Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Carbon-14 Dating Debate Assistance Thread
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4831 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 22 of 38 (492546)
01-01-2009 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Peg
01-01-2009 8:30 AM


Popularity Isn't Prophylactic Against False Belief
... my question is why would you proclaim my ignorance when others here express similar sentiments???
Non-responsive: Please list and defend a couple of reasons to believe that carbon dating is inaccurate for more than a few percentage point at establishing absolute dates.
Is it more acceptable coming from a fellow evolutionist or something?
As well as being insulting to the integrity of others, it wastes bandwidth and gets us no closer to an answer.
BeagleBob's statement does not say that carbon dating is unreliable” your assertion ” only that U-Pb has built-in double checks and that carbon dating has more sources for possible error than U-Pb dating. That this is acknowledged means possible source of error can be taken into account, restoring accuracy.
Claiming that RC dating is unreliable is like saying pacing off a distance is more prone to error than tape measure so the results of pacing could be off by orders of magnitude.

Don't do that Dave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Peg, posted 01-01-2009 8:30 AM Peg has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4831 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 25 of 38 (492577)
01-01-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
01-01-2009 10:54 AM


A Short Aside
and you don't need anything more than a high-school education to understand it.
One doesn't need as much as a high-school education to understand it.
However, you state this is atmospheric radio carbon. Would one use a different baseline for the ocean or a lake? To keep it short, just point me to a site; I can take it from there.
Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar

Don't do that Dave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2009 10:54 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2009 7:16 PM lyx2no has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4831 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 34 of 38 (492710)
01-02-2009 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
01-01-2009 7:16 PM


Re: A Short Aside - marine reservoirs
Thank you, RAZD, that's a great site. I've learned many things form it. Some only marginally related; i.e., lake muds have a name: gyttja. I can't wait to drop that on my aunt.
But it also brings up a new problem (opportunity). In the K-12 section (read through most of the sight last night) it gives a list of things that carbon dating can be used on. On the list is Iron & Meteroites. Now I've got to find out how it could apply to either.
Again, Thanks.

Don't do that Dave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 01-01-2009 7:16 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024