|
all about carbon dating (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Ian |
| quote: | Originally posted by Mr.Mystery
Some might call it a fetish.
Er... I mean...
Nevermind...
:nervous: |
:stongue: :) |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Now you see Heinz, I believe your silence was self-imposed after we addressed every issue that you raised and pointed out that some of the sources you used had the academic credentials equivalent to McDonald's U. We were all breathlessly awaiting your response but alas, we were destined for disappointment. If you had read the radiocarbon thread, you would have seen acknowledgement that they don't use carbon dating past 50,000 years but instead use a different radiometric dating methodology such as argon-argon dating. Now I know you must be hard at work typing up all of your responses to the 20 or so evolution threads that you posted in in the PDD and then abruptly vanished, so I won't utake up any more of yor time. |
i knew somebody was coming!:)
i never saw the radio-carbon thread, so i couldnt have seen the new methods. but as i was taught in earth science & biology class, carbon-dating was the method used to date materials. no mention of anything else. ill search and read over it.
i stopped argueing in there for a few reasons. one, every one of my replys got a whole page of responses, few of which i could reply to all at the same time. second, everyone is so biased, it didnt matter what i posted, i was always going to be wrong. i stayed for the long haul debates several times, though this was several months back, i got tired of the endless, "your a fundie" debates.
but, for those few debates i thought were fruitful, meaning, i wasnt just relegated to some "fundie", and good arguements were made, i just dont have the time for like i did.
lastly, i posted only a couple "evolution" threads. the majority of evolution-creation threads werent posted by me:) but i do respect you, and opus the most. |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Now you see Heinz, |
i lol'd
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
every one of my replys got a whole page of responses, |
thats why I don't post there.
but realise, usually when everyone disagrees with you, provides good arguements, maybe you should look at your own perspective and think, is it not correct? Just a thought. |
|
|
| biznology |
| my ancient pottery need dating. |
|
|
| Vlad |
| How can carbon dating be used for the thousands when it is used for things like the Australopithicus findings, which range from 4.5 million to 1.2 million years ago. And as occrider mentioned, they use other radioactive elements to date for time as well. Tis all something you would learn had to taken, atleast, an Intro to Anthropology class. Than when you take College Chemistry and Organic Chemistry you learn how these radioactive elements actually work - but to keep it simple, I do believe most of it has to do with the half life of the radio active elements. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vlad
How can carbon dating be used for the thousands when it is used for things like the Australopithicus findings, which range from 4.5 million to 1.2 million years ago. And as occrider mentioned, they use other radioactive elements to date for time as well. Tis all something you would learn had to taken, atleast, an Intro to Anthropology class. Than when you take College Chemistry and Organic Chemistry you learn how these radioactive elements actually work. |
You really like to go on about the fact that you're in college don't you? :) |
|
|
| Vlad |
| quote: | Originally posted by UWM
You really like to go on about the fact that you're in college don't you? :) |
Why not, Im taking advantage of what Im being given. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vlad
Why not, Im taking advantage of what Im being given. |
No, it's not that. Nevermind :) |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vlad
How can carbon dating be used for the thousands when it is used for things like the Australopithicus findings, which range from 4.5 million to 1.2 million years ago. And as occrider mentioned, they use other radioactive elements to date for time as well. Tis all something you would learn had to taken, atleast, an Intro to Anthropology class. Than when you take College Chemistry and Organic Chemistry you learn how these radioactive elements actually work - but to keep it simple, I do believe most of it has to do with the half life of the radio active elements. |
because 'carbon dating' is easy for simpletons to remember.
there are isotopes with longer half lives that allow older dating. plus dating specimens older than ~one million years allow the use of geology| |
|
|
| biznology |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nou
YUP, infact carbon dating is good for bones and pretty much anything that has carbon in it (aka anything living or dead, and a lot of other stuff), but when things are millions of years old, like dinosours and such you can use Potassium-argon for more recent stuff (the last 1 billion years or so) or Rubidium-strontium dating which can date things from like... well longer than we probably will ever need.
Of course these methods are not as accurate as carbon dating (the last has an error range of a few million years, but then again when you are talking billions of years old looking at rocks or ancient ancient microbe fossils it dosnt really matter all that much). |
but Nou, the world was created 6k yrs ago, and thats why carbon dating is ed up! (sarcasm)| |
|
|
| Boomer187 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vlad
Tis all something you would learn had to taken, atleast, an Intro to Anthropology class. |
I didn't learn that in mine. Of course mine was intro to cultural anthropolgy, not archeololgical anthropology. :wtf: |
|
|
| Clovis86 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Boomer187
I didn't learn that in mine. Of course mine was intro to cultural anthropolgy, not archeololgical anthropolology. :wtf: |
FIXED! |
|
|
|
|
