- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by RJHindsits accurate up to around 60,000 years. mistakes are made sometimes my scientists when taking the readings and when cross contamination happens. there are other things that can effect readings, but scientists are a pretty brainy bunch and take these factors into account. religious website have stories of where c14 testing is wrong, but sometimes fingerprint taking can go wrong but its still a very accurate method.
The article says, "Radiocarbon dating suggests that the hut is between 19,300 and 18,600 years old." It is known that radiocarbon dating can not be trusted
as a true dating method.
1 edit
qOriginally posted by RJHindsYou should qualify that statement, "It is known" that radiocarbon dating cannot be trusted as a true dating method BY CREATIONISTS. Who have a vested interest in NEVER accepting ANY scientific evidence, no matter how clear, that Earth is way more than 10,000 years old.
The article says, "Radiocarbon dating suggests that the hut is between 19,300 and 18,600 years old." It is known that radiocarbon dating can not be trusted
as a true dating method.
Originally posted by stellspalfieWhen scientist have used a control sample that they know the age of
its accurate up to around 60,000 years. mistakes are made sometimes my scientists when taking the readings and when cross contamination happens. there are other things that can effect readings, but scientists are a pretty brainy bunch and take these factors into account. religious website have stories of where c14 testing is wrong, but sometimes fingerprint taking can go wrong but its still a very accurate method.
they still get ages much too old with the radiocarbon method. There
is no contamination there. When they date something and get dates
outside of the dates they expect, then, and only then, will they claim
something is wrong, like contamination.
Originally posted by RJHindsYou really have no idea how science works, do you? Most scientists would love to discover something unexpected. It is only by discovering something like that that they can get famous, after all.
When scientist have used a control sample that they know the age of
they still get ages much too old with the radiocarbon method. There
is no contamination there. When they date something and get dates
outside of the dates they expect, then, and only then, will they claim
something is wrong, like contamination.
Originally posted by sonhouseI have never seen any clear evidence that the Earth is older than 10,000
You should qualify that statement, "It is known" that radiocarbon dating cannot be trusted as a true dating method BY CREATIONISTS. Who have a vested interest in NEVER accepting ANY scientific evidence, no matter how clear, that Earth is way more than 10,000 years old.
years. Your teachers are getting paid to teach you what they have been
taught in school regardless if it is the truth or not. Many of the science
books are still full of out of date material. Many scientists today are
coming to different conclusions than the Normal evolutionists crowd. I
guess you will just have to wait until the truth comes out on this like it
has on other things thought to be true science. I am sorry that you may
not have the time to wait.