Carbon dating is wrong Free sex chatbot pics
I think most of this stems from contaminated samples.For example if one were carbon dating the shroud of turin and were to take samples from the shroud would one be getting samples from around the time the shroud was made, from the time it was scorched by fire, from samples found on the shroud of people who touched it with grimy hands.Indicating its not a simple process, and that there is plenty of room for mistakes.Finally lets say that I found an article that provides the exact arguments that the religious folks use to put down radio carbon dating. Now, given those circumstances, please debunk each of the arguments, in an attempt to shed light on the subject for the unenlightened masses. Please be sure to address each of the 5 arguments one at a time, then we can move to the google scholar articles later.I always was told that science was wrong, carbon dating was inaccurate, etc.I believed it until I went to college and learned about science for myself.
" But then you have to realize: would you have more value to just have something pop up and know its invincible, or to have something that took ages to be formed into it's current state?
A little bit of genetic snobbery, a little bit of church condition and heavy doses of "we're a special, unique species". The man who caused me so much grief in grammar school. If it was anything else braking it then it would make it YOUNGER not older, because more C14 would be broken down.
Lived at home during grammar school and was constantly indoctrinated with anti scientific preaching. Plus if radioactive dating wasn't the same, then it would make carbon the single radioactive process that does so.
Well, what's wrong with it is that there is absolutely no empiric evidence for the existence of a god whatsoever, so at best the existence of such a being is a belief that not everyone shares, and even people who believe in a god don't necessarily believe in the same one, or even the same version of one. That's why certain arguments drive many atheists to distraction -- they just seem absolutely ludicrous from a scientific point of view. The most optimistic calculations give a radiocarbon dating uncontrolled error range of 1200 years of arbitrarily added or subtracted age. Boutomo, is of a more realistic opinion: "due to the considerable fluctuations of C-14's specific activity rate, the radiocarbon datings of relatively young specimens (under 2000 years of age) cannot be used as fundamental referential data for the absolute chronological scale." See p-83 To really get into the carbon dating problems, see the book C-14 Crash by Blöss and Nimitz. Fossils are underground, how can anything effect them from space?
Some people don't like it when they're looking at a Primate such as an Ape and someone says "You're descended from that, you know". Not to mention it would have to be a carbon based molecule of the isotope C14 in order to disrupt this (proving life in space) .When I got to college I was older and less apt to believe what I was told. I did know that Kent Hovine was an idiot when I was in grammar school. All other radioactive decays that are from a one day difference in decay time to a millennium difference in decay time keep at a constant rate. [edit on 18-7-2007 by Gorman91] [removed quote of entire previous post] Mod Edit: Quoting Please Review This Link.Most of my teachers in grammar school were very religious as well so evolution was taught as something Nashville mandated be taught in all state grammar schools. [edit on 18-7-2007 by sanctum] Originally posted by Major Malfunction Well, what's wrong with it is that there is absolutely no empiric evidence for the existence of a god whatsoever, so at best the existence of such a being is a belief that not everyone shares, and even people who believe in a god don't necessarily believe in the same one, or even the same version of one. That's why certain arguments drive many atheists to distraction -- they just seem absolutely ludicrous from a scientific point of view.It is inaccurate but all forms of dating are inherently inaccurate. Carbon dating can be out by a few years and for some that is enough of a justification to say that it should never be trusted. Variations in radiocarbon concentration depending upon geographical location and the tree species: 8.5% deviation range.