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.

 

Carbon Dating, please tell me how it is wrong?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 





So this is your opinion.


The funny thing about science is that it's true, not opinion.

Life is made of proteins.

These proteins can and do mutate.

A single mutation can cause keratin to produce feathers instead of scales.

Therefore, all the claims of "micro evolution" fall flat on their face when faced with the fact that micro evolution can in fact make a bird.

As for your claims of oil. Then why do we always find increased fossils with oil pits?


edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





That is, each could multiply in great variety within its own “kind,” but could not cross the boundary separating different kinds.


I'm afraid that is simply not true. Even today man had managed to successfully mix different kinds without much harm.

Hell, the artist Eduardo Kac managed to make a plant grow his blood color. A whole new species that uses dna from human blood.


This border you claim does not exist. Species actively merge and mix with each other, and their individual parts are very compatible with other parts of other species, even if overall the species is incompatible.


edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Did you read the OP?


I think carbon dating is accurate.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Did you read the OP?


I think carbon dating is accurate.


Iwas simply pointing out arguing if its accurate or not is immaterial. We know there are inaccuracies there isnt a scientist alive that wont say so. But we can still verify the age of the earth and thats a much more solid argument. Because even though we know its accurate to about 50000 years doesn't mean that anyone opposing you cant find anomalies.So this argument will never end. However there is no way to dispute the age of the earth.If anything were under guessing by a couple 100 million years.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





I don't find it unknown


You may not find it unknown but scientists do. The force that causes this to happen has still to be identified. Unitl this force is identified. Carbon dating remains with an unknown error margin. That is the science and I shall rest my case there..



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


you say could be, which is a term of uncertainty, and the question at hand is why isnt carbon dating considered a certainty, so it sounds like you already recognize it cannot be considered a certainty.

if the sun has an effect on the dating and we arent even sure how or why then there is no telling what it may have done to the materials in the time they have existed.

fact is we cannot be sure of anythings age if decay rates are the only source. you cannot say its effect is small or large because the mechanism is not even understood, its all an uncertainty,

for you to say

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 
its alterations are nearly insignificant.
is a huge assumption on the effects of an unknown mechanism, unknown is unknown.
edit on 3/20/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


When a FOSSIL is being dated it has been mineralized, that is it has been replaced with a copy of the actual bone/organic material. So yes you could say that most radiometric dating techniques date rocks. The bones of any dinosaur are not actually the dinosaurs bones thanks to the process of fossilization itself.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by libertytoall
 





So this is your opinion.

The funny thing about science is that it's true, not opinion.

Some science is true, some are theory, but your science is nonsensical crazy talk.


Life is made of proteins.

These proteins can and do mutate.

A single mutation can cause keratin to produce feathers instead of scales.

Therefore, all the claims of "micro evolution" fall flat on their face when faced with the fact that micro evolution can in fact make a bird.

Show me ONE CASE where it has crossed species and I'll begin to listen to the rest of your BS! I'm tired of arguing with a stump..


As for your claims of oil. Then why do we always find increased fossils with oil pits?

Nobody can answer that yet but there are many theories NOT FACTS.

Stop saying things are true when it's your damn opinion. Do you understand the difference between opinion and fact?? I don't think you do. For example you post BS info and using keywords like "may" and "could" and then 3 posts later tell someone in not so many words you are right and they are stupid. Stop spreading your nonsense please!



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by edmc^2
 


When a FOSSIL is being dated it has been mineralized, that is it has been replaced with a copy of the actual bone/organic material. So yes you could say that most radiometric dating techniques date rocks. The bones of any dinosaur are not actually the dinosaurs bones thanks to the process of fossilization itself.


In other words reports like this is misleading:


”Discovery of a 160-Million-Year-Old Fossil Represents a New Milestone in Early Mammal Evolution.”


because the age being reported is NOT the age of the actual "fossil" but a facsimile (a copy) of the real thing - a rock (mineral).

This is like pouring a plaster of paris to create a copy of the original thing - then dating it (the plaster) and proclaiming it as the age of the real thing.

Thanks Titen-Sxull for confirming what I've been saying for a while now.

Question is - in light of these facts how truthful are the reports then that's been published in most scientific journals?

tc.

p.s.

here's another process that you may want to know: Lithification


”Slowly the weight of the sediment compacts the underlying areas, pressing the grains together, driving excess water out, and depositing minerals in the pores, and ultimately turning the soft sediment to hard rock - a process known as lithification.”



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by edmc^2
 





That is, each could multiply in great variety within its own “kind,” but could not cross the boundary separating different kinds.


I'm afraid that is simply not true. Even today man had managed to successfully mix different kinds without much harm.

Hell, the artist Eduardo Kac managed to make a plant grow his blood color. A whole new species that uses dna from human blood.


This border you claim does not exist. Species actively merge and mix with each other, and their individual parts are very compatible with other parts of other species, even if overall the species is incompatible.


edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



Ah, the Natural History of the Enigma.

Interesting but it's still a plant. Besides there are more amazing things being done in Genetic Engineering (designer genes) - but none of them prove organic evolution.

Now if they can create a bug from the human dna that's an impressive achievement!

As for:



This border you claim does not exist.


Yes it does. It's called Sterility.

Do you believe that sterility does not exist? If you do, please let me know how?

But back to the topic - in light of the evidence presented, how much faith do you have on statements like:


”Discovery of a 160-Million-Year-Old Fossil Represents a New Milestone in Early Mammal Evolution.”


Is it a truthful report?

tc.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 




reply to post by purplemer
 


Well we still don't understand gravity. Does that mean we shouldn't use hydro electric damns? After all, gravity may not remain constant forever.

See that's why your argument is invalid.


We may not know why something works nor how, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. If it proves itself, it is used. The margin of error is not unknown. We can factor is the power of the sun and the margin of error and get the general idea of how little it actually does.

That is the scientific fact. We have not yet witness catastrophic margins of error. And if a solar flare can't do much, the sun just standing there won't do much more. Nothing short of a supernovae can trump a solar flare, and in such a case, we'd be dead, so who cares?
edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by libertytoall
 





Some science is true, some are theory, but your science is nonsensical crazy talk.


That's your opinion, not a fact.




Show me ONE CASE where it has crossed species and I'll begin to listen to the rest of your BS! I'm tired of arguing with a stump..



en.wikipedia.org...




Nobody can answer that yet but there are many theories NOT FACTS.


We can can answer it.

Fossils occur near oil because oil is a fossil fuel.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 




reply to post by purplemer
 


Well we still don't understand gravity. Does that mean we shouldn't use hydro electric damns? After all, gravity may not remain constant forever.

See that's why your argument is invalid.


We may not know why something works nor how, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it. If it proves itself, it is used. The margin of error is not unknown. We can factor is the power of the sun and the margin of error and get the general idea of how little it actually does.

That is the scientific fact. We have not yet witness catastrophic margins of error. And if a solar flare can't do much, the sun just standing there won't do much more. Nothing short of a supernovae can trump a solar flare, and in such a case, we'd be dead, so who cares?
edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)


you fail big time here i never said we shouldnt use it, and i never compared it to gravity either, i insist only that it cannot be trusted asa certainty and room in your mind must exist for the possibility that it could be way off, the justification for that space in your mind ought to come from the fact that it has been proven there is an yet unknown mechanism from our sun that is altering the decay rates,

that was what i am saying, that is all ive said, yet you think i insist "we should never use it because gravity invalidates hydroelectric dams" ya whatever thanks for the scientific approach bud


and you say a solar flare cant effect us much? we had a solar flare in the 90's that would have KILLED us all if it had hit earth, rather it missed us by 3 months, this is relevant because carbon datin deals with the past, so of course things like this may have happened in the past, as well if you read the article in my link it said effects were noticed on decay rates BEFORE the flare actualy happened so it isnt the flare itself but rather how the sun is effected in its build up to flareing,

so the sun could have done a #LOAD in the past we would not know about cause it didnt hit earth to leave record yet it STILL would have had a huge effect on decay rates

thus carbon dating cannot be trusted with certainty to any degree of variance

edit on 3/20/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Now if they can create a bug from the human dna that's an impressive achievement!


They can't because it's too far apart evolution wise.

They can make a dinosaur from a bird however. There's just a few genes they have to activate/deactivate. Because they are only a few million years apart, not 300 million like Man and insect.

Hell some birds actually began looking like dinosaurs about 4 million years ago because it was favorable to be a large carnivore for them. The terror birds were born.




Yes it does. It's called Sterility. Do you believe that sterility does not exist? If you do, please let me know how?



In an age where they can turn a woman's cells into sperm cells, does sterility exist?




”Discovery of a 160-Million-Year-Old Fossil Represents a New Milestone in Early Mammal Evolution.”


Mammal like species have existed for 200 million years and evolved before the dinosaurs. This is a known fact. Some of the species of the Permian are absolutely amazing.

Take a look. All older than the dinosaurs:

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...


What you have to realize is this. God has been creating for a very long time. Longer than you or I would like to try to fathom. If evolution doesn't exist, it means all of these species once existed at the same time. Now I don't mean to point out the obvious, but there isn't enough food on Earth for all these populations.

Thus there are either 3 options.

Either:

Evolution exists and God makes stuff whenever he damn well feels like via it.

Evolution doesn't exist, and you have to admit that God made countless species just to be destroyed and never walk again (not something God would do)

or the worse

God made fossils of these species to trick you. Which goes against the very essence of God.



There really is no option here. In order for God to be who he claims, evolution is real and life simply changes over time, with purpose and design. Otherwise, life exists for no other reason than to be destroyed. Something I hope you do not believe.
edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: Le Spelling

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


Yes you did suggest we do not use gravity in proxy. You are either willingly contradicting yourself to fit your null point, or just trolling.

Either carbon dating is reliable because it is true within acceptable variance, just like gravity, or it is unknown and therefore should not be used, just like gravity.(what causes hydroelectricity to be possible)

Choose one or accept that you're a hypocrite.


edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


read my last post more thoroughly. i edited it to include more.

you started this thread thinking it had no variance and was certainty, you now acknowledge variance yet still insist its reliable, you dont deny the cause of that variance is not yet known, so uncertainty has grown even in your own thoughts, yet your every post is so defensive, dont you see your trying to stick up for something here? what? thoughts? whats the point? admit that there is as of yet unexplained uncertainty to decay rates,

you cannot account an accurate variance when you cannot explain the mechanism causing it.

and stop throwing insults at me, it is surely not a scientific approach to insult the other member of a discussion
edit on 3/20/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


Perhaps I am. That doesn't change the fact that you mixing points to try and convey a false point.

You talk about the strength of solar flares. This is irrelevant to what they do to carbon dating. We noticed that they alter the decay rates during a solar flare. There has been nothing as to how intensity of the flare affects rate of decay. And I doubt there would be, as it would not make sense.

You then talk about how if it hit us it would kill us.

Really?

Well then we have to assume that we never got hit by something that powerful, otherwise we wouldn't be around to do carbon dating. lol.

Carbon dating can be trusted because we have yet to witness any significant alterations from solar flares.

We witness alterations. No different than the unnoticeable alterations in gravity at the top of a mountain compare to the bottom of a valley. That doesn't change the rate of gravity for us at any significant number.

Likewise, the alterations from the sun do not cause any alterations that are that dramatic. If they were, then it would have been something brought up.


As of such, because the entire mass of the sun only creates tiny alterations seasonally, and presumably this same rate of alteration occurs from solar flares, magnitude is not a factor here. The amount of power in the sun and its flares is not what is doing it.

As such, it is not to be believed that these change could be so dramatic in the past. As the magnitude does not matter.





and stop throwing insults at me, it is surely not a scientific approach to insult the other member of a discussion


Yes yes, of course. And I'll sit here and pretend you editing out "well you're a dick" never happened


...The hipocracy is strong in this one.
edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


Perhaps I am. That doesn't change the fact that you mixing points to try and convey a false point.

You talk about the strength of solar flares. This is irrelevant to what they do to carbon dating. We noticed that they alter the decay rates during a solar flare. There has been nothing as to how intensity of the flare affects rate of decay. And I doubt there would be, as it would not make sense.

You then talk about how if it hit us it would kill us.

Really?

Well then we have to assume that we never got hit by something that powerful, otherwise we wouldn't be around to do carbon dating. lol.

Carbon dating can be trusted because we have yet to witness any significant alterations from solar flares.

We witness alterations. No different than the unnoticeable alterations in gravity at the top of a mountain compare to the bottom of a valley. That doesn't change the rate of gravity for us at any significant number.

Likewise, the alterations from the sun do not cause any alterations that are that dramatic. If they were, then it would have been something brought up.


As of such, because the entire mass of the sun only creates tiny alterations seasonally, an presumably this same rate of alteration occurs from solar flares, magnitude is not a factor here. The amount of power in the sun and its flares is not what is doing it.

As such, it is not to be believed that these change could be so dramatic in the past. As the magnitude does not matter.





Choose one or accept that you're a hypocrite.


Yes yes, of course. And I'll sit here and pretend you editing out "well you're a dick" never happened


...The hipocracy is strong in this one.
edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



im not the one mixing points your the one trying to bring gravity and hydro electiric dams into this

, im keeping rather specific about decay rates and the suns effect on them days PRIOR to a flare,

thats it, my sole point in one sentence, so dont tell me i am mixing points, thats you bud.

you also say the flare effected decay rates during the flare i have said this twice now and it is in the link you must not have read that the flare effected decay rates a DAY BEFORE IT HAPPENED!. this proves that it does not matter at all if the flare was even earth directed, very relevant

and you insist that intensity of a solar flare does not varry the effect on decay rates and you believe this cause there is no evidence? hello? scientific approach? you made an assumption without evidence, you cannot say it does or doesnt have that effect cause there is no evidence yet either way. hence decay rates are not reliable

you mention it hiting us again i stress it doesnt have to hit us to effect decay rates,

you say it can be trusted cause we havent witnessed any such solar flares, yet, we have, not only that, but we have not been recording solar flares in great detail for millions of years,

oh thats a good line,

Originally posted by Gorman91 the alterations from the sun do not cause any alterations that are that dramatic. If they were, then it would have been something brought up.
it cant be happening cause we would have been told by now, yes thats right science and man know everything there is to know in the universe....



because the entire mass of the sun only creates tiny alterations seasonally
no not ONLY rather ALSO moments before solar flare eruptions


an presumably this same rate of alteration occurs from solar flares
presumably!!! there it is!!! you have to make a assumption to rely on carbon dating, that is NOT the scientific approach.


magnitude is not a factor here. The amount of power in the sun and its flares is not what is doing it.


but the scientific approach has already proven and confirmed that it IS the flares that are doing it........


As such, it is not to be believed that these change could be so dramatic in the past. As the magnitude does not matter


who said anything about belief? thats not science. science is proven fact or uncertainty and theory, hence carbon dating is not proven fact, it has proven uncertainty.


Yes yes, of course. And I'll sit here and pretend you editing out "well you're a dick" never happened

...The hipocracy is strong in this one


oh so you can insult me all you want but when i return an insult it means your justified to keep insulting me? nice logic there.

did you make this thread just to get angry at the people who disagree with you?

would you be less defensive if i told you im not defending the bible?

rather im only stating that i dont trust carbon dating 100% you did at start yet now you are below the 100% and yet still call it reliable, well whatever, no big deal, my points been made, im out, please stop insulting me in further replies, its easier to move on from a thread when there isnt someone in it hounding you.
edit on 3/20/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 





im not the one mixing points your the one trying to bring gravity and hydro electiric dams into this


Because it is relevant. We know as much about this as we know about gravity. Yet we use and have faith that gravity will work.




you also say the flare effected decay rates during the flare i have said this twice now and it is in the link you must not have read that the flare effected decay rates a DAY BEFORE IT HAPPENED!. this proves that it does not matter at all if the flare was even earth directed, very relevant


Yes. It only proves me more correct.




and you insist that intensity of a solar flare does not varry the effect on decay rates and you believe this cause there is no evidence? hello? scientific approach? you made an assumption without evidence, you cannot say it does or doesnt have that effect cause there is no evidence yet either way. hence decay rates are not reliable


If it were so it would have been documented. That's sort of important, and all.

If it was not reported the variance was different, one has to assume it is within the same bounds. Because the scale difference in the power of the sun compared to a single solar flare is dramatically different. If the affect of the flare is noticeable, and the seasonable difference is miniscule, the only logical conclusion is that they are the same.

This is not unscientific. This using the data available. If you think its unscientific, just goes to show how little you actually know about science and the scientific approach.


All of science is a presumption based off data. Facts are things known based off given data; an assumption.

edit on 20-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


All of science is a presumption based off data. Facts are things known based off given data; an assumption.


ok so everything is an assumption nothing is reliable and all our collected knowledge could be wrong, this is actualy a much more logical approach, that works, gj.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join