Why is it that when every dating method tests something of known age, it's ALWAYS wrong?

Question

But when testing things of UNKNOWN age, they're assumed to be right?

The oldest living thing on the planet is the Bristlecone pine in Northern California with roughly 4300 annual rings counted. Since this is the oldest item of known age that can be used to calibrate dating methods, no test results older than 4,300 years can be counted on to be reliable.

Answer 1

again, please provide sources for your bullshit statements about dating. Please skip the creationist sites and go for objective science publications.

Answer 2

Exactly where are you getting your information about dating methods being wrong? I don't see quotations, so your credibility is suspect.

Since you seem to be referring to relatively young objects, I assume you're referring to radiocarbon dating, but there are certainly similar objections to your unreasoning with reference to all the other methods used for older objects.

Using material from still living trees is bound to yield an inconsistent level of C14 from tree to tree. Some parts of the tree are still accumulating C14 and the older parts are having their decay rates altered by the proximity of still living tissue. Even if you calibrated in this way, you'd only have one point reference at 4300 years, which wouldn't help you calibrate uneven C14 distribution in the years since.

Scientists use constantly accumulating statistics which are far more accurate then a Bristlecone Pine calibration would render, which is based on a single, highly innacurate point of reference. The current tables are far more accurate, and are reliable within predetermined error factors out to about 60,000 years.

No dating method is totally accurate. This is expected. If you think ANY technical dating method will give you a result to the day, or the year, or even the correct decade, you are incorrect.

Answer 3

Radiometric dating exhibits 2 issues very wisely. It exhibits the quantity of the daughter isotope and the cost of degradation. those 2 issues are measurable and observable. The dating make 3 assumptions that are actually not observable. It assumes that the decay value has been consistent, that there became into no an infection, and the commencing ratio of parent to daughter isotope. None of those assumptions are verifiable. whilst dating rocks of often used age, the effect are off- way off (no count what technique is used). So, as a results of fact of this i do no longer purchase into the uniformitarian worldview. It does no longer make experience. and you're precise, using carbon dating won't artwork for some thing extra suitable than 60,000 (i do no longer bear in mind the right parent). yet, assume the commencing up assumption is faulty? assume the fossilized maintains to be of dinosaur bones isn't as old as we expect? the reality is, secular palaeontologists are afraid to carbon date bones of their sequence, as a results of fact of achievable injury yet in addition the outcomes would conflict with their worldview. edit: except they're time travelers they're ASSUMING that the cost became into consistent, exceptionally in case you anticipate the earth to be 4.5 billion years old.... a marvelous form of unobserved time. "Dinos have been lifeless for 60+ million years, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old provide or take 250,000 years, and radiometric dating would be shown to artwork previous any doubt that everybody cares to indicate." Oh you comprehend this. despite the fact that, whilst it is composed of a few thing it truly is observable, repeatable and falsifiable (organic and organic decay), hastily each and every of the large clever scientist have a case selective lack of information "organic and organic fabric lasting extra suitable than sixty 8 million years... i assume we don't comprehend as much as we concept approximately decay." I inform you what, enable's look on the cores of a few extra of those bone fossils and carbon date them. Why no longer in simple terms positioned this count to take a seat down back.

Answer 4

No. You can use the ring pattern to establish the scale. Further, you can use the early ring pattern from the center to establish climactic phases for trees in that region. Using that pattern, you can identify trees that were thousands of years old when they died 3,500 years ago to work farther back. The science of tree rings, dendrochronology, has established a very long chain. Dating is sound science. "Debunking" it is mere hand waving.

Answer 5

The dating methods test out quite well. There are lots of samples that had known ages from records in Egypt and other civilizations. The results compare perfectly: http://www.c14dating.com/int.html

Answer 6

I think you're wrong on all counts. There's a giant fungus (Armilaria bulbosa) in Michigan that is over 10,000 years old, and a creosote bush in Soggy Dry Lake in California that may be even older.
Do a little more research and rethink your hypothesis.

Answer 7

Really? and just where did you find that information?...

If I found a tree that grew earlier than 4300 years ago.. say it grew from 4500 years ago until 4000 years ago.. and it grew in the vacinity of your pine tree.. and we found part of it intact so we could look at the rings...

then.. we could match up the rings in my tree to yours.. and find out where the overlap was located.. and then from there find out what years MY tree grew...

THEN, we could use my tree to date back to 4500 years ago.. and the results would be pretty reliable.

Answer 8

Common sense also plays a part of course. Other than that, since I am not a scientist, I have no explanation. Visit a library, I suspect your answer will be found there in a non-fiction science book.

Answer 9

Are they always wrong? I didn't know that and frankly, don't really believe it.

Oh, and I'm Christian btw.

Why would they continue to use the methods they use to calibrate age if it doesn't work? One thing you can say about science is they are just as critical of themselves as they are of us :)

Answer 10

Your information is incorrect. Don't get science information from your paster, get it from actual scientists.

You may think there is some debate about the age of the earth. According to the Journal Nature, there are more historians who actively deny the Holocaust than scientists who deny an old Earth. Denial of evolution/geology, like denial of the Holocaust, is nothing more than (and nothing less than) a character flaw.

Answer 11

there's quite a few methods that can test further than that.

Theres fission track dating:
electron paramagnetic dating:
and potassium-argon dating,.... used to date fossilized volcanic rock, over 200,000 years.

Dating primate fossils uses either:
RELATIVE TESTING:.... which tests for flourine, nitrogen, and uranium content, and:
ABSOLOUTE TESTING,..... which tests for radio active isotopes and thorium in primate fossilized bone.

The most common one people are familiar with is carbon-14, accurate to 60,000 yrs,.... and 100,000 yrs using particle acceleration.