Dinosaurs and the Flood

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJosephBoucher
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m still asking you if it’s even possible. Thought experiments need to be within the realm of possibility.
 
buffalo said:
40.png
Pattylt:
C14 is for organic material.
Click to expand...
Yes dating organic material - but everyone is avoiding the question they know I am asking. (I used the word object in my question)
Click to expand...
And you never made clear which was dated or what it was. Was it an organic object or an inorganic object.
 
buffalo said:
If we find an object in pot-argon rocks estimated to be1 billion years, that C14 dates to 10,000 years ago, which do we pick?
Click to expand...
If we find an object in pot-argon rocks estimated to be1 billion years, that C14 dates to 10,000 years ago, which do we pick? (it would have to be organic to be C14 dated)
 
I have my doubts about C-14 dating. Mainly because it is used to ‘prove’ that humanity is about 200,000 years old. Population modelling seems to contradict this. The world population should be several orders of magnitude bigger by now if that were true.
 
Dan_Defender said:
I have my doubts about C-14 dating. Mainly because it is used to ‘prove’ that humanity is about 200,000 years old. Population modelling seems to contradict this. The world population should be several orders of magnitude bigger by now if that were true.
Click to expand...
Not so. We can achieve our current population in a lot less time. C14 cannot measure to 200K.
 
Last edited:
We don’t “pick” either one. First, we look at the circumstances to figure out why the discrepancy exists. Was there fossil fuel contamination? Could there have been some sort of rock fixture that allowed organic material into the much older rock sample? Could someone have just plain messed up? If none of those are reasonable possibilities, then we look into issues in the dating.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
We don’t “pick” either one. First, we look at the circumstances to figure out why the discrepancy exists. Was there fossil fuel contamination? Could there have been some sort of rock fixture that allowed organic material into the much older rock sample? Could someone have just plain messed up? If none of those are reasonable possibilities, then we look into issues in the dating.
Click to expand...
Agreed. …
 
I don’t have one. You have provided no evidence that this is even possible, and so there’s no way to tell which one is more reliable if there’s no actual situation to test them more. How am I supposed to test a hypothetical? How are scientists? How does an impossible situation disprove the use of tried-and-true research techniques?
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Fossils are found in certain layers of sediment dated using carbon dating to certain periods of prehistory. Inland sea fossils are very, very old. Older than 6000 years, that’s for sure.

If you feel like you want to argue against the validity of carbon dating, be my guest. You’ll need some strong evidence against it, though. It’s pretty well supported.
Click to expand...
Carbon dating is the most cited, but really there are multiple isotopes that can be used for dating, some suited to longer or shorter periods of time, and which can be cross-referenced against each other.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
I don’t have one. You have provided no evidence that this is even possible, and so there’s no way to tell which one is more reliable if there’s no actual situation to test them more. How am I supposed to test a hypothetical? How are scientists? How does an impossible situation disprove the use of tried-and-true research techniques?
Click to expand...
Got it… Anyone else?
 
billsherman said:
I think it’s to distract from the anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim website pushing crackpot theories that was posted to “prove” Moses copied Genesis from clay tablets.

The goalposts have been officially moved.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. These threads have subthreads all the time. We can get back to the other one soon. Don’t worry.
 
Say you want a boating license. You take your birth certificate to the licensing authorities, but they say yours is wrong and that their copy is identical to yours but has you as 4 years younger. By your logic, I’ve now proven that birth certificates are an unreliable way of identifying someone.
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Say you want a boating license. You take your birth certificate to the licensing authorities, but they say yours is wrong and that their copy is identical to yours but has you as 4 years younger. By your logic, I’ve now proven that birth certificates are an unreliable way of identifying someone.
Click to expand...
Actually just went through this. They would not accept copies. Needed the official seal. I did not have one. Had to go to local government to get one and to provide them with the embossed seal. For whatever this is worth…
 
Okay, so there was some human error. That’s what I tried to imply was happening in your carbon dating example. You insisted I consider the situation if there was no error, so now I will too. What if the certificates are both completely authentic and error-free, just like your example’s radioactive dating results?
 
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman said:
Okay, so there was some human error. That’s what I tried to imply was happening in your carbon dating example. You insisted I consider the situation if there was no error, so now I will too. What if the certificates are both completely authentic and error-free, just like your example’s radioactive dating results?
Click to expand...
Dating always has an error bar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top