|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5027 days) Posts: 18 From: Los Angeles,California,USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Radioactive carbon dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Well many of my dates sank like a stone.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined:
|
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?
You must be dislexic. I didn`t agree with you. I didn`t disagree either. I asked you if you think physicists are stupid. You didn`t answer my question. So, do you think that physicists are stupid?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I said that there was a type=o. I don't see where there was a typo. You said it was a basic fact that heat speeds radioactive decay. "Basic" was your exact word, which you then denied, and then I showed you that's what you had written. You didn't say "process" or "property". (I don't even understand what kind of distinction you're trying to draw, here.) No typo that I can see. Just your basic problem with honesty. Look, it's ok. We all saw it. You don't even have to admit it.
Alright then, give me the link to that "authorative source" of yours. It was one of the graduate-level chemistry texts I have around the house, so I can't really link it. But the Wikipedia article on the subject is pretty simple. Can you show me where it suggests that temperature affects decay rates?
Radioactive decay - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ArchArchitect Member (Idle past 6181 days) Posts: 58 From: Pasadena, CA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
I am going by what my teacher told me. Well, he's pretty clearly wrong, isn't he?
Now what is the link to that authorative source? Easy, killer. It takes time to type these messages, you know. How about you relax a little bit?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juraikken Member (Idle past 6189 days) Posts: 82 From: Winnetka, CA Joined: |
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 areathe 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ArchArchitect Member (Idle past 6181 days) Posts: 58 From: Pasadena, CA Joined: |
Crashfrog, I wasn't talking to you when I blew up..I was talking to fallacycop...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
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. Those events are easily controlled for, since we were around to witness them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Juraikken Member (Idle past 6189 days) Posts: 82 From: Winnetka, CA Joined: |
u were around 30 million years ago? or better yet 1 million years ago?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cthulhu Member (Idle past 5852 days) Posts: 273 From: Roe Dyelin Joined: |
quote:Wouldn't matter. quote:Wouldn't matter. quote:The Earth has had atmosphere for more or less its entire existence. quote:C-14 dating deals with proportion, not amount, so no matter. quote:How the hell could a disease affect radioactive decay? quote:How the hell would a magnetism affect radioactive decay? quote:Ah, you don't know what radiometric dating is. It's not based on the amount of radioactivity. That's not to say that it wouldn't have an effect. It's just that the effect would be very, very obvious. Edited by Cthulhu, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Crashfrog, I wasn't talking to you when I blew up.. The lies just keep on coming with you, don't they? From your message:
quote: I don't understand why you would think so poorly of me that you would tell these obvious falsehoods right to my face.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ArchArchitect Member (Idle past 6181 days) Posts: 58 From: Pasadena, CA Joined: |
Check out this link about Carbon Dating.. It's really helpful.
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
| Answers in Genesis
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
u were around 30 million years ago? Is that when you believe the first atomic device was dropped on Hiroshima? Because that's what I was talking about. As it happens, though, we have siginificant evidence from both astronomy and geophysics that proves that decay rates have been constant throughout the past 2 billion years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
AND YOU DIDN'T REPLY TO ME.. I have know Idea who you were replying to
I was replying to message 19 by ArchArchitect. would that be you?
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.
Good. So what makes you believe you can walk in here and act like you are in a kindergarden telling people how there is this really basic thing about carbon dating that physicists have not been taking into account. Hint: this is bullshit you`ve been forcefed, and you`re not even aware of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ArchArchitect Member (Idle past 6181 days) Posts: 58 From: Pasadena, CA Joined: |
Exuse me crashfrog, but did you ask me anything about what I thought about physicists? No....fallacycop did..Why would I tell you what I thought about physicists if you were not the one to ask me?
-So, if you're going to accuse me of something, include the whole truth. DO YOUR RESEARCH ON ALL OF THE COMMENTS.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024