This is becoming a drag now. But I will make an argument here. Although the theory of radiocarbon dating is interesting, there are several inherent problems with the process. The first of these problems is the fact that the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon is unknown. The second problem is that the possibility of contamination of the sample over time is quite high. The older the sample the higher the probability of contamination, in fact! What this means is that using carbon dating to date very old samples is really quite impractical given our current level of knowledge and technological capabilities. While carbon dating continues to be considered by many as a viable way of obtaining authoritative dates for a wide range of artifacts and remains, there is much room for error in the process. Even the use of accelerator mass spectrometry to analyze the relative levels of carbon and radioactive carbon has resulted in flawed determinations. It is not uncommon for different laboratories to determine quite different ages for the same artifact! While some of this deviation could possibly be explained by contamination or erred methodology in the labs themselves, it is apparent that the problems with carbon dating are much more complex than that. Very simply put, too many things are unknown to allow the carbon dating process to be as accurate as many proclaim it to be. Factors as diverse as changes in the earth’s magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times. Even changes in the atmosphere itself could impact this carbon ratio. We know that changes such as these have occurred over time. They are still occurring today in fact. The fact that carbon and radioactive carbon are independently formed means that their ratios to one another could have changed substantially from ancient times to today. To base our knowledge on the age of the earth and its various constituents on information gleaned from a technique that depends on carbon and radioactive carbon ratios is very simply unrealistic.
I'm trying to stop swearing so much. It's kind of hard.
Just like Carbon dating. Equally flawed. I'm through here.
Self-Burn. The worst kind...
^ Is an ex-CIA agent now living out his life as a stripper.
It was all in the name of science, I swear! It happens... Sometimes. What an odd title for this madhouse.
[IMG]
Yes. The Sea of Vice. How sinful. =)
How droll... Is it really so far beyond your spectrum of understanding that you are willing to place barriers on time itself? I'm not saying that religion is the answer. Believe me, the flaws in religion are great and many. What I am saying is that I am willing to place all my chips on the bet that says we are a design not an accident. The human mind and genome is infinitely complex as is the creator behind it. I won't pretend to know how things came to be, all any of us can really do is speculate. I do know that I will not lean on the reasoning of science 100%. After all, evolution is only part of a design.
I am afraid I cannot allow that. *leaves blow-up bed*
I know where you've been...
I see you were on... *detonates VMs*
Y hello thar.
*eye twitch* Is voted New Zealand's biggest fanboy.
Indeed! ^Has no sex organs
I was born Catholic but converted to Christian when I was 19 by choice.
I got landed with a nickname before I was even born. Turtle... My mom called me her little turtle baby because I was born two weeks late. It has been with me for the last 24 years.
My original name is Heartless_Vice. I chose it because it embodies a lot of my personality. When I joined I didn't really have regard for anyone's feelings(Heartless). The "Vice" part comes from my Graffiti name. I chose that part for sheer meaning. An immoral habit or practice. I changed my name to ArchVice Because it had a nice ring to it. That and it is the mirror to another name I have somewhere else, HighSin.
I know. But she said it's not her.
