Check out this question.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApAPhyzy_.KmQtrY.eXhwpnsy6IX?qid=20070211185147AACmTW5&show=7#profile-info-1bcb25a0d381c0655bcaf8f07de90567aa
The guy is trying to show that carbon dating is unreliable. He posts a link to some website claiming as much.
But if you navigate to that website's disclaimer, you find this statement:
============================
ANY ADVICE OR INFORMATION RECEIVED THROUGH THIS WEBSITE OR ITS CONTENT SHOULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AS BEING CORRECT OR ACCURATE
============================
2007-02-12 05:07:23 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Folks, this question is not about carbon dating. If you want to discuss that, start your own question. This qeustion is about the intellectual honesty of evolution deniers.
2007-02-12 05:13:23 · update #1
OK, since you idiots can't stay on topic, here is the deal with carbon dating.
Yes, it can yield inaccurate results if not done properly. Just like an x-ray of your leg won't detect a broken arm. The technique has to be properly applied.
Anything done inaccurately will yield inaccurate results.
There has not been one single scientific refutation of accurately applied technique of carbon dating. So if you are so convinced it is inaccurate, why not make a name for yourself and debunk it scientifically.
2007-02-12 05:20:05 · update #2
Shyann, you are way off topic there but let me tell you the answer to those questions.
Insects do not breathe as we do. Because their surface area to volume ration is much greater they do not need lungs, they have microscopic invaginations on their bodies that increase their body surface enough to get adequate oxygen directly into the blood. The blood is then circulated almost like stirring a pot of soup. They compress their thorax in order to cause the blood to sort of swish around their thoracic cavity delivering oxygyn loaded blood cells to the interior.
2007-02-12 05:24:54 · update #3
woieeee Mullah that is just amazing. Websites about evolution don't have a similar disclaimer.
2007-02-12 05:17:33 · answer #1 · answered by UFO 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That is exactly how they operate. In my searches of creationist websites I have found countless errors and misinterpretations being flaunted as proof against evolution. The most common is the idea that evolution is a 'theory' not taking into account that the scientific definition is different than common usage.
I would love to see a logical creationist argument, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
2007-02-12 13:23:09 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The website discusses the problems with simple C14:C12 dating. It ignores the fact that there are tree rings. You can create data using the wood from preindustrial layers of trees to overcome the effect of fossil fuels. In fact, you can use them to build a year by year record of C14 incorporation in the biosphere. You can also correct with the C13 ratios, and the site fails to mention this.
2007-02-12 13:44:31 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Im becoming kind of wary for trusting the net as the only source of information there is on the planet.
2007-02-12 13:10:52 · answer #4 · answered by Antares 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well, It was honest of them to put the disclaimer in.
That made me laugh out loud, by the way.
2007-02-12 13:20:24 · answer #5 · answered by Sara 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You do realize that the equation for radio carbon dating has 2 variables? Any 8 grader can tell you that an equation with 2 variables will never provide a 100% accurate solution.
2007-02-12 13:11:05 · answer #6 · answered by Geoff 2 · 1⤊ 4⤋
It is frightening how clever they have become in their rebuttals to evolution. Even more frightening is that people blindly follow these blatant misrepresentations of science. Try reading any info from the JWs on evolution. Awe inspiring in their devious tactics.
2007-02-12 13:15:25 · answer #7 · answered by Phoenix, Wise Guru 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The seal argument is totally debunked at talk origins in any case so he can forget about that nonsense.
2007-02-12 13:16:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
LMAO!!
That's too funny.. I don't think the person who posted the question saw the disclaimer, honestly. I know I wouldn't post something like that knowing that it could that easily be discredited.
2007-02-12 13:16:03 · answer #9 · answered by Kallan 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Common sense escapes you,this is very clear to anyone
whose read your silly post. Tell us,how did DNA develope
and how did it form in such a precise way?
How does a tiny nat breath? Do nats have hearts? If so,
tell us about them? Why does the colors on a butterfly
look beautifully painted on them by an artist,yet the colors
come off when you touch them?
Accidental creations? Do you have any sense at all,common
or other wise?
2007-02-12 13:16:06 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 5⤋