How Creationists date rocks and fossils

uOriginally posted by forkedknight
Yes, it's a known limitation of the technology. It's always better to know and acknowledge your limitations rather than blindly ignoring them.

That doesn't mean that C14 dating doesn't work really well on plants and land animals.

If you're so concerned about contradictory evidence, how come you aren't more concerned with the contradictory creation stories in Genesis?

Good question!

Originally posted by forkedknight
Yes, it's a known limitation of the technology. It's always better to know and acknowledge your limitations rather than blindly ignoring them.

That doesn't mean that C14 dating doesn't work really well on plants and land animals.

If you're so concerned about contradictory evidence, how come you aren't more concerned with the contradictory creation stories in Genesis?

You are not trying to get me band from posting for discussing religious matters on the Science Forum are you? I can't discuss that here.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are not trying to get me band from posting for discussing religious matters on the Science Forum are you? I can't discuss that here.

In other words, just ignoring the C14 argument because you HAVE no counter argument.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In other words, just ignoring the C14 argument because you HAVE no counter argument.

C-14 radiometric dating can sometimes be somewhat accurate for plants and land animals. However, there are certain assumptions and limitations.

One of the implied assumptions in radiocarbon dating is that levels of atmospheric carbon-14 have remained constant over time. This turns out not to be exactly true, and so there is an inherent error between a raw "radiocarbon date" and the true calendar date.

The older the object, the less carbon-14 there is to measure. Radiocarbon dating is therefore limited to objects that are younger than 50,000 to 60,000 years.

Radiocarbon dating is also susceptible to contamination by water and carbon. If the ground in which an object is buried contains particles of coal or other ancient sources of carbon, radiocarbon testing may indicate that the object is far older than it really is.

Originally posted by RJHinds
C-14 radiometric dating can sometimes be somewhat accurate for plants and land animals. However, there are certain assumptions and limitations.

One of the implied assumptions in radiocarbon dating is that levels of atmospheric carbon-14 have remained constant over time. This turns out not to be exactly true, and so there is an inherent error between a ra ...[text shortened]... rces of carbon, radiocarbon testing may indicate that the object is far older than it really is.

There you go. The world actually IS older than 6000 years. You just wrote that yourself. Those ARE your words aren't they?

Originally posted by sonhouse
There you go. The world actually IS older than 6000 years. You just wrote that yourself. Those ARE your words aren't they?

Well, I actually got that from another source that I failed to reference. However, I am sure they meant the 50,000 to 60,000 years in a theoretical way and not in a practical way.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I actually got that from another source that I failed to reference. However, I am sure they meant the 50,000 to 60,000 years in a theoretical way and not in a practical way.

As I AM SURE THEY ARE TOTALLY CORRECT. Your 6000 year old Earth is a fantasy generated at its heart by ancient Egyptian mythology sticking around to this very day.

Amazing how many people are duped by that fairy tale.

It does show one thing, several, actually. 1, how gullible the human race is and 2 it makes us look stupid to be believing in such patent nonsense after 5000 years of Egyptian mythology burned into our brains.

It does tend to show the human race is not as smart as it touts itself to be.

Originally posted by sonhouse
As I AM SURE THEY ARE TOTALLY CORRECT. Your 6000 year old Earth is a fantasy generated at its heart by ancient Egyptian mythology sticking around to this very day.

Amazing how many people are duped by that fairy tale.

It does show one thing, several, actually. 1, how gullible the human race is and 2 it makes us look stupid to be believing in such pate ...[text shortened]... nto our brains.

It does tend to show the human race is not as smart as it touts itself to be.

Yeah, you prove that every day.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yeah, you prove that every day.

As do you, in spades. I never said I was the brightest bulb in the christmas tree but I am not the dimmest either.

Originally posted by forkedknight
Yes, it's a known limitation of the technology. It's always better to know and acknowledge your limitations rather than blindly ignoring them.

That doesn't mean that C14 dating doesn't work really well on plants and land animals.

If you're so concerned about contradictory evidence, how come you aren't more concerned with the contradictory creation stories in Genesis?

RJHinds, a known forum troll and chess engine user, should perhaps not be relied on for his knowledge about carbon dating. Carbon-14 has a half-life of several thousand years. It can not be and is not used to date fossils that are much older than tens of thousands of years old. Rather, the main use of carbon dating is to date archeological finds.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
RJHinds, a known forum troll and chess engine user, should perhaps not be relied on for his knowledge about carbon dating. Carbon-14 has a half-life of several thousand years. It can not be and is not used to date fossils that are much older than tens of thousands of years old. Rather, the main use of carbon dating is to date archeological finds.

And especially stuff that actually contains CARBON🙂 The pitfalls of C14 dating are well known and you don't do dating on living penguins for instance since they KNOW the dates come out wrong.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
RJHinds, a known forum troll and chess engine user, should perhaps not be relied on for his knowledge about carbon dating. Carbon-14 has a half-life of several thousand years. It can not be and is not used to date fossils that are much older than tens of thousands of years old. Rather, the main use of carbon dating is to date archeological finds.

They can only use C-14 dating to date things that were once living. So that would exclude anything over about 6000 years old. Rocks can not be dated accurately this way.

Originally posted by RJHinds
They can only use C-14 dating to date things that were once living. So that would exclude anything over about 6000 years old. Rocks can not be dated accurately this way.

Thus proving your idiocy. You are totally duped by ancient Egyptian fairy tales and cannot extricate yourself from it.

Tree rings alone prove the world is more than 6000 years old but you would refuse to study that too.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Thus proving your idiocy. You are totally duped by ancient Egyptian fairy tales and cannot extricate yourself from it.

Tree rings alone prove the world is more than 6000 years old but you would refuse to study that too.

I have read that trees can sometime produce as many as 4 rings in a year. The rings are believed to show periods of wet and dry. Evolutionists always seem to count the rings as annual, which is not always the case.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I have read that trees can sometime produce as many as 4 rings in a year. The rings are believed to show periods of wet and dry. Evolutionists always seem to count the rings as annual, which is not always the case.

You may have read that but I bet for sure it would have come from a creationist site. Real science shows there cannot be more than one per year and if it ever happens it would be such a low anomaly as to not degrade the science of tree ring dating.

I don't think you have CLUE as to how tree rings can be used to date stuff older than the living trees we see today.