Do you believe we (the U.S.) dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki? The reasoning is this: If carbon dating can't be trusted then our fundamental understanding of how the atomic structure works and the foundations for all modern chemistry for that matter are wrong. If various radiometric dating techniques don't work, or work improperly, it's because we just don't get it, so to speek, that we don't understand atoms. If radiometric dating doesn't work, there is no way we could have had the understanding to split an atom, which is based on the same processes and understandings. So, given that, do you doubt that we "nuked" Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki? Or that we can get power from a nuclear power plant? If radiocarbon dating is wrong, both those things would be impossible. What does this do, if anything, to your doubts/arguments for a young earth or against the evolutionary timeline?
2007-08-06 06:49:38 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
As per the "lava questions"
Go here:
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD
The answers are under the "Geology" section.
2007-08-06 10:00:46 · update #1
No one is going to convince me that the earth is any older than 6 to 10 thousand years.......period.
And if I'm wrong.....it has no bearing whatsoever on my eternal status in heaven when I die
2007-08-06 06:53:10 · answer #1 · answered by primoa1970 7 · 3⤊ 14⤋
Not necessarily. We can understand carbon 14 decay and still get the dating wrong. Remember, someone carbon dated some flowers on the side of a road and 'discovered' that they were several million years old! Obviously, they took up the old carbon from burned gasoline. But how do we know what has happened in the past? There ARE other variables involved, you know!
2007-08-06 14:00:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe in the inefficacy of Online Dating.
I completely agree with your conjecture. Radiocarbon Dating does generally render a pretty accurate result, especially for specimens less than 15,000 years old. In some cases, external factors may enhance or inhibit the decomposition process and produce inaccurate results, but those are generally the exception rather than the rule.
In all cases, I think it is best to combine two or more forms of dating to ensure the best result.
2007-08-06 13:52:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Not the nicest example of your efficiency with atomic science.
O I have seen one of those clock the Squirrel mentioned, in Greenwich (GMT Greenwich Mean Time). I think its pretty accurate, the only thing is halflifes scare me. The idea that fundamentally nothing stops being radioactive completely.
Understandable though how it would make for an accurate dating method.
2007-08-06 13:53:50 · answer #4 · answered by Link , Padawan of Yoda 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
May I add this?
The most accurate clock in the world -- the atomic clock -- works on the exact same principle as radiometric dating.
But hey, you know, no one has really PROVED it's an accurate clock.
Same principle.
2007-08-06 13:53:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 0⤋
Your argument have some validity. However, I contend with those who view the system as flawless. There are some serious abnormalities and historical inconsistencies regarding the system of dating objects, rocks, fossils, and strata. the data is subjective at best. Accuracy is based more on human assumption than actual fact. Do your homework before you accept a system with some serious flaws.
2007-08-06 14:00:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well the point they throw out is that radiocarbon dating is not reliable past a certain number of years. They either are ignorant of or choose to ignore the fact that there are other dating techniques.
2007-08-06 13:53:42 · answer #7 · answered by chlaxman17 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If that's accurate, then how come on so many occasions the scientists have to come back and correct themselves? (like, oh, we meant to say five thousand, not 5 million). From time to time, I have seen little one-liner corrections in the newspaper in a place where they're pretty sure no one will see them.
2007-08-06 14:00:32 · answer #8 · answered by Cee T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
given that point...
please explain the wide variations regarding the attempt at carbon dating fresh lava samples from volcanic activity?
numerous samples taken from the same area will indicate thousands of years difference from even within the same sample....
2007-08-06 14:45:20 · answer #9 · answered by coffee_pot12 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You really don't get it, do you? The reason our atomic bombs worked in WWII is not because of our knowledge of physics.
Our bombs worked because God didn't like the godless Japanese. Also, we don't really get power from nuclear plants. It's an atheist conspiracy. Saying anything else is blasphemy.
2007-08-06 14:02:14 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
mankind makes use of a lot of processes that it does not understand. You very much over inflate mankind's understanding of the laws of the universe.... and the ability of mankind to properly make use of what it dose understand.... and your understanding of the processes you mention is weak as well... re-education is recommended.... report to Big Brother immediately for reprograming... your submision to the cult of Big Brother's science worship is recognized and you will be gently treated
2007-08-06 14:00:45 · answer #11 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋