Where are you on Dawkins' scale?

[nezzybaby]

This would never happen, carbon dating techniques over the short term are remarkeably accurate. The amusing thing is that if the bible said that the tudors were around in 2000bc you would blindly accept it without considering looking at any supporting evidence!

[937delta]

Delta I think you must surely be on a wind up here? I have wondered before if you are just having some fun (maybe not in total but when you breach the more extreme topics). Trying to argue (even half heartedly) that the earth is flat has convinced me.

I don't believe that the world is flat at this moment, however if it was, so be it.

[937delta]

This would never happen, carbon dating techniques over the short term are remarkeably accurate. The amusing thing is that if the bible said that the tudors were around in 2000bc you would blindly accept it without considering looking at any supporting evidence!

Yes but the Bible is truth and therefore it would not say that.

This would never happen, carbon dating techniques over the short term are remarkeably accurate.

Yeah right-when we know when a date is correct, remarkably carbon dating proves correct. Equations can be adjusted to suit quite easily-I think the unknown is carbon in the atmosphere which varies throughout time. So basically carbon dating can be trusted when we already know the answer, but hey if we don't know the answer then its way out boy.

[nezzybaby]

Your inability to grasp basic concepts is bordering on the insane. If i write a computer program to calculate prime numbers, then check it against the first 100 known prime numbers. Will you instantly assume the 101st value it generates is billions of times wrong?

[937delta]

Your inability to grasp basic concepts is bordering on the insane. If i write a computer program to calculate prime numbers, then check it against the first 100 known prime numbers. Will you instantly assume the 101st value it generates is billions of times wrong?

You are actually defending a system that clearly does not work, how can you or your comrades actually convince a normal person that carbon-dating works.

[nezzybaby]

It's very easy to convince normal people, it's convincing nutters like you which is tricky. The way you convince someone is exactly the way you'd convince them my prime number program works. You'd ask them to give you an object they know the date of. You'd carbon date it and tell then what you think the date is. You'd do this with progressively older objects, and continue to succeed with a high level of accuracy. This would build/ has built confidence in the technique. The only people left to convince are the (thankfully small) minority of people who are convinced the world is 6000 years old.

[CharlieP]

Originally Posted by 937delta

Does this statement you posted, preached no doubt by the soldiers of secularism, to children in schools up and down the land, as fact really need to be taken seriously. You are a fool if you put your trust in this madness.

Have you actually done any research on the scientists behind radiocarbon dating? Much like the scientists whose put their intellectual efforts into investigating the age of the Earth or Universe, they were driven purely by scientific curiosity and the desire to break new ground, not by any anti-theistic crusade. Many of them would have gone to church on Sunday when not in the lab or observatory - they just weren't blinkered by a dogmatic belief in the literal truth of the Bible.

[937delta]

Many of them would have gone to church on Sunday when not in the lab or observatory - they just weren't blinkered by a dogmatic belief in the literal truth of the Bible.

Fair point-at the end of the day if one believes that evolution happened as per the science text, it doesn't mean that one is going to 'burn in hell!'. Its all about ones personal relationship with God. All this creation/evolution stuff is a side show when you are talking about the real issues.

[PresidentBjork]

Originally Posted by 937delta

From BBC web site there are excuses listed as to why the previous results are inaccurate - pathetic.

and yet you completely misrepresent the situation. At no point was it claimed that those fossils were ever 21,000 years old. That was putative extinction date set for the woolly mammoth in north western Europe based on the last great glaciation event. In fact previous C14 dating of the fossils put them at around 12,300 years old, but this was acknowledged as being quite unreliable for a variety of reasons.

The condover fossils are a source of contention because they were not found in situ, but in a dug up gravel pile, thus it was not possible to tell where exactly in the geologic strata they originated from. These stata ranged from ice age gravel to relatively recent mud. The position is important because the closer they were to the mud, the more rain water infused with plant carbon would soak into the bones thus erroneously making them appear younger. Since the area had been a rapidly filled in post glacial kettle hole this was of particular concern. The recent study of the bones employed ultra sensitive purification and detection processes - unavailable 20 years ago - to ascertain a more accurate carbon 14 content of the bones. This had to be done since it was not known what the surrounding earth was so the usual statistical models could not be used to the calibrate how much interference was present. Not only that but more extensive testing on the sediment itself, as well insect fossils, helped to pinpoint the source of the fossils more directly increasing the accuracy of the dating. If anything this whole case demonstrates just how accurate and powerful a tool radiocarbon dating can be.

Oh dear chaps carbon dating perfectly accurate at fossils millions of years
old.

Carbon 14 testing cannot be used to date anything that old. Due to the isotope's standard half life any measearment beyond 50,000 years is pointless. Other radioactive isotopes, such as those of thorium or potassium, need to be used instead.

They cannot date at '21000 years old accurately' and are out by one third with their estimation. However they are still out by 8000 years at least. Still 85% of you will still hold onto this nonsense-hope I am wrong.

As pointed out radiocarbon dating is not out by one third at that timescale. An incredible amount of work goes into calibrating the results of beta decay testing, to ensure the estimated atmospheric content of the time of the fossils death is as accurate as possible. The assumed quantity of carbon 14 is compared with that accumulated in other time dependent processes such as the growth of speleotherms, corals, trees and sedimentary varves. Dates ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 years are generally agreed to be accurate by around ± 40 years, mostly due to the convention of rounding up to the nearest 50 such dates. Statistical analysis is also employed to militate deviations in radioactivity detections.