Poll of the Day > Do any of you here doubt the accuracy of radiocarbon or radiometric dating?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The only reason you would doubt it is if you have the unfortunate mindset that the earth is 3000 years old.

The only reason you would doubt it is if you have the unfortunate mindset that the earth is 3000 years old.

doesn't have to be a creationist , someone could believe it is only like a million yrs old or that it's not as accurate as believed

Who?

Btw, carbon dating is only useful up until 60,000 years, it's half-life is 5,730 years, so after long it's not useful anymore.

You would have to take issue with the concept of radioactive decay for some reason. And like, basic chemistry. But again, take an issue with basic widespread science, get laughed at. You're allowed to think that, you'd just be wrong.

considering how much science has been proven wrong by more science its ok to have some doubt regarding science as truth

id like you to learn a little thing called the scientific method

like how old they think dinosaur fossils are. Do any of you think it is not accurate or have heard others doubt how accurate they are?

Yeah in science basically nothing is accepted as absolute fact, it's all a theory. Just theories that build off of other theories with supporting evidence.

So again, you can believe whatever you want, you just wouldn't be doing yourself any favors.

sometimes believing what your told is not doing you any favors

I want to be correct about things.

then youll probably only see what you want to see and not the unadulterated truth and your likely to create false data so your correct
desire is the enemy of proper science

I don't know what you're trying to insinuate here.

What's your point? You don't believe in radioactive dating?

i believe there is the possibility that it could be wrong

Why do you believe this?

because there is the possibility it is wrong

everything set in stone erodes

And that's why radiometric dating works.

most stones dont contain carbon

If 14C is Always Decaying, Why is it Still in Our Atmosphere?

How is it that there is still 14C left in the atmosphere (or anywhere else on Earth) when it is constantly disappearing? Where does new 14C come from?
Cosmic rays are high energy particles that originate in outer space. When they collide with matter in the atmosphere they can shatter a nucleus into smaller pieces (a process called spallation), including neutrons. The latter slow down, again by colliding with matter in the atmosphere. Once they have slowed down enough a neutron can be absorbed by a nitrogen-14 (14N) nucleus while kicking out a proton, resulting in a 14C nucleus.

most stones dont contain carbon

So I guess that means none of our current carbon was created in a star.

Yeah and that's exactly how they can tell how old something that had carbon in it is potdnewb

They just have to know how much carbon was expected, and then see how much of it isn't there, then they can estimate how old it is.

based on the assumption that we know how much c14 is absorbed by an organism over its lifetime yes im saying the standard is still an assumption since we have learned that observed absorption rate is variable

yeah iirc they can't use radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils, they use radiometric dating on the rocks above and below where the fossils were found

still based on assumed standards

do you personally doubt the estimated ages for dinosaurs?

since the age is already assumed and estimated the doubt is built in

do you have any opinion or guess about how old most dinosaur fossils are?

based on the assumption that we know how much c14 is absorbed by an organism over its lifetime yes im saying the standard is still an assumption since we have learned that observed absorption rate is variable

It doesn't absorb the carbon, it starts with it. It's made of it.

not c14 and c14 is basis for radiocarbon dating

Bro

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/5/0/AAcUPLAAEube.jpg

based on the assumption that we know how much c14 is absorbed by an organism over its lifetime yes im saying the standard is still an assumption since we have learned that observed absorption rate is variable

still based on assumed standards

What problems do you have with those assumptions?

assumed truths may be false

Go read Answers in Genesis if you want to pretend anybody has the absolute truth of reality. Otherwise what an utterly meaningless statement.

I'm not the way claiming any knowledge of absolute truth but others are definitely claiming science is absolute truth while ignoring the inherent uncertainty of their belief
one could even go so far as saying their belief in science is based on faith

oh are you an extremely religious guy? is that one of the reasons that you say you doubt radiometric dating so much?

i only doubt it as much as any reasonable person should doubt that which is fraught with uncertainty