Posted on 02/19/2011 4:01:41 PM PST by AndyTheBear
"Carbon dating dinosaur bones is ludicrous, and the fact they yielded numbers is meaningless,"
(Excerpt) Read more at worldbydesign.org ...
A law to stop this testing? I thought we conservatives were all in agreement that there are more than enough laws in the world, and choices should not be greatly restricted by more laws. If institutions and individuals want to pay for such testing, new laws should not be imposed on them, whether you agree with the results of the testing or not. Are you not a conservative? or do you favor further legal intrusion into our lives and activities?
Testing every which way is fine by me, but all the pros and cons of the methods should be listed. If it’s true that carbon dating is only applicable to things less than 50 or 60k years old, then how are scientists coming up with millions of years for some of their dates?
Let’s stone archeologists while we’re at it.
Why?
ON,NTSA
Captured in that ancient amber, like an old yellow photograph , was the image of ....
... Jesus riding a dinosaur! Awesome!
“If it’s true that carbon dating is only applicable to things less than 50 or 60k years old, then how are scientists coming up with millions of years for some of their dates?”
But nothing is older than 6,000 years. Right?
Helen Thomas
Why?
Your Young Earth Creationists disagree ~ they all think Earth is far younger than the pictoglyphs and statues.
Which is why the rest of us don't really pay any attention to them when it comes to dating conventions. You can't just go throwing away the foundations of culture, writing, art, religion and so much more of human history in an attempt to justify a "young Bible".
This piece is garbage. Typical disingenuous BS we’ve grown to expect from the liars who purport to do “creation research”. Radiometric dating is a powerful, well understood tool if properly applied - the author knows this but is trying to be too clever by half. It’s funny though, the genius who cranked out this crap won’t even put his name on it - that says it all.
There’s no such thing as “Carbon-Dating” dinosaur bones, as Carbon dating is only useful back 50,000 years, and dinosaurs, of course, are at least 65 million years old.
It’s important when cluelessly ranting to at least have a handle on what you’re cluelessly ranting against.
Actually, scientists do not use carbon dating for anything much past 10,000 years. Even then. many assumptions must be made. They date fossils by what they call “index fossils”. They determine how old a fossil is by how old the layer of rock is where the fossil was found. They determine how old the rock layer is by the index fossils found in that layer. Actually, this is called circular reasoning and they are totally guessing and outright making things up. On the other hand, they have very accurate methods for determining the effects humankind is having on global warming.
“or do you favor further legal intrusion into our lives and activities?”
Don’t you know...it depends on who’s ox is being gored.
“There needs to be a law to stop this testing.”
Yeah, we know what the facts are already, right? Maybe we could burn them at the stake too eh? Make them recant their heresy while the purifying fire burns the demons from them perhaps?
I’ve done my share of dating dinosaurs. Now I only go out with younger women.
One does not “carbon date” dinosaur fossils. The half-life of Carbon-14 is too short to yield meaningful numbers beyond 60,000 years. Thus any Carbon-14 that was present in the original bone has long since decayed. There are other radiometric dating techniques using other isotopes, but these likely tell only the age of the minerals that leached into the bones to replace the original material. (i.e. if 1 billion-year old stone provided the minerals for the fossils, then the radiometric date would be 1 billion years; even if the bones themselves were buried only 100 million years ago.)
Provided, of course, they first get the dinosaur's consent.
I don't think any serious scientist would use carbon dating to measure the age of something he thought was much older than 50,000 years old.
Please always remember that, most often, you are not reading what the scientist said but what some lame-brained reporter said he said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.