Thanks for the help Coyote those are excellent sources, i am reading right now. Just curious, do you accept long or young ages? Those sites you posted looks like their young ages.
Thanks for the help Coyote those are excellent sources, i am reading right now. Just curious, do you accept long or young ages? Those sites you posted looks like their young ages.
There is virtually unanimous agreement that the earth is ca. 4.5 billion years old.
The only folks who dispute this do so for religious, not scientific, reasons.
If I remember, those links also support the ancient age of the earth.
Let me know if you have questions on radiocarbon dating. I am not very knowledgeable on the other radiometric methods, but others here are.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Hi there- one of my colleagues does AAR dating, though they use it extensively as a relative age dating tool. This makes sense, since chemistry is a whole lot easier to change than atoms.
Effectively, a suite of fossils found in the same strata can be reasonably expected to have experienced similar diagenesis, and thus racemization of amino acids can tell you something about the relative ages of these fossils. Disparate fossils, like the bones Coyote studies, aren't really as datable by this technique. (see here: http://gsa.confex.com/...SE/finalprogram/abstract_118080.htm )
Indeed, AAR isn't really even interchangeable between different species (see http://gsa.confex.com/...SE/finalprogram/abstract_118080.htm ), so its utility is fairly specific. If well-calibrated it can be a potent technique, however, especially on marine samples.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
