2007-01-02 06:10:43 · 14 answers · asked by STFU Dude 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Were the scientist who aren't secular, and believe carbon dating is faulty Christians first, and then became scientists; or were they first scientists, and then became Christians?
The answer to this question will answer your own.
2007-01-02 07:48:47 · answer #1 · answered by frenzy-CIB- Jim's with Jesus 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I think they say its accuracy is limited just like all techniques. Also its open to human error. If I carbon date a fossil of a chicken bone, am I finding out the date of the bone, or the rock that cause the mineralization? See all kinds of ways for the dating to be less accurate than one would imagine.
2007-01-02 06:19:14 · answer #2 · answered by jim w 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because Carbon dating is a highly useful tool when used appropriately. It is highly useful for objects which were formerly living and less than 50,000 years old which lived in non-aquatic environments.
When you are investigating ages greater than 50,000 years such as the age of the earth, which is 4.5 billion years old, other radiometric techniques are used using other isotopes which have much longer half-lives.
Each technique used for radiometric dating has a age interval within which it is accurate. Geologists know what this interval is and don't apply it to ages outside that interval. Of course Creationist fundies routinely do so which is why they can make such absurd claims which of course geologists recognize immediately as being completely ignorant.
2007-01-02 06:20:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It isn't as faulty as creationist propaganda would have you believe. It has it's limits in accuracy around the 10000 year mark and most specimens cannot be dated using this method.
Obviously the reason creationists have it in for all radiometric dating practices is because it proves that the Earth is much older than they assume from the Bible.
2007-01-02 06:17:04 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Carbon dating is proven by comparison to tree ring data etc. so it isn't faulty even if it does have limitations that scientists are fully aware of.
2007-01-02 06:17:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't appear to be faulty since 6 other types of dating concur with it's results.
2007-01-02 06:15:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
Because all secular scientists are part of the massive conspiracy to lead people away from God. It's really a sinister plot organized by Satan, of course.
To get the Truth, you have to listen to the half-dozen people with actual Ph.D's who say that radiometric dating is all hoplessly wrong, since we all know the universe is only 6000 years old, just like it says in the Bible.
--
jim w: ??? If you radiometrically date a fossil, you are getting the age of the fossil. The bone became fossilized within a few years of the the animal's death, or the bone would have decomposed completely and there would be no fossil. There are causes for inaccuracy of carbon dating, but your example isn't one of them.
2007-01-02 06:19:10 · answer #7 · answered by abram.kelly 4 · 1⤊ 6⤋
No kidding....and this comment comes from a researcher friend of mine.........loss of jobs! There is much riding on what some scientists are paid to do. If his genetic research grants were taken away based on an argument w/ in his peers, he and his staff would be out of work. I had never realized (and have gained a huge amount of respect) the huge degree of separation from his personal and professional beliefs. Interesting stuff. Sometimes you are not allowed to rock the boat.
2007-01-02 06:13:36 · answer #8 · answered by <><><> 6 · 1⤊ 6⤋
Stirred up the trolls again.....
Yes you fundies are all completely correct, all of science has ground to a halt and we have had to start again, sheesh!
2007-01-02 06:16:27 · answer #9 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Chewy seems to be right. There simply cannot be another answer.
2007-01-02 06:31:43 · answer #10 · answered by Christy2112 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋