I'd be a little worried about what Anon looks like. LOL
ABSOLUTE PROOF THAT DINOSAURS AREN'T MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD!
Shall we start a pool on which post number it wil be when Perry jumps on here and tells us that Dinosaurs roamed the earth 6000 years ago?
Even back when I was a dutiful JW, I thought the idea that there was a vast diabolical athiest conspiracy to debunk Genesis was really f**king stoopid.
Great thread, Mary!!!
Oh, PLEASE, Villalobo!!!
EVERYONE knows that "Jesus" made his entry into Jerusalem mounted on a TRICERATOPS!!!
I did a Google search for "Is radio carbon dating accurate" and got a lot of religious sites. This one, being much the same seems to use scientific data and shows the limits of RC14 dating.
I used to think RC-14 dating was proven accurate beyond a doubt. Then I read how dates are actually determined and that RC-14 is unreliable because there is so much information that is unknown about the amount of Carbon in Earth's atmosphere in the past and how much it has increased or decreased over the millenia. RC-14 dating assumes that the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere has remained constant. The only problem with this is erupting volcanoes can spew carbon into the atmosphere, (obviously increasing the carbon content), thus making the dating of specimens vary wildly depending upon from where the samples were taken. Also there is a 30,000 year limit on RC-14. So how do scientists come up with the millions of years they tack onto the age of dinosaurs and the earth itself?
Dating methods are based on 3 unprovable and questionable assumptions:
1) That the rate of decay has been constant throughout time.
2). That the isotope abundances in the specimen dated have not been altered during its history by addition or removal of either parent or daughter isotopes
3) That when the rock first formed it contained a known amount of daughter material
("Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg v)
We must recognize that past processes may not be occurring at all today, and that some may have occurred at rates and intensities far different from similar processes today.
( "Radioisotopes and the age of the earth" pg vii)
To know if carbon dating is accurate, we would have to know how much carbon was in the atmosphere in the beginning, and also how long it has been increasing, or decreasing. Since no one was there, no one knows for sure. It's like trying to figure out how long a candle has been burning, without knowing the rate at which it burns, or its original size.
Still it is not my intention to sway anyone over to my point of view. Look at the information and decide for yourself. Look up counter arguments for the accuracy of RC-14 dating.
I think your computer is cracked
Well the problem I see with dating of any sort is that no human has lived long enough to know whether the dating techniques are accurate unless it's something we already know the age of based upon our own history. These are all simply unproven theories as to how long a certain isotope (be it radioactive or not) takes to break down. They may break down at a certain rate at present, but these tests are done in a controlled laboratory environment and the sample is removed from the environment which could theoretically influence the rate of decay.
This link is from a site that supports the accuracy of RC-14 dating, yet admits that it's not accurate past 45,000 years.
So how do scientists get that dinosaurs are millions of years old when RC-dating isn't reliable past 45k years as admitted by the scientists who use the techniques?
They use radiometric dating: