nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 376:
Line 376: + + + + +
→T-Rex soft tissue?: No, you've got it quite wrong.
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]
:Scientists have never been able to change the laws of physics, but they have managed to change decay rates in some circumstances, so that puts the kybosh on your idea that decay rates can't change without changing the laws of physics.
:So you're actually suggesting that one or both of those dating methods will give inaccurate results, are you? That's quite an admission!
:But you are wrong. If the wood and basalt were actually 40 million years old, then carbon dating would give a nil result; that is, there would be no measurable carbon 14 left, meaning that the calculated date was "older than 60,000 years". 40 million years is compatible with "older than 60,000 years". However, this is ''not'' what happened. The carbon date actually worked out to 40,000 years, ''because there was measurable C14 in it''. This means that the wood was ''less than'' 60,000 years old, in total contradiction to the basalt age of 40 million years.
:Your implied claim that C14 dating would give this result because the limit of C14 dating is 60,000 years is really saying that an artifact older than 60,000 years could give a date younger than 60,000 years, which means that if a date is younger than 60,000 years you can't be sure it isn't really older than 60,000 years, which means you can't trust it at all!
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:39, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
==Feathers==
==Feathers==
I find it odd that one of the tenants on which CP was founded was the unreliability of wikipedia, yet a reference to an article there is used. Surely in the YECs attempt to prove evolution wrong you can do better (and by better I mean not AiG). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I find it odd that one of the tenants on which CP was founded was the unreliability of wikipedia, yet a reference to an article there is used. Surely in the YECs attempt to prove evolution wrong you can do better (and by better I mean not AiG). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 14:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
:I wondered the same thing about the Wikipedia reference, although I did leave it there and improve it (the footnote). What's wrong with the AiG reference? (AiG is off-line at the moment, so I can't see the article to reference is to.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
:I wondered the same thing about the Wikipedia reference, although I did leave it there and improve it (the footnote). What's wrong with the AiG reference? (AiG is off-line at the moment, so I can't see the article to reference is to.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:04, 28 April 2007 (EDT)