As of today, September 2008, there are no empirically testable dating methods.# Basically we have no dating methods that are accepted within science. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fraudster.
Carbon dating has dated many dinosaurs to 12,000 to 16,000 years old. They are out as no creature lived on earth before 6000 years old. However it does not fit your atheistic timetable either.
they dont use radiocarbon dating for anything past 7000 years. either you are completely ignorant to what C14 dating is... OR you are wilfully presenting false facts.
you knowlage on the matter does not go further then a bunch of creationist videos.
Carbon is used up to 50,000 years, you just make things up. I do not trust any dating method. If you trust carbon dating then you have to accept all its findings. I trust non of them.
There is no evidence that any animal lived more than 6500 years ago.
Actually what was "made up" is derived from years of scientific testing by intelligent people, not overhandedly paranoid conspiracy theorizing folks who believe everything was invented by an invisible man in the sky.
you are an idiot. Even simple trees have been dated through tree ring dating at 10,000 + years...same goes for coralreefs, annual sedimentation layers, stalagtites, ice cores with annual rings...All go WAY BEYOND 6000 years. Even leaving out radiometric dating, if you believe the earth is only 6500 years old, your an ignorant fool who should get some education......man ooh man......is there SOME creationist out there capable of commenting smart things??????
The oldest living tree is 4400 years old, the flood flattened it. The earths age is not important, life was made 6000 years ago we have no evidence that it wasn't.
Oh you mean except the thousands of fossils that are even millions of years old? you mean except the coral reef that's well over 100,000 years old and still growing? I've never heard more retarded shit, and I've refuted your 'oldest living tree' bullshit before, not from you but from others. Please provide a source.
So..youre a troll or something? I mean, stating the oldest tree ring date is 4000 y.o. is beyond being ignorant.....search 'prometheus'the wonderfully old tree. And you mispelled some words. e.g. the last one 'wasn't' should be 'was'...
I wasn't talking grammar, quarterwit. And saluut is correct spelling where I live. And..your right, I will just have to deal with ignorant fools like you, but that's ok, I don't mind....
Lol hey thanks for responding to this troll and allowing me to minimize my responses to be short and sweet. It's great to have other intellectuals supporting me in the comments section.
Thats ok, I kinda got used to these stupid arguments they always try to make and well....sometimes its just fun to debunk everything they say, plus, it keeps my own knowledge about the subjects up-to-date.
You were talking grammar and you got it wrong, end of debate, 8th of a wit. Creation remains the only scientific theory for the existence of life. We cannot date anything without secondary evidence.
No I wasnt, just see what you say in the comment by replacing 'wasn't' with 'was', idiot. and this comment made me actually quite confident youre just a troll. The thing is, I dont mind commenting on trolls, so youd better find some other guys with which to have fun. Creation "science" (oxymoron) is the laughingstock of the academic world, everyone knows it, just troll something else. We celebrated darwin's birthday for a reason....have phun trolling, ignorant amoebe... :)
Grammar doesnt really matter that much. Although it is good to have correct grammar in an argument, what really matters is the point bieng made. If you start to veer away from the point and instead start to argue about how they are wrong just because of thier spelling, then that is usually a sign that you cant argue with the point that they are making and instead are coming back with anything that makes the other person look bad.
You might notice that the arguments presented by this pseudo-intellectual have already been debunked, and if you read any of my comments to other people, or watched any substantial number of my videos you would know I am perfectly capable of arguing these points, and completely capable of admitting when I've been bested. I have no need to reduce to such juvenile tactics. I understand your point, but in this case it is not applicable. We are referencing someone who calls 'creation' science, and
I did not feel like reiterating jzuidema's earlier points. Indeed there was absolutely no reason to, as this becomes too tedious and monotonous. There is a reason I did not clearly represent a comprehensible opposing position, and it is because I've done it too many times to too many people with such low calibers of generally functioning intelligence. Your point is valid as a broad study but innefective in this individual case of application. Thanks for your comment but please, be aware of the
Also, my apologies for my misspelling of 'ineffective' in my prior post, as this might be taken as hypocritical considering my bashing of warriorprince1010 for his horrid grammar and spelling.
I wouldnt call it bashing. Warriorprince knew he couldnt argue against the logic so he started to just veer the argument onto spelling and namecalling, which didnt really matter. I hate it when I make a good point but someone shouts at me 'YOUR ARGUMENT IS BETTER THAN MINE BUT IM NOT GONNA ADMIT IT CAUSE YOU MISSPELLED A WORD!'
dinosaur bones cannot be dated as the original material has been replaced with minerals, read a book dude...what you date WHEN destroying such a specimen nonetheless will be something else, in the case of bones most probably carbon rich preservative fluids....
what de fuck?????? why the hell would you date something of which you know the date?? Thats only used in calibrating the dating method...Dating methods GIVE the ages of the items dated...are you that stupid? Or a troll?
CONTINUED!... levels of C14 in the atmosp. has significantly chAnged!!!..but, with this same data they have derived correction factors that allow VERY ACCURATE!!!!!!! dates to be determined by C14/C12 ratios.
so stop thinking you are smarter then 70 years of carbon dating or the Nobel prize winning scientist who invented it, just because you watched some ridicules creationist video that wants set our progress back to the dark ages!!!
Carbon dating is impossible if you don't know the amount of carbon that was in the enviroment at the time when an animal died. Carbon inceases over at an outstanding rate. So it will be right near impossible I'm just saying.
Phibins is correct. As described in the very video you're commenting on, there is no assumption as to the amount of C-14 in the air, there are correction processes. Check your facts, and not from "answersingenesis", Ham's a tard.
Creationists will never believe ANY evidence that shows anything that contradicts the bible, never. Religion and evidence don't match. Religion and science don't match.
Ok well how about I use a diffrent fact. A freshly dead seal was carbon dated and it magically died 1,000 years ago. Carbon dating is incorrect because we do not know the amount of carbon that was in the air when an animal died. If we somehow make a time machine and gather the amount of carbon in the air then maybe it will be more accurate. I'm just saying....
your just like the rest of these creationists. you see a couple of videos and you are convinced your an expert.
i have argued this to many times and am sick of writing long comments to people who are to thick to understand.
but just for future information i will sum it up for you.
dendrochonologists(SPL?)which are scientists who date long-lived trees (ie. sequoias or bristlecone) using growth rings have indeed shown (as you said) that the... CONTINUED IN COMMENTS!!
All of creationists crap has been debunked, Kent is the easiest.
gregrutz 1 year ago
As of today, September 2008, there are no empirically testable dating methods.# Basically we have no dating methods that are accepted within science. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a fraudster.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
and why dont you explain to us why they are not "accepted within science".
radio active decay is a know fact.
Phibins 3 years ago
We have never known the age of something then dated it and found the dates accurate. Therefore they are not scientific.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
what can be claimed with out evidence can be dismissed with out evidence.
please provide an example.
Phibins 3 years ago
Dating methods cannot be proven as we do not know the age of what we date, understand?
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
before carbon dating won a noble prize you can bet you bible humping ass that it was proven experimentally.
the ACCURACY cannot be proven. but we have margins of error. that's why we don't date things to the month day and hour.
Phibins 3 years ago 2
Carbon dating has dated many dinosaurs to 12,000 to 16,000 years old. They are out as no creature lived on earth before 6000 years old. However it does not fit your atheistic timetable either.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
they dont use radiocarbon dating for anything past 7000 years. either you are completely ignorant to what C14 dating is... OR you are wilfully presenting false facts.
you knowlage on the matter does not go further then a bunch of creationist videos.
stop trying.
Phibins 3 years ago 2
Carbon is used up to 50,000 years, you just make things up. I do not trust any dating method. If you trust carbon dating then you have to accept all its findings. I trust non of them.
There is no evidence that any animal lived more than 6500 years ago.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
Actually what was "made up" is derived from years of scientific testing by intelligent people, not overhandedly paranoid conspiracy theorizing folks who believe everything was invented by an invisible man in the sky.
Ethrock 3 years ago
you are an idiot. Even simple trees have been dated through tree ring dating at 10,000 + years...same goes for coralreefs, annual sedimentation layers, stalagtites, ice cores with annual rings...All go WAY BEYOND 6000 years. Even leaving out radiometric dating, if you believe the earth is only 6500 years old, your an ignorant fool who should get some education......man ooh man......is there SOME creationist out there capable of commenting smart things??????
jzuidema 2 years ago
The oldest living tree is 4400 years old, the flood flattened it. The earths age is not important, life was made 6000 years ago we have no evidence that it wasn't.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
Oh you mean except the thousands of fossils that are even millions of years old? you mean except the coral reef that's well over 100,000 years old and still growing? I've never heard more retarded shit, and I've refuted your 'oldest living tree' bullshit before, not from you but from others. Please provide a source.
Ethrock 2 years ago
So..youre a troll or something? I mean, stating the oldest tree ring date is 4000 y.o. is beyond being ignorant.....search 'prometheus'the wonderfully old tree. And you mispelled some words. e.g. the last one 'wasn't' should be 'was'...
Or didnt you hear? saluut, Troll
jzuidema 2 years ago
Wasn't fits fine there. You missed the ' from didn't....and it is spelled salute, halfwit. Dealt with.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
I wasn't talking grammar, quarterwit. And saluut is correct spelling where I live. And..your right, I will just have to deal with ignorant fools like you, but that's ok, I don't mind....
jzuidema 2 years ago
Lol hey thanks for responding to this troll and allowing me to minimize my responses to be short and sweet. It's great to have other intellectuals supporting me in the comments section.
Ethrock 2 years ago
Thats ok, I kinda got used to these stupid arguments they always try to make and well....sometimes its just fun to debunk everything they say, plus, it keeps my own knowledge about the subjects up-to-date.
Succes with making future videos... :)
jzuidema 2 years ago
You were talking grammar and you got it wrong, end of debate, 8th of a wit. Creation remains the only scientific theory for the existence of life. We cannot date anything without secondary evidence.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
No I wasnt, just see what you say in the comment by replacing 'wasn't' with 'was', idiot. and this comment made me actually quite confident youre just a troll. The thing is, I dont mind commenting on trolls, so youd better find some other guys with which to have fun. Creation "science" (oxymoron) is the laughingstock of the academic world, everyone knows it, just troll something else. We celebrated darwin's birthday for a reason....have phun trolling, ignorant amoebe... :)
jzuidema 2 years ago
Also, eighth does not require that much effort to write out.
Ethrock 2 years ago
Grammar doesnt really matter that much. Although it is good to have correct grammar in an argument, what really matters is the point bieng made. If you start to veer away from the point and instead start to argue about how they are wrong just because of thier spelling, then that is usually a sign that you cant argue with the point that they are making and instead are coming back with anything that makes the other person look bad.
RedDawnJensen 2 years ago
You might notice that the arguments presented by this pseudo-intellectual have already been debunked, and if you read any of my comments to other people, or watched any substantial number of my videos you would know I am perfectly capable of arguing these points, and completely capable of admitting when I've been bested. I have no need to reduce to such juvenile tactics. I understand your point, but in this case it is not applicable. We are referencing someone who calls 'creation' science, and
Ethrock 2 years ago
I did not feel like reiterating jzuidema's earlier points. Indeed there was absolutely no reason to, as this becomes too tedious and monotonous. There is a reason I did not clearly represent a comprehensible opposing position, and it is because I've done it too many times to too many people with such low calibers of generally functioning intelligence. Your point is valid as a broad study but innefective in this individual case of application. Thanks for your comment but please, be aware of the
Ethrock 2 years ago
entire situation next time.
Also, my apologies for my misspelling of 'ineffective' in my prior post, as this might be taken as hypocritical considering my bashing of warriorprince1010 for his horrid grammar and spelling.
Ethrock 2 years ago
I wouldnt call it bashing. Warriorprince knew he couldnt argue against the logic so he started to just veer the argument onto spelling and namecalling, which didnt really matter. I hate it when I make a good point but someone shouts at me 'YOUR ARGUMENT IS BETTER THAN MINE BUT IM NOT GONNA ADMIT IT CAUSE YOU MISSPELLED A WORD!'
RedDawnJensen 2 years ago
dinosaur bones cannot be dated as the original material has been replaced with minerals, read a book dude...what you date WHEN destroying such a specimen nonetheless will be something else, in the case of bones most probably carbon rich preservative fluids....
jzuidema 2 years ago
what de fuck?????? why the hell would you date something of which you know the date?? Thats only used in calibrating the dating method...Dating methods GIVE the ages of the items dated...are you that stupid? Or a troll?
jzuidema 2 years ago
CONTINUED!... levels of C14 in the atmosp. has significantly chAnged!!!..but, with this same data they have derived correction factors that allow VERY ACCURATE!!!!!!! dates to be determined by C14/C12 ratios.
so stop thinking you are smarter then 70 years of carbon dating or the Nobel prize winning scientist who invented it, just because you watched some ridicules creationist video that wants set our progress back to the dark ages!!!
MAN THOSE VIDEOS RUB ME THE WRONG WAY!!!!
Phibins 3 years ago
Carbon dating is impossible if you don't know the amount of carbon that was in the enviroment at the time when an animal died. Carbon inceases over at an outstanding rate. So it will be right near impossible I'm just saying.
Up777Down666 3 years ago
Phibins is correct. As described in the very video you're commenting on, there is no assumption as to the amount of C-14 in the air, there are correction processes. Check your facts, and not from "answersingenesis", Ham's a tard.
Ethrock 3 years ago
lol ham's a tard.
Phibins 3 years ago
Creationists will never believe ANY evidence that shows anything that contradicts the bible, never. Religion and evidence don't match. Religion and science don't match.
DeusMerdaeEst 3 years ago
PS. the limit is 75K years, but it is not used for anything dating older then 50K. so they keep it very accurate.
Phibins 3 years ago
Thank you for the clarification Phibins
Ethrock 3 years ago
SORRY I MADE A MISTAKE!!! for C14 its 7.5K NOT 75K... BIG ERROR!!!! SORRY
Phibins 3 years ago
it actually was a mistake... at first our good friend kent thought he was right (and he was... kinda), but then the mistake was corrected.
but him NoT removing it from his site is scum, and just shows he wants to trap ppl into belief.
GOOD VID! *****
Phibins 3 years ago
Ok well how about I use a diffrent fact. A freshly dead seal was carbon dated and it magically died 1,000 years ago. Carbon dating is incorrect because we do not know the amount of carbon that was in the air when an animal died. If we somehow make a time machine and gather the amount of carbon in the air then maybe it will be more accurate. I'm just saying....
Up777Down666 3 years ago
your just like the rest of these creationists. you see a couple of videos and you are convinced your an expert.
i have argued this to many times and am sick of writing long comments to people who are to thick to understand.
but just for future information i will sum it up for you.
dendrochonologists(SPL?)which are scientists who date long-lived trees (ie. sequoias or bristlecone) using growth rings have indeed shown (as you said) that the... CONTINUED IN COMMENTS!!
Phibins 3 years ago
The oldest living tree found is just over 4000 years old.
warriorprince1010 3 years ago
yes your right... my bad.
Phibins 3 years ago