It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It would take some huge magnitude of energy to change them on any significant level. The sun's activities is barely even significant.
Originally posted by Plugin
I think the further you go in time, the more wrong they get.
But I'm no expert but just my gut feeling.
Like for example, since dinosaurs died millions and millions of years ago (according dating), how is it possible they found soft tissue from a T-Rex?
discovermagazine.com...
Once, when she was working with a T. Rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says.
"The guy looked at it and said, 'Do you realize you've got red blood cells in that bone?' " Schweitzer remembers. "My colleague brought it back and showed me, and I just got goose bumps, because everyone knows these things don't last for 65 million years."
If soft tissue can last 65 million years, Horner says, "there may be a lot of things out there that we've missed because of our assumption of how preservation works." James Farlow, a paleontologist at Indiana University–Purdue University at Fort Wayne, adds, "If you can preserve soft tissue under these circumstances, all bets are off."
T-Rex tissue:
edit on 19-3-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)
"there may be a lot of things out there that we've missed because of our assumption of how preservation works."
because everyone knows these things don't last for 65 million years."
Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Gorman91
Carbon Dating is used by creationists as a blanket term for ANY form of radio-metric dating, or essentially any dating techniques that they think contradict that story at the beginning of the Bible with the talking snake in it.
Carbon dating can't date anything older than around 60,000 years or so and because of this no dinosaur fossil can be dated with carbon-14 yet I still see creationists all the time saying they can't believe dinosaurs are really that old because of carbon dating.
edit on 19-3-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by edmc^2
Thanks. I go for: 2) Their dating method is way way off.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by edmc^2
Depends. Carbon if it is available. But there are other molecules that decay as well. You can't really date a rock's history unless it has one of these local decay rates. You can probably date the rock itself in terms of billions of years.edit on 19-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
No it's quite perfect. Some molecules decay in billions of years, some millions, and some a few thousand. Because of this diversity of decay rates, we need only select the right molecule to date something.
Evolution is quite real. Even today we see it. Flies have started waking up earlier to eat our crops, and they have become incompatible with populations that do not. Mosquitos in subways have already begun becoming incompatible with the surface conditions their ancestors came from.
That's why I said good not perfect because it depends on several factors and parameters. If one or any of these parameters is not met the result will be very - very inaccurate.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by edmc^2
I respectfully disagree to your claim of evolution. All life is dna being constructed into proteins. If the dna of smaller structures can change, the dna of larger ones are just as likely to change over time.
We have yet to detect any significant variance, and if you don't know how to select what molecule you're dealing with, you really ought to not be in the field, not speaking about it.
rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.
I respectfully disagree to your claim of evolution.
All life is dna being constructed into proteins. If the dna of smaller structures can change, the dna of larger ones are just as likely to change over time. For example, a bird in many ways is still a reptile. The only change was keratin B, and better heat management. Besides that, it's basically still a reptile. You drawing a line to divide the two is just that. You dividing a line. Life changes.
Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by Gorman91
not sure if anyone posted this yet, but here is the most scientific reasoning i have seen yet which explains why carbon dating cannot be trusted as totaly accurate
news.discovery.com...
"the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with "constant" decay rates -- these values aren't supposed to change. School textbooks teach us this from an early age."
"Many fields of science depend on measuring constant decay rates. For example, to accurately date ancient artifacts, archaeologists measure the quantity of carbon-14 found inside organic samples at dig sites. This is a technique known as carbon dating."
"But as you can see, carbon dating makes one huge assumption: radioactive decay rates remain constant and always have been constant. If this new finding is proven to be correct, even if the impact is small, it will throw the science community into a spin"
"In another moment of weirdness, Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins noticed an inexplicable drop in the decay rate of manganese-54 when he was testing it one night in 2006. It so happened that this drop occurred just over a day before a large flare erupted on the sun."
news.discovery.com...
edit on 3/19/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)
it will throw the science community into a spin"