In this thread I see one side of the arguement for carbon dating that is backed up with logical reasoning and facts.
I also see James Browns expressions that seem to attack those who have posted these facts, much like a politician would but he has also NOT posted why the others are wrong and why he is right in a reasonable, logical way backed up with facts and evidence.
Not sure where to go. Do you have reading comprehension difficulties?
I showed and linked on this site and post that man cannot date rocks.
When they know how old the rocks are they date them wrong. In double blind test.
The only time they think they get the dates right is when there is no way to check the date.
If you want to follow Cofty have at it. I am showing you that man cannot date rocks. And he is saying they
can. But I am giving you evidence and proof he is just saying the evidence is not true, which is Cofty Lying to you.
Here is the evidence it was in this post all along on Page 1 of this post.
Since the same layers of sedimentary rock are to be found all over the world, wherever igneous rock is found above, below or within a layer of sedimentary rock it, and the fossils it contains can be dated. The accuracy of these dates can be confirmed by comparing numerous clocks from numerous samples. Not just the relative ages, but also the actual ages of sedimentary rock layers are now known with certainty coftys words.
They have proven they can not date lava. They dated Mount St. Helens off by 2.8 million years which is in my world much more than
1%. It's an error percentage like 2.8 million percent.
In the scientific community the dating of the Mount St. Helens lava is what is called a double blind test.
Something most people learn in 7th grade biology.
In my opinion your wasting your time arguing with Cofty and the evolutionist/atheist. They are on the highway to hell.
And they are blind to it. They cant even comprehend what they read or say.
The dating test
In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other. The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.
The results of this analysis are shown in
It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age? This challenges those who promote the faith of radioisotope dating, especially when it contradicts the clear eyewitness chronology of the Word of God.
Table 1. Potassium-argon ‘ages’ for whole rock and mineral concentrate samples from the lava dome at Mount St Helens (from Austin 1http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v23/n3/radiodating).
| | Sample | Age / millions of years |
| 1 | Whole rock | 0.35 ± 0.05 |
| 2 | Feldspar, etc. | 0.34 ± 0.06 |
| 3 | Amphibole, etc. | 0.9 ± 0.2 |
| 4 | Pyroxene, etc. | 1.7 ± 0.3 |
| 5 | Pyroxene | 2.8 ± 0.6 |
