Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
History & Genealogy
A short explaination of the human-nature
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Derf" data-source="post: 77434477" data-attributes="member: 436903"><p>I know that the evidence for multiple dating techniques to give concordant results is severely lacking. Some of them actually DO give results millions of years apart...<strong>on the same sample</strong>. Some of them have to be supplemented with non-radiometric techniques because they don't seem to work for some geological layers. Sometimes freshly generated volcanic rock dates to millions of years old. And diamonds and coal have been found to have measurable C14 in them, more than can be accounted for by calibration errors or contamination, which would give dates less than 100,000 years. These factors make for reasons to question radiometric dating accuracy. From what I've heard, scientists usually get several ranges of dates when they submit a sample for analysis, and they get to pick the ones they like best, tossing out the "aberrant" ones.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Derf, post: 77434477, member: 436903"] I know that the evidence for multiple dating techniques to give concordant results is severely lacking. Some of them actually DO give results millions of years apart...[B]on the same sample[/B]. Some of them have to be supplemented with non-radiometric techniques because they don't seem to work for some geological layers. Sometimes freshly generated volcanic rock dates to millions of years old. And diamonds and coal have been found to have measurable C14 in them, more than can be accounted for by calibration errors or contamination, which would give dates less than 100,000 years. These factors make for reasons to question radiometric dating accuracy. From what I've heard, scientists usually get several ranges of dates when they submit a sample for analysis, and they get to pick the ones they like best, tossing out the "aberrant" ones. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
History & Genealogy
A short explaination of the human-nature
Top
Bottom