Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 19 of 221 (395595)
04-17-2007 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sailorstide
05-01-2006 12:12 AM


Carbon Dating is False because...
Carbon dating is false. The scientists are not taking into account that heat speeds up the amount of Carbon which would obviously alter it's age according to the scientists. (I'm assuming that the people who read this would know what Carbon Dating is).
You want proof? Why do you think that the fossils in volcanic areas are much, much older than those fossils that are found in cooler areas like oasises? The scientists are not including that into the equation, which inevitably makes Carbon dating false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sailorstide, posted 05-01-2006 12:12 AM sailorstide has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 04-17-2007 1:32 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 22 by Nuggin, posted 04-17-2007 1:33 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 23 by DrJones*, posted 04-17-2007 1:41 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 24 by anglagard, posted 04-17-2007 1:42 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 04-17-2007 10:54 PM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 26 by fallacycop, posted 04-17-2007 11:24 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 20 of 221 (395598)
04-17-2007 1:31 AM


I meant the amount of Carbon which escapes the object...sorry about that.

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 27 of 221 (396106)
04-18-2007 10:35 PM


A Glitch In Carbon Dating
I am assuming that everyone here knows what Carbon Dating is. A basic property of Carbon14 is that under extreme heat, it decays even faster, making the object appear to be older than it actually is. (That is why fossils that are found near volcanic areas tend to be much older than the fossils that are found in canyons).
Unfortunately, scientists fail to take that under consideration and as a result, fail to plug it in into thier equations. Therefore, they screw up the apparent age of the fossils - or whatever object, who's age they are attempting to determine. However, even if they did plug in something into the equation regarding this, it would still be near if not impossible to determine the actual thermal conditions which the fossil/object underwent.

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 10:43 PM ArchArchitect has replied
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2007 11:06 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 28 of 221 (396109)
04-18-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by fallacycop
04-17-2007 11:24 PM


Re: Carbon Dating is False because...
Hey, that's awesome fallacycop = I didn't see that b4. I'm glad to see that someone is on the same page as me.
God Bless

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by fallacycop, posted 04-17-2007 11:24 PM fallacycop has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 29 of 221 (396111)
04-18-2007 10:40 PM


*sarcasm*

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 31 of 221 (396118)
04-18-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 10:43 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
It is a fact that fossils near volcanic areas are older than the fossils that are found in canyons.
It is a fact that heat would speed up the decay of Carbon14.
I never said that there were no lava marks on the fossils.
I also never said that it was basic.
And how should I know why the scientists don't plug them in? Oh...maybe it's because it would make no use of it. You even quoted me on it. "It would be near impossible to determine the thermal conditions...."
~The point is that Carbon Dating is not a reliable source for determing the age of a fossil/object.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 10:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:04 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 32 of 221 (396122)
04-18-2007 11:02 PM


A Helpful Link
This is a very useful link regarding Carbon Dating. Check it out..
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? | Answers in Genesis
I have not read it all yet and I don't think it talks about the thermal property of Carbon14 - or at least not yet, as far as I have gotten. And my old science teacher taught us about the thermal property of Carbon14.

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 35 of 221 (396127)
04-18-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:04 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
I said that the PROPERTY is basic. Not that the process is basic. How can the property be basic?! You even know that.
What makes you think that I made these things up. If the guy on this same page said the same thing, wo which Fallacycop replied to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:13 PM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:17 PM ArchArchitect has replied
 Message 47 by fallacycop, posted 04-18-2007 11:29 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 36 of 221 (396129)
04-18-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coragyps
04-18-2007 11:06 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
Sir, are you suggesting that they are teaching us 'bullshit' is our high schools?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2007 11:06 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2007 11:11 PM ArchArchitect has replied
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:23 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 38 of 221 (396132)
04-18-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:08 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
sorry crashfrog..I had a type-o in my previous message. I meant, "how can the process be basic" not property.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:08 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 39 of 221 (396134)
04-18-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
04-18-2007 11:11 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
THEN ENLIGHTEN ME

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2007 11:11 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 41 of 221 (396136)
04-18-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:17 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
Didn't you read the message after that? I said that there was a type=o. I said that I meant to type,
"I said that the PROPERTY is basic. Not that the process is basic. How can the PROCESS be basic?! You even know that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:31 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 42 of 221 (396138)
04-18-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:17 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
Alright then, give me the link to that "authorative source" of yours. I'll go check it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 45 of 221 (396141)
04-18-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:23 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
Only a lowlife would make something up on this forum. I am going by what my teacher told me. Now what is the link to that authorative source?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:35 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 49 of 221 (396145)
04-18-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by fallacycop
04-18-2007 11:29 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
ARE YOU THE BLINDEST PERSON ON THIS FORUM?! I even posted it right after that..that I was being sarcastic!! Go read the post right after that one..
AND YOU DIDN'T REPLY TO ME.. I have know Idea who you were replying to, when you asked if he/she thought that physicists were stupid.
And ofcourse I don't think that physicists are stupid. There are very smart ones out there, or the scientific world would not have been where it is today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by fallacycop, posted 04-18-2007 11:29 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by fallacycop, posted 04-18-2007 11:48 PM ArchArchitect 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