[If radiocarbon dating is only good for 50,000 year-old specimens, or younger... how do we get the ages of older specimens? I can see where we can extrapolate ages of geological formations from what is in each layer, etc, but how do we know, for example, how old a rock is?]
They don't know- Carbon dating is uselss past about 4000 years (not 50,000 as asserted by advocates) due to several factors as I've laid out previously- Coyote evidently found a 'Christian' who has bout into the lies yet ingores the evidences presented that show WHY carbon dating AND the 'other' methods coyote claims are used with accuracy are infact innacurate- But argue with him if ya like- He'll simply keep posting the same stuff as though there were no evidences showing the innacuracies of dating methods, and present his links as though none of the innacuracies really matter.
Cottshop, Free Republic 11 Comments
[9/30/2007 6:16:51 PM]
Fundie Index: 5
One bad radiometric dating reading and the entire field is bogus.
Dozens of prophecies unfulfilled and it's proof that Jesus is coming back.
10/3/2007 12:13:18 PM
Carbon dating has been shown to be perfectly consistent with dendrochronology for at least the last 10,000 years.
10/3/2007 12:22:29 PM
There are other isotopes with much longer half-lives. Uranium-238 has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. Then again, some isotopes have a half-life of milliseconds.
Nuclear physics are fun stoof, even though I scarcely know shit about it.
Carbon-14 dating is accurate to about 60 thousand years. You're thinking the half-life is some sort of expiration date...?
10/3/2007 1:07:53 PM
Carbon-14 is not the only isotope.
It tends to be the most commonly used one, there's Potassium-40 (half life 1.25 billion years), U-235 & U-238 (704 million and 4.47 billion respectively) and Thorium-232 (48 billion years).
The most reliable is typically dating by comparing the beta emitter Strontium-87 content as compared to the non-radiogenic Strontium-84, -86 and -88. The different isotopes are chemically indistinguishable, so any reaction that effects the Sr-87 will effect the Sr-84, Sr-86 and Sr-88 equally.
12/3/2007 9:33:46 AM
Fail quantum mechanics much, dumbfuck?
6/26/2012 8:44:12 AM
"bluh bluh carbon is innacurrate"
6/26/2012 11:58:56 AM
Filin De Blanc
And "it says so in an old book" is the height of scientific rigour?
6/26/2012 12:02:49 PM
You have obviously "bout" into the YEC lies and "ingores" all scientific evidence that points to an old Earth.
If you don't listen to sense and reason, the only two options are to keep repeating sense and reason, or to blow you a raspberry and leave. Coyote apparently tried the former, but with that appalling grasp of grammar and spelling, and geology and history, that you have, I'm tempted to go with the latter alternative...
6/26/2012 12:20:41 PM
30,00 to 50,000 years is the oldest that carbon dating can be applied because the half life is 5,600 years so after 7-9 half lives not much is left.
There are other radiometric dating methods such as K-Ar, Ar-Ar , U-Pb etc that have longer hapf livrd and therefore older dates.
6/26/2012 4:39:40 PM
Another F in nuclear physics.
3/8/2013 12:32:42 PM
"He'll simply keep posting the same stuff"
Chances are, that was what we call "evidence", something the people of Free Republic know nothing of.
3/8/2013 5:43:40 PM