Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 6189 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 51 of 221 (396147)
04-18-2007 11:35 PM


radioactive dating and carbon dating can only go so far, and when we go to carbon datings LIMITS the number is soo miniscule that it can hardly be counted as dating
plus, when dating these, rocks, bones, etc. scientists ASSUME that this carcass has not been touched by ANY outside force, this can be false. many scenarios may occur that scientists cannot ever know.
The carcass died in a radioactive area
the carcass died at a volcanic area
the carcass died when there was NO atmosphere
the carcass died with less carbon at the time than usually should
the carcass died with a disease
the carcass died during magnetism shift
etc.
there are many factors that can play in the age of this carcass. when we see bones, all we see are....bones, we cannot tell the dates becuase our methods of dating them are so primitive, yes primitive that the range of years comes out to be SO large, how can that even be considered a date?
40 million years difference is a very very long time.
also sinse radioactive dating method required radioactivity in the body, what makes you think that date was not altered due to the industrial era? or even worse, during nuclear warfare in Hiroshima? or anywhere for that matter.
carbon dating like i said can only go so far as 10,000 years and that is not even close to a fraction of the supposed age of the earth

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:39 PM Juraikken has replied
 Message 55 by Cthulhu, posted 04-18-2007 11:41 PM Juraikken has replied

  
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 6189 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 54 of 221 (396151)
04-18-2007 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:39 PM


u were around 30 million years ago? or better yet 1 million years ago?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:46 PM Juraikken has not replied

  
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 6189 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 71 of 221 (396172)
04-19-2007 12:07 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cthulhu
04-18-2007 11:41 PM


cthulhu writes:
Wouldn't matter.
radiometric dating doesnt CARE if theres radioactivity around it? so why the heck is it called radiometric dating?
"Radioactive decay is the process in which unstable atoms lose energy by emitting radiation in the form of particles or electromagnetic waves."
so tell me, if there is radioactivity in the air and this carcass is releasing radioactivity, its not going to be MORE radioactively affected? lol
they emitt radiation, and if theres more radiation in the air when it died, wouldnt that mean its MORE/LESS radioactively affected than it should be?
how can you say it doesnt matter at all?
cthulhu writes:
Wouldn't matter.
the volcanic activity serves NO purpose at all to the body?
if you were to fall in a volcano and millions of years later your bones be exposed to people, you think they woudlnt know at all that you were burned? sounds like science is fickle in that area
cthulhu writes:
The Earth has had atmosphere for more or less its entire existence.
not what big-bangists are saying, nor are what plenty of evolutionists are saying, some say at the beginning stages of Earths creation, there were NO atmosphere for a while
cthulhu writes:
C-14 dating deals with proportion, not amount, so no matter.
really? i thought that the c-14 dating actually has that carbon CLOCK running after the thing dies, so basically it IS amount really.
mathematically the c-14 in it keeps going down until there are no more c-14 in the thing near 50,000 years. so....it falls apart there
cthulhu writes:
How the hell could a disease affect radioactive decay?
are not visualizing it? depending on the atmosphere and where he died, he coulda had a c-14 disease in his body that could have depleted the c-14 in his body before he died THUS giving it a LARGER age than its suppose to have...
or it had eaten a ton of whatever he wants to eat right before he died making it seem YOUNGER than its suppose to be becuase he brought in him MORE c-14 to last longer.
cthulhu writes:
How the hell would a magnetism affect radioactive decay?
are you saying that during a magnetic shift NOTHING is going to die? lol. not true, during a magnetic shift plenty of animals die from the radioactive burst from the poles.
now lets say this thing died because of that, are you to say WE as scientists wouldnt know this?
cthulhu writes:
Ah, you don't know what radiometric dating is. It's not based on the amount of radioactivity.
i admit i know little, but it is based on the amount of radioactivity so says my source Radiometric dating - Wikipedia
decay of isotopes means the amount that is given off?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cthulhu, posted 04-18-2007 11:41 PM Cthulhu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by crashfrog, posted 04-19-2007 12:16 AM Juraikken has not replied
 Message 83 by fallacycop, posted 04-19-2007 11:27 AM Juraikken has not replied
 Message 85 by Nuggin, posted 04-19-2007 11:53 AM Juraikken has not replied
 Message 86 by Nuggin, posted 04-19-2007 11:57 AM Juraikken has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024