Radioactive dating flaws dating asian woman jewish personals
As you will learn here, none of the arguments or evidence used by creationists to support their position seriously calls into question the reliability of radiometric dating. Not only that, but your DNA was found at the crime scene, 14 witnesses saw you stab him, a text message from your phone reads 'Just stabbed this guy at the gas station, lol,' and you just wrote us a confession letter " "Nope, those are all lies, and I don't trust any of that." This is basically what the young-earth creationist is doing when they carelessly discount all of these independent lines of evidence.
In fact, there is a very sound basis for believing that these dating methods provide accurate results. Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. If these dating methods were inaccurate, you would expect to see wildly divergent results, with some techniques yielding one date, other techniques yielding another—it would just be total chaos.
Rather than the dating techniques being flawed, perhaps it's "If a recent lava flow, a recent eruption, where we know the true age of the rock from observation or historical evidence gets the answer wrong using the Potassium-Argon method, how can we trust them on ancient rocks when we don't have the historical documentation? Try tearing out a page from your Bible and rolling a joint with that shit, and then come and talk to me."Another Devastating Failure For Long-Age Geology?This doesn't therefore make these tools completely worthless; it just means that sometimes, they get it wrong—but when properly applied, the techniques will give us the correct answer the vast majority of the time.—The next example is much more tantalizing because it purportedly shows two wildly divergent dates One problem with this quote: It doesn't appear to actually exist—much like God, I might add! Secondly, none of the radiocarbon dates for mammoths given in that table are 44,000 or 29,500. One is referred to as a baby mammoth, while the other is simply referred to as a mammoth; one is described as being potentially contaminated by glycerine, while the other is not.Nowhere does the cited study appear to contain this particular sentence. So not only is the quote a fabrication but the information contained in it is too. On top of that, the two samples were collected And note that these dates are presented in this table on page 30 of the study—the specific page referenced by Eric Hovind as the source of this quote—so what is going on here?As Adam Benton writes on Filthy Monkey Men.com,"First, the information on mammoth dates is presented in a table. Did somebody along the line misread this study, misrepresent its findings, and has this inaccuracy just been passed along from creationist to creationist like a game of telephone?Why is a person as prominent as Eric Hovind not making sure that his references actually support what he claims they do?
Search for radioactive dating flaws:
" It sounds like pretty powerful evidence when you first hear about it, but the obvious question that needs to be asked is: How trustworthy is the science behind these findings? One crucial mistake that these creationists made was using the wrong equipment to date their sample. I think I actually have an idea of what went wrong here: these creationists, at the outset of their study, had a very good plan in place for how to conduct rigorous analysis on this question; in the course of their research, however, they ended up dropping this plan , so they just said "Fuck it" and decided to wing it from that point on.