Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: Rummenigge
"Such as the radio carbon method."

You mean the radio carbon formula that was formulated to meet a pre-conceived conclusion? There are a lot of problems associated with that FARCE.

32 posted on 03/11/2009 10:01:12 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: Nathan Zachary

shhhh- don’t mention that radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about.... 10,000 or so years- beyond that, it’s all nothign but speculation and assumptions- but alas, we creationists ‘don’t understand’. We ‘don’t understand’ for instance that ALL the dating methods have SERIOUS problems associated with htem such as the following major dating methods:

Not a valid dating method- too manyvariables must be taken into account- too many suppositions


Up to 10000 years tops

Radiometric Dating Methods
problems with radiometic

Obsidian Hydration Dating
Many obsidians are crowded with microlites and crystallines (gobulites and trichites), and these form fission-track-like etch pits following etching with hydrofluoric acid. The etch pits of the microlites and crystallines are difficult to separate from real fission tracks formed from the spontaneous decay of 238U, and accordingly, calculated ages based on counts including the microlite and crystalline etch pits are not reliable.”

Very little info on this method

Luminescence Dating Methods

Amino Acid Racemization

Fission-track Dating

Ice Cores
At best- the two methods above are only accurate to about 11,000 years due to numerous conditions and environmental uncertainties

Highly unreliable- you’d need constant temps to maintaIN reliable growth pattersn

Cation Ratio
Fluorine Dating

Known times only throuhg analysis of the patina
Oxidizable Carbon Ratio

Electron Spin Resonance
Cosmic-ray Exposure Dating
Closely related to the buggiest dating methods of Carbon dating

why it’s wrong:

RaDio helio dating disproves:

39 posted on 03/11/2009 10:14:00 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

To: Nathan Zachary

Humans are naturally biased. We tend to see what we want to see and explain away unwanted data.

42 posted on 03/11/2009 10:25:09 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson