hard proof that the age of universe is wrong

see the video

http://kgov.com/list-of-not-so-old-things

Originally posted by tim88
see the video

http://kgov.com/list-of-not-so-old-things

yes, because we all desire nothing more than to click on a link to an unknown site, without you even summarizing it a little.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, because we all desire nothing more than to click on a link to an unknown site, without you even summarizing it a little.

Thanks! i know thats why i never said nothing - no seriously it's actually pretty cool! take a look is only two minutes long! and its proven by two scientists

Originally posted by tim88
Thanks! i know thats why i never said nothing 😉

And also proving English is not your first language. Your first language is REDNECK.

Originally posted by sonhouse
And also proving English is not your first language. Your first language is REDNECK.

I must be a REDNECK too, because I also think it is pretty cool and I like REDNECK WOMEN.

YouTube

Originally posted by tim88
see the video

http://kgov.com/list-of-not-so-old-things

what is your case that the age of the universe is wrong? present your arguments.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
what is your case that the age of the universe is wrong? present your arguments.

The age of the universe can't be 'wrong'. 😵

Originally posted by SwissGambit
The age of the universe can't be 'wrong'. 😵

Good point. So the thread title should really read "The currently accepted age of the universe that has been determined by science and all the evidence to date is wrong because two 'scientists' say so on a web page."

Originally posted by twhitehead
Good point. So the thread title should really read "The currently accepted age of the universe that has been determined by science and all the evidence to date is wrong because two 'scientists' say so on a web page."

3 science magazines! 60min! and they have their supporters - but you just keep believing all the propaganda

Originally posted by tim88
3 science magazines! 60min! and they have their supporters - but you just keep believing all the propaganda

it looks like you're being led by the idiot leash there, rj. try linking to peer reviewed scientific journals of research done that have concluded the "age of the universe is wrong" because some soft tissue was found in fossils.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it looks like you're being led by the idiot leash there, rj. try linking to peer reviewed scientific journals of research done that have concluded the "age of the universe is wrong" because some soft tissue was found in fossils.

Carbon-14 dating is wrong, too.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Carbon-14 dating is wrong, too.

You have lost the ability called 'common sense'.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You have lost the ability called 'common sense'.

Well, it is "uncommon sense" to you.

The Reality of Carbon Dating
The myth is that radiocarbon dating can accurately establish exact dates of the death of organic remains almost as far back as 50,000 years. The reality is that one would have to know the 14C/12C ratio in the environment at the time of the death of the sample. The fact is that we can only infer that ratio for the past 5,000 years or so using historical records. The inference is that the ratio changes sufficiently so that calibration factors have to be used to convert radiocarbon years to actual calendar years. Since the ratio is known to have changed in historic times, it is irrational and unscientific to think that it was constant before historic times.


http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v10i10f.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, it is "uncommon sense" to you.

The Reality of Carbon Dating
The myth is that radiocarbon dating can accurately establish exact dates of the death of organic remains almost as far back as 50,000 years. The reality is that one would have to know the 14C/12C ratio in the environment at the time of the death of the sample. The fact is that we can only ...[text shortened]... t was constant before historic times.


http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v10i10f.htm

Wow, what a coincidence, 5000 years. Just a great date to confirm your estimate of the age of the universe. Amazing.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
yes, because we all desire nothing more than to click on a link to an unknown site, without you even summarizing it a little.

+1