47 Million Year Old Find..

[Shogun]

I agree! Even the jewish ones!

 

[AllieBaba]

"First, it was noticed that, when radiocarbon dated, wood grown in the 20th century appears more ancient than wood grown in the 19th century."

"The combined efforts of several researchers led them to believe that one of the conditions stipulated by Libby for a flawless functioning of his method was not historically sustained; it is claimed that the influx of cosmic rays varied with time. Yet, since this influx comes from many sources, the sun being only one of them, sunspot activity could be related to the variation only in a very limited degree."

"Thus both conditions stipulated by Libby (that is, constant rate of influx of cosmic rays, and constant quantity of water in the hydrosphere) have been violated, but following the uniformitarian doctrine these violations have been discarded from consideration. We are left with a method in which the researchers have failed to take heed of the warnings expressed by its inventor."

"Now we see that not only were the warning signals that Libby offered with his method disregarded, but also an unearned reliance on the accepted version of ancient history has caused much stumbling in the dark, more and more tests of diminished value, and a maze of findings, with many undisclosed results of tests, wrong deductions and much exasperation that mark the first 20 years of application of Libby’s most imaginative method."






The Pitfalls of Radiocarbon Dating

 

[Shogun]

You'll probably have to wait for someone to give a fuck about the opinion of Immanuel Velikovsky, baba!





Once again, christians fail to grasp science.

 

[Hillbilly]

Also I'd like some information on how they aged it. To my understanding, we don't have any good way to determine the age of very old stuff....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1225205-post32.html

Your understanding is incorrect.

Ever bother to read threads before you post?

Maybe you should take your own advice. The wiki article you posted states, as I thought everyone already knew, that radio carbon dating only works for up to 60,000 year old objects. 60,000<47 million. They date fossils by the supposed age of the soil strata they are found in.

 

[AllieBaba]

It has been proved, repeatedly, to be problematic and error prone. VERY error prone, and the older the sample the more error prone it is.

They're taking a random number out of the air and promoting it as if it has been proven. What a joke, and what gullible idiots the bad science whores are.

 

[Shogun]

yea yea... just like it was eronious to believe that the sun could be the center of our galaxy when the bible CLEARLY states...

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, the bible doesn't clearly state anything like what you're implying. The bible states the earth was a shapeless mass, then the sun was created, then the earth was formed.

Go figure.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Also I'd like some information on how they aged it. To my understanding, we don't have any good way to determine the age of very old stuff....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1225205-post32.html

Your understanding is incorrect.

Ever bother to read threads before you post?

Maybe you should take your own advice. The wiki article you posted states, as I thought everyone already knew, that radio carbon dating only works for up to 60,000 year old objects. 60,000<47 million. They date fossils by the supposed age of the soil strata they are found in.

How silly of me! Must have been that 6000 year figure the fundies toss around.

Of course, I did read the thread and never saw the soil strata data. (Rhyme alert!) And, since I have never been either a evolution denier nor a student of same, it does have the appeal of being a theory that doesn't rely on mankind's vanity in order to believe it in principle.

Unlike all religions, including the newest one, AGW.

 

[Red Dawn]

Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly questionable, idiot. The older the find, the less accurate the dating. It relies on measuring 14.C concentrations...and those concentrations vary widely over time. The simple calculation of age from 14.C concentration is UNRELIABLE.

Do you have a degree in chemistry?

No?

Then shut the fuck up. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.


If the FACT that we are related to primates rocks your world, get over it.


PS, I'm not an expert, but I'm almost positive they don't use radio carbon dating for 47 million year old fossils. I'm pretty sure radio carbon doesn't work on anything older than a few tens of thousands of years. They probably used strontium or uraniuim dating methods. But, I could be wrong. Unlike you, I defer to the experts. You know, the ones who actually have chemistry degrees.

 

[del]

Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly questionable, idiot. The older the find, the less accurate the dating. It relies on measuring 14.C concentrations...and those concentrations vary widely over time. The simple calculation of age from 14.C concentration is UNRELIABLE.

Do you have a degree in chemistry?

No?

Then shut the fuck up. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.


If the FACT that we are related to primates rocks your world, get over it.


PS, I'm not an expert, but I'm almost positive they don't use radio carbon dating for 47 million year old fossils. I'm pretty sure radio carbon doesn't work on anything older than a few tens of thousands of years. They probably used strontium or uraniuim dating methods. But, I could be wrong. Unlike you, I defer to the experts. You know, the ones who actually have chemistry degrees.

thanks for clearing that up.
you had me going

 

[Old Rocks]

Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly questionable, idiot. The older the find, the less accurate the dating. It relies on measuring 14.C concentrations...and those concentrations vary widely over time. The simple calculation of age from 14.C concentration is UNRELIABLE.

Good God! C14 dating is for very recent finds, at the very best, it is not good for anything older than 100,000 years, used mostly for things less than 50,000 years. Here are some sites with detailed information about the various methods of geological dating.

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Geologic Time: Radiometric Time Scale

Geological Dating

 

[Old Rocks]

Also I'd like some information on how they aged it. To my understanding, we don't have any good way to determine the age of very old stuff....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1225205-post32.html

Your understanding is incorrect.

Ever bother to read threads before you post?

Maybe you should take your own advice. The wiki article you posted states, as I thought everyone already knew, that radio carbon dating only works for up to 60,000 year old objects. 60,000<47 million. They date fossils by the supposed age of the soil strata they are found in.

See the previous posts, both of Midnight's and mine. There are many methods of dating, some of which are capable of dating minerals that are billions of years old.

 

[Red Dawn]

Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly questionable, idiot. The older the find, the less accurate the dating. It relies on measuring 14.C concentrations...and those concentrations vary widely over time. The simple calculation of age from 14.C concentration is UNRELIABLE.

Good God! C14 dating is for very recent finds, at the very best, it is not good for anything older than 100,000 years, used mostly for things less than 50,000 years. Here are some sites with detailed information about the various methods of geological dating.

Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale

Geologic Time: Radiometric Time Scale

Geological Dating

listen man, you can always count on a rightwing religious nut job, with zero training or education in science, to chime in with some nonsense when their precious fantasy about the Garden of Eden comes into question.

 

[Joe_Penalty]

It is known all throughout the chemistry world that the half-life of carbon-14 is approximately 5,730 years. Particularly carbon-14 undergoes radioactive decay by beta emission. This usually occurs in parts per trillion, but for the sake of simplicity we will use whole numbers. All of this means every 5,730 years the ratio of carbon-14 (radioactive) versus carbon-12 (non-radioactive) is reduced by a factor of 2. At 5,730 years times 2, carbon-14 is reduced by a factor of 4, 3 times; a factor of 8. This can be somewhat accurate up to 5,730 years times 4. Anytime beyond this, the accuracy is greatly reduced (5,730 times 4 equals 22,920). This technique is only useful for organic materials. Carbon is used because it is the basic composition of all living organisms.

By the way, you can use any general chemistry textbook to corroborate this information.

This is theory and the only way to actually test this is to watch the isotope for 5700 years.

 

[editec]

I did carbon dating for a while.

But I got tired of all that black soot on my dick so I went back to dating women.

 

[Care4all]

absolutely no where in the Bible does it state that we are only 6000 years old...this is what "man" came up with....

no where in the Bible does it state the earth is the center of our galaxy verses the Sun....this was "man's" saying not the Bible's.

there is nowhere in the Bible that says man was created before animals or insects or birds....

I can go on and on....

The Bible does not conflict with Science because the Bible is not a Science book and was never meant to be a science book, with hypothesis and theories on how things work or worked....

I have no problems what so ever in following science...in fact, I love it!

And this find from years ago that they are now coming out with, with their Special TV program to back it up coming to the history Channel, though very interesting, is still NOT the "missing link" imo.

Care

 

[Red Dawn]

The Bible does not conflict with Science...........

Care

I seriously doubt those men in the Old Testment lived to be hundreds of years old. Didn't the bible say Abraham lived to be 800 years old?

And I don't think it's scientifically plausible, or physically possible for Jonah to live inside a fish. And Noah really got every single land animal onto a boat?


You're right, human ignorance has projected a lot of baloney and scientifically invalid ideas onto the bible.

But a lot of the bible is flat out improbable, if not scientifically laughable.

Nothing personal, you make some good points....and I don't care if people want to view the bible as the literal word of God.

But I think its much more englightened and plausible to view the bible as metaphor and stories that are guidance for morality.

 

[AllieBaba]

Radiocarbon dating has been proven to be highly questionable, idiot. The older the find, the less accurate the dating. It relies on measuring 14.C concentrations...and those concentrations vary widely over time. The simple calculation of age from 14.C concentration is UNRELIABLE.

Do you have a degree in chemistry?

No?

Then shut the fuck up. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.


If the FACT that we are related to primates rocks your world, get over it.


PS, I'm not an expert, but I'm almost positive they don't use radio carbon dating for 47 million year old fossils. I'm pretty sure radio carbon doesn't work on anything older than a few tens of thousands of years. They probably used strontium or uraniuim dating methods. But, I could be wrong. Unlike you, I defer to the experts. You know, the ones who actually have chemistry degrees.

Do you have a degree in chemistry? No? Then shut the fuck up.

I don't give a shit if we're related to primates or not. I know God created us, and there's as much evidence for that as there is for the theory that we descended from primates. In other words, none.

 

[Care4all]

The Bible does not conflict with Science...........

Care

I seriously doubt those men in the Old Testment lived to be hundreds of years old. Didn't the bible say Abraham lived to be 800 years old?

And I don't think it's scientifically plausible, or physically possible for Jonah to live inside a fish. And Noah really got every single land animal onto a boat?


You're right, human ignorance has projected a lot of baloney and scientifically invalid ideas onto the bible.

But a lot of the bible is flat out improbable, if not scientifically laughable.

Nothing personal, you make some good points....and I don't care if people want to view the bible as the literal word of God.

But I think its much more englightened and plausible to view the bible as metaphor and stories that are guidance for morality.

it's written in parables, with symbolism and numerology.... many have a hard time getting a grip on that....

but it was not writen with science or science measures involved and should not be graded as if it was written in that manner....that's just how i view it red dawn....

 

[AllieBaba]

You bad science idiot whores.

"Plate B (Figs. 1,2), originally described by Franzen [18] as the sixth Messel primate (Table 1), had a curious history. It was purchased in 1991 by Dr. 1Burghard Pohl for the Wyoming Dinosaur Center at Thermopolis, Wyoming. This plate holds a partial skeleton viewed from the left side, embedded in a plate of polyester. Franzen [18] showed that some of the specimen is real, while substantial parts were faked to give an illusion of greater completeness. Working from what was available, Franzen attributed the specimen to the species &#8220;Pronycticebus neglectus&#8221; (THALMANN, HAUBOLD & MARTIN, 1989) described from Geiseltal [22]. He first placed the species in Caenopithecus, and then assigned it to a new genus Godinotia [1]."

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723
I don't think they've even dated this. Its weird background makes it questionable to begin with...there's very little actual material, it's been divided up and "re-found", it's been re- and then de-constructed, they mis-classified it once already, and I can see no reference to any dating being done at all.

Not only that, it's not a "missing link"...i.e., the fossil that shows the leap to our current shape and form. If anything, it's just another weird collection of stuff they can't really identify or date.