Carbon dating is flawed. [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipSZukZyiAM]
Actual science proves that carbon dating is flawed.
Actual science proves that carbon dating is flawed.
61-69, M
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Bushranger · 70-79, M
OK, I watched it and it took a little while to find some information.
Radiocarbon dating is not perfect, I don't think anyone who know what they are talking about would say otherwise. This link: https://www.sciencealert.com/radiocarbon-dating-ancient-levant-region-calibration-inaccuracies explains how it was found to be out by about 19 years in a specific area and age range. It also shows how the error was detected and dealt with. Instead of just saying that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate, the researches actually figured out how wrong it was and how to correct the error. Good science at work.
This link: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-radiocarbon-dating-172525 also shows how radiocarbon dating is calibrated. Again, if it's found to be wrong, it will be corrected.
Remember that it can't be used to date anything over about 50,000 years. If that is the case, how can C14 be found in diamonds and coal. Well, C14 is made from what? Nitrogen. What is a fairly common contaminant in diamonds? Nitrogen (http://www.dianerdiamonds.com/diamond_info/nitrogen_in_diamonds).
With a radioactive source near a diamond deposit, it's possible for the nitrogen to be converted to C14. Of course, if diamonds were only a couple of thousand years old, all of them would contain C14. I'd bet that they don't.
So do the errors in radiocarbon dating mean that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Of course not, it just means there are errors in the dating system. Even if there were a 50 percent error, that would mean the oldest object dated with C14 would be 25,000 years old, around four times older than you believe the earth to be.
Radiocarbon dating is not perfect, I don't think anyone who know what they are talking about would say otherwise. This link: https://www.sciencealert.com/radiocarbon-dating-ancient-levant-region-calibration-inaccuracies explains how it was found to be out by about 19 years in a specific area and age range. It also shows how the error was detected and dealt with. Instead of just saying that radiocarbon dating is inaccurate, the researches actually figured out how wrong it was and how to correct the error. Good science at work.
This link: https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-radiocarbon-dating-172525 also shows how radiocarbon dating is calibrated. Again, if it's found to be wrong, it will be corrected.
Remember that it can't be used to date anything over about 50,000 years. If that is the case, how can C14 be found in diamonds and coal. Well, C14 is made from what? Nitrogen. What is a fairly common contaminant in diamonds? Nitrogen (http://www.dianerdiamonds.com/diamond_info/nitrogen_in_diamonds).
With a radioactive source near a diamond deposit, it's possible for the nitrogen to be converted to C14. Of course, if diamonds were only a couple of thousand years old, all of them would contain C14. I'd bet that they don't.
So do the errors in radiocarbon dating mean that the earth is only 6,000 years old? Of course not, it just means there are errors in the dating system. Even if there were a 50 percent error, that would mean the oldest object dated with C14 would be 25,000 years old, around four times older than you believe the earth to be.
View 31 more replies »
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@Sharon you also believe there is another level?
The responds can be condensed too:
-> Prove it
-> Equating "evolution" with all kinds of things that have nothing to do with it
-> Equating Science with religious principles. This creates the idea that science is an ideological doctrine where all premises and ideas are linked together and can't be understood without eachother. Which gives him the opportunity to go:
a) If one thing is wrong, it's all wrong
b) You are doing the same thing that I'm doing
... It's been constant for a while now.
[quote]Evolution will never be proven.[/quote]
He can't say this enough, because he constantly needs to remind himself that you can't even look into the arguments. It's dogmatic, just like people that say: "There can't be a God", which is something that most people don't do... unless you are Emosaur.
Even if Janine [i](poor @newjaninev2 👫)[/i] quotes every article ever published on the toppic, the guy will just answer something like:
[quote]What evidence?[/quote]
And he says this:
[quote]People are faulty and can't be trusted or reliable. This is why science is being messed with instead of being studied properly.[/quote]
But in reality, he takes bad cheap youtube videos made by people OVER people that spend their life trying to push knowledge forward. He also takes the words of people that herded goats and sheep in the desert more then 2000 years ago over a society that managed to split the atom. He's to pigheaded to understand that, because he needs to keep confirming his bias, he needs to keep himself from facing is own flawed premise that keeps his frickle worldvieuw together, namely:
[quote]Science doesn't show the Word of God to be wrong, your interpretation of both is what's wrong.[/quote]
He's not here to talk to any of you, he's just here to show his faith to others and himself or be an agitator. Nothing you say here will make a diffrence, that's why we are running on a script now, look up every conversation in the last year and the same respondses keep repeating themselves no matter how much new stuff you throw at him. He's the brick that people made their church on, steady, not budging and incredibly stupid.
The responds can be condensed too:
-> Prove it
-> Equating "evolution" with all kinds of things that have nothing to do with it
-> Equating Science with religious principles. This creates the idea that science is an ideological doctrine where all premises and ideas are linked together and can't be understood without eachother. Which gives him the opportunity to go:
a) If one thing is wrong, it's all wrong
b) You are doing the same thing that I'm doing
... It's been constant for a while now.
[quote]Evolution will never be proven.[/quote]
He can't say this enough, because he constantly needs to remind himself that you can't even look into the arguments. It's dogmatic, just like people that say: "There can't be a God", which is something that most people don't do... unless you are Emosaur.
Even if Janine [i](poor @newjaninev2 👫)[/i] quotes every article ever published on the toppic, the guy will just answer something like:
[quote]What evidence?[/quote]
And he says this:
[quote]People are faulty and can't be trusted or reliable. This is why science is being messed with instead of being studied properly.[/quote]
But in reality, he takes bad cheap youtube videos made by people OVER people that spend their life trying to push knowledge forward. He also takes the words of people that herded goats and sheep in the desert more then 2000 years ago over a society that managed to split the atom. He's to pigheaded to understand that, because he needs to keep confirming his bias, he needs to keep himself from facing is own flawed premise that keeps his frickle worldvieuw together, namely:
[quote]Science doesn't show the Word of God to be wrong, your interpretation of both is what's wrong.[/quote]
He's not here to talk to any of you, he's just here to show his faith to others and himself or be an agitator. Nothing you say here will make a diffrence, that's why we are running on a script now, look up every conversation in the last year and the same respondses keep repeating themselves no matter how much new stuff you throw at him. He's the brick that people made their church on, steady, not budging and incredibly stupid.
DocSavage · M
When scientists run into problems with one method of carbon dating, Do you actually believe that they deliberately release false, and inaccurate information, simply to spite religion ?
The crap you see in these videos, is the false positives used to identify problems in the process. Not to give fake results. Science is not the enemy. Trying to make the evidence fit the fairytale is just plain stupid.
The crap you see in these videos, is the false positives used to identify problems in the process. Not to give fake results. Science is not the enemy. Trying to make the evidence fit the fairytale is just plain stupid.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@BlueSkyKing Not a chance. Evolution will never be proven.
BlueSkyKing · M
@GodSpeed63 "You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?" - Mark Twain
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@BlueSkyKing [quote]You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?" [/quote]
What talking animals are you referring to? What people walked on water besides Jesus and Peter? If you've read the Word of God, He was against witches and wizards for practicing such magic. Those 'primitive stories' are accounts of man's history since the beginning of the world. Mark Twain wrote fictional stories like Tom Sawyer and Huck Fynn and had no accurate knowledge of God and His Word.
What talking animals are you referring to? What people walked on water besides Jesus and Peter? If you've read the Word of God, He was against witches and wizards for practicing such magic. Those 'primitive stories' are accounts of man's history since the beginning of the world. Mark Twain wrote fictional stories like Tom Sawyer and Huck Fynn and had no accurate knowledge of God and His Word.
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@QuixoticSoul @Bushranger @canusernamebemyusername [quote]his video is nonsense right off the bat.[/quote]
I take it that you guys no rebuttal?
I take it that you guys no rebuttal?
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 No rebuttal like the three links I posted? But I suppose they won't count, because you won't even look at them.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
Bushranger · 70-79, M
I'm going to watch this later, just posting here to bookmark it.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment