07:40 AM

5. So then you admit C-14 is useless.

Well radioisotope dating is even more flawed!

1. Sedimentary rocks (where over 99% of fossils are found) usually contain no radioactive elements

2. neutrino bombardment alters radio ages.

3. The apogee and perigee of the earths orbit of the sun affects decay rates!

4. Water flow accelerates decay rates by washing material away, thus giving false dates.

5. Volcanoes reset atomic clocks in rocks!

And now that decay constants have been empirically shown to not be constant- I am highly confident that more ways will be discovered that alter decay rates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolidad (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 1, 2019, 07:44 AM

6. Lmao. .

Why do you have to lie so much?
None of what you said makes any difference.
Just incredible gullible and naive.
Not quite the traits of someone who claims a 162 IQ.

Neutrino bombardment.. lmfao..

Collar’s group bombarded their detector with trillions of neutrinos per second, but over 15 months, they only caught a neutrino bumping against an atomic nucleus 134 times. 

Trillions per second.. 134 collisions in 15 months.

Poor nolidad, doesn't even know what a neutrino is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Sciencescience