Positive
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Carbon dating is flawed. [Spirituality & Religion]

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipSZukZyiAM]

Actual science proves that carbon dating is flawed.
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
QuixoticSoul · 41-45, M
Who the hell would try to carbon date a dinosaur fossil? This video is nonsense right off the bat.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@QuixoticSoul Creationists trying to disprove evolution.

Yeah, I know it was a rhetorical question, but, hey, couldn't help it, lol.
@QuixoticSoul Creationists always go after carbon dating in particular like its the only radiometric dating that exists. I have rarely heard any going after any other type.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@canusernamebemyusername Probably because the other methods don't have the same levels of inaccuracy. Let's face it, radiocarbon dating does have issues. Also, I think they believe that if they can "prove" on method wrong, then people will assume all the others are wrong too.
@Bushranger That's exactly what I was thinking as well. Prove one wrong they are all wrong. But these are the same people that are of the mind if a place name in the bible is true, all the bible must be true. This is just an inverse of that mentality.
I really like a John Hagee (an evangelical) quote: "If you are not an eyewitness, you are a false witness (Exodus 20:16). If you didn't see it, you shouldn't be gossiping about it. Just like the Bible."
And a lot of people commented and told him that just disqualified the entire bible. lol
Sharon · F
@Bushranger C-14 dating is simply the most well known. Remember, these creationists don't known much about science so it's likely they're completely ignorant of radiometric dating with other isotopes. Scientists readily admit C-14 dating isn't any use for objects more than about 20 000 years old and isn't perfect. (That's another difference between scientists and christian creationists.) That's why multiple methods are used to try to confirm findings.
Bushranger · 70-79, M
@Sharon From what I've read on some creationist websites, they are well aware of other radiometric methods. But they usually claim the rate of decay must have been different in the past.
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?
Sharon · F
@GodSpeed63 Ignoring the rebuttals won't make them go away. You've been shown why that video is a pile of creationist rubbish. Keep trying, you might be able to deceive a few really gullible people.
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.