tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post3789716458495419736..comments2023-10-31T20:08:45.037+10:00Comments on Operation 513 - Apologetics Blog: The Age of the Earth - An IntroductionRyan Hemelaarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17902805101742992509noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post-64251518342448079252009-10-22T18:20:51.931+10:002009-10-22T18:20:51.931+10:00Sigh, are we back to this already Aydan? Do you cl...Sigh, are we back to this already Aydan? Do you claim that you have some special knowledge that both the rest of the scientific community and your cited article don't?<br /><br />Where is your proof that there is no error and that you can date something beyond the age of 50,000 years with C14? If you have some evidence I'd love to see it.David Geehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05748613864241647205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post-15826371830881871792009-10-22T16:05:41.033+10:002009-10-22T16:05:41.033+10:00"After about ten half-lives, there's very..."After about ten half-lives, there's very little C14 left. So, anything more than about 50,000 years old probably can't be dated at all" - that's a general statement that usually holds true, however the pinacle of modern technology has allowed certain materials to be dated successfully up to 70,000 years. they dont contradict eachother.<br /><br /><br />i'm saying your supposed error rating is not a factor because carbon dating has been confirmed independently against other radiometric dating methods (which do not depend on the amount of given material in the atmosphere) and tree ring dating.<br /><br />your saying there's an error margin and i'm saying no there's not and i can prove it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post-74523054938076033612009-10-22T11:07:55.723+10:002009-10-22T11:07:55.723+10:00Ayden,
From the cited website - "..anything ...Ayden,<br /><br />From the cited website - "..anything older than 50000 years old probably cant be dated at all."<br /><br />Are you referencing something different for your 70000 years of dating or do you disaggree with your own citing? :)<br /><br />As for the rest of your objection, the error rating on C14 dating is due to the fact that most things dated have a question mark over the rate of C14 absorption. So unless you have come up with something that no scientist yet has (a way of measuring ancient atomospheric C14) the error is up to date.David Geehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05748613864241647205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post-52129837192761904292009-10-14T23:02:38.087+10:002009-10-14T23:02:38.087+10:00Hi David.
you seem to be working off outdated mat...Hi David.<br /><br />you seem to be working off outdated material, the accuracy of carbon dating has increased incredibly within the last few decades and the fact that it can be independently confirmed by other dating methods is a testament to it's reliability.<br /><br />the only time it's really inaccurate these days is when it's being used inappropriately such as on igneous rock or aquatic life who live in environments with and feed off other organisms with a high carbon content (eg. oceans and fish).<br /><br />now whilst modern technologies have been able to date things back to around 70,000 years it has been independently confirmed up to 8000 years:<br /><br />http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/carbon.html : Can We Prove That Carbon Dates Are Accurate?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post-89274645933017177042009-10-11T19:57:17.697+10:002009-10-11T19:57:17.697+10:00Hi Aydan, one thing about carbon dating. Carbon 14...Hi Aydan, one thing about carbon dating. Carbon 14 disappears completely after 50 thousand years, so when that is considered it only is able to date things under that age. It is also only accurate to within 2 thousand years give or take.David Geehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05748613864241647205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post-4063216417742823652009-10-11T04:20:31.464+10:002009-10-11T04:20:31.464+10:00hi i would just like to point out that carbon dati...hi i would just like to point out that carbon dating has been verified against 8000 year old tree ring dating.<br /><br />now whilst tree ring dating itself proves the earth is not a mere 6000 years old as perposed by YEC's (Young Earth Creationists) it acts as a means to INDEPENDENTLY evaluate the effectiveness and reliability of carbon dating.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5438889006230803241.post-28263131101216123552009-10-10T21:45:43.222+10:002009-10-10T21:45:43.222+10:00I was so dissapointed when Jack VanImpe came out w...I was so dissapointed when Jack VanImpe came out with a video a few weeks ago saying he can prove the Earth is 13 byo. arrg!<br />Great article! I look forward to more posts.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com