[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by 762Russian
It was 'disproven' by people who don't know how Carbon Dating works. Were you listening to Kent Hovind or something?
Carbon Dating is known to only be accurate on non-aquatic creatures, and then only effective to about 50,000 years because the half-life of carbon is only some 4300 years. The reason for this is because after about 50,000 years, there is no carbon left in a fossil. The reason it doesn't work on aquatic creatures is because they absorb carbon directly from the water thus causing very wonky readings. The people who have 'disproved' carbon dating neglect to mention that scientists know exactly what the limitations of the method are.
|
Sure, but preconceived notions shape the
interpreted data.
Quote:
|
When carbon dating cannot be used, they then go on to Potassium-Argon dating, which uses specific radioactive isotopes (argon,) which have a half-life of 1.3 billion years and thus can be read for a fairly accurate dating of an object over pretty much the entirety of the time life has existed on this planet.
|
(Karpinskaya TB, Ostrovshiy IA, Shanin LL: Synthetic introduction of argon into mica at high pressures and temperatures. Isv Akad Nauk S. S. S. R Geol Ser 1961; 8:87-9)
It appears that potassium-argon results can also be skewed. I read of a paper considered to be a "classic" which threw out about 80% of the data as it did not fit.
Quote:
|
I can't answer the rest because willful ignorance makes me want to vomit in anger and profanity is bubbling on the surface. Off to watch dog videos or something.
|
Well if it's willful ignorance, prove it wrong. Pick an easy one. Why be bitter? I'll research your the tenets of your beliefs, why not match me on that?