28 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by ZahlanziThanks! 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
yes, because we all desire nothing more than to click on a link to an unknown site, without you even summarizing it a little.
28 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitGood 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."
The age of the universe can't be 'wrong'. 😵
29 May 12
Originally posted by twhitehead3 science magazines! 60min! and they have their supporters - but you just keep believing all the propaganda
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."
29 May 12
Originally posted by tim88it 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.
3 science magazines! 60min! and they have their supporters - but you just keep believing all the propaganda
29 May 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritCarbon-14 dating is wrong, too.
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.
29 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWell, it is "uncommon sense" to you.
You have lost the ability called 'common sense'.
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
29 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsWow, what a coincidence, 5000 years. Just a great date to confirm your estimate of the age of the universe. Amazing.
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