Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: nmh
BTW, NEVER, EVER look at how flawed the latest dating methods are ... .

Why don't you tell us about it.

Please start with radiocarbon dating, as that is the one I have studied the most. I am anxious to hear your professional opinions on the "flaws."

42 posted on 05/28/2008 9:25:45 AM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: Coyoteman
You can't be serious that YOU take radiocarbon dating SERIOUSLY?

Well, if only the earth had no climate changes and it was stagnant could a rational person take that seriously.

Radioactive dating techniques ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old, say evolutionists. However, these techniques are based upon several assumptions, including that rates of radioactive decay have always been CONSTANT. Now new research has shown that decay rates can VARY according to the chemical environment of the material being tested.

While the relatively small variation (1.5%) observed so far is unlikely to persuade ‘old-earthers’ to adopt a biblical time-line, the discovery that radioactive dating ‘can no longer be called precisely “clocklike”’ prompted the journal Science to comment, ‘Certainty, it seems, is on the wane.’

Earth and Planetary Science Letters 171, 1999,
pp. 235–328. Science, October 29, 1999, pp. 882–883.

48 posted on 05/28/2008 10:25:03 AM PDT by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson