Carbon dating inaccuracy error fallacy


Carbon dating inaccuracy error fallacy

This story originally appeared on Spectrum and has been republished here with permission. From the moment her month-old son Sam was diagnosed with autism. error, wrong, fallacy, failing, inaccuracy, fault hindi kawastuan and partly due to carbon dating's notorious inaccuracy in fossils of recent geologic record. It’s hard to measure sea levels, because land often moves up and down too (which is known as “isostatic“). But Australia is stable tectonically, so the. Carbon dating inaccuracy error fallacy

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. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding. Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

Search titles only Posted by Member: Separate names with a comma. Search this thread only Search this forum only Display results as threads. We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless! Mar 26, Carbon contents as low as 3.

Do you mean to suggest that radiometric dating is inaccurate as a whole, but produces consistent error across multiple objects and elements? Nice cut and paste.

You may have noticed that the reason why you get odd dates in cases like that is included in the text you pasted. Animals that absorb carbonates from the surrounding water to build shells are taking carbon from the rocks, rather than the usual sources that are involved in the carbon cycle. So what's wrong with all the other methods of dating? Has any dating methods ever accurately dated anything we 'know' the age of?

Originally Posted by HAPMinistries Has any dating methods ever accurately dated anything we 'know' the age of? Excellent, which method is it that is accurate to what we know the age of? Life - the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body. Life - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary Do you believe a virus is alive? No, I asked has any dating methods ever accurately dated anything we 'know' the age of? Appeal to authority and ad populum are irrelevant.

OK, so you are choosing definition 1. Vital is defined as "existing as a manifestation of life", which makes it useless for our purposes because it is circular. Functioning is obviously only useful when we can define the functions of life. So, we don't have much to go on here. Vital - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary If we follow the definition in 1. However, I also recognize that the qualities of life exist on a continuum, and a virus is closer to life than a grain of sand.

You know, as this discussion continues, I think we can refine the statement "life comes from life". This is my first stab at it, but I think this is less ambiguous and more accurate. To KNOW the age of something through a method you would approve of, it would have to be relatively young and many of the methods we would use to date the earth would be completely useless.

Instead, our "knowledge" of the age of something comes from multiple readings all agreeing with another. So lets get this straight. You wanted a definition for life because you do not know what life is, or you want to know what my meaning for the word in in context of what I have said.

Now you are wanting to use a different definition to 'refine' my statement. There is a word for that you know? I am not accusing you of this, because you are up front.

What I am saying is my comments were made and a definition was given from a dictionary to understand the meaning of the word I used. If you use a different meaning, you will be twisting my words and committing equivocation. This completely explains the observed "life from life" relationship, but also clearly indicates that an alligator won't lay an ostrich egg. Also, things that are frequently not defined as alive viruses still follow this pattern.

You will notice, that if you accept these two statements, abiogensis is no longer absurd. First I want to say thank you, because I know you are putting some work into your questions and answers. I do not want my response to be taken the wrong way, I respect the work you are putting in. But if I use a dating method of a rubber band and a clothes hanger, then I use a method of me spinning in a circle to date something, and if I have multiple readings from these two methods agreeing with another, would that make them accurate?

Also, since what I would be dating would be impossible to date with anything I would 'know' the date of, how could I prove myself wrong? Since my rubber band and spinning methods of dating only date things that are impossible to date any other way. I don't post here very often anymore, but I have really enjoyed our conversation.

It helps when both parties listen and respond, instead of yell past each other. Thank you for engaging in a real conversation. So, at some point we must accept the theory with the largest body of collaborating evidence. Well you never asked, but I would consider a virus alive, but of course, my definition is different.

Viruses can not reproduce without the help of a living cell, therefore it is still requires life to create life. But your 2 statements reflect my view, and in no way relinquishes the absurdity of abiogenesis. Ever read about how space sugar traveled here by the power of birthing stars exploding across the universe, coming to a Earth that suddenly had no atmosphere, and slams into the planet, all while never getting too warm from exploding stars to break the sugar down, no atmosphere to break it down, and the friction of it slamming into the planet would not break it down, but being in a puddle being struck by lightning, 'then' it would break down?

No, the absurdity of abiogenesis has not been dented. But in this case, I think we simply disagree on what constitutes evidence. I do accept consistent correlation of different measures obtained through well understood mechanisms to be evidence.

It is, frankly, the only method we will ever have of understanding things beyond our time frame and spatial reach. And, to me, it is only proportionally less valuable than comparing a direct measurement to the estimated value. So when 3 or 4 different methods of measuring all agree, I consider that to be as valid as comparing a direct measurement. Leap second - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Here we see the earth gaining a second in rotation on average about 1 every 18 months, give or take a little.

This is empirically known. So if you go back in time, say the end of the Dinosaurs [65 million years ago], if that rotation was consistent, do you realize how fast the earth would be spinning? The second is added because our measurement of time does not match up with solar time - not because the earth is slowing down at a rate of one second every 18 months, but because we messed up when coming up with official measurements of time.

Never ever listen to anything Kent Hovind says - he never knows what he is talking about. Mar 27, If that was true, it would only need to be corrected once. Tell me, why is there a constant need to change time back, on average 1 second every 18 months? Why are we unable to get the time 'right'? I have seen the videos, and I have seen him debunk more bad science than Ken Ham and Greg Bahnsen combined.

Again, read the wiki article you linked to you did read it, right? There is a whole movement currently under way to re-arrange everything - but do you realise how much a change would cost? It's not just as matter of going "oh, a second is this long now," you'd have to change every single time measuring device in existence, and there is a lot of technology that would have to be adjusted.

There are fallacies on both sides. The important thing is to avoid following the people who use them You must log in or sign up to reply here. Your name or email address: Do you already have an account? No, create an account now. Yes, my password is: New Threads Who Gets the Credit?

Johnboy53 posted Sep 5, at 2: Dave RP posted Sep 5, at 2: Archibald Stanton posted Sep 5, at 1: Bootsie1 posted Sep 5, at 1: Recent Blog Entries America JEBoftheLovingAngryGod , Sep 4, at O , Sep 4, at 5: Bluerose31 , Sep 4, at 4: O , Sep 4, at 2: O , Sep 4, at 1: Login Register New Post.

A Whipp Media Site Contact Us Help Home Terms and Christian Forum Rules. XenForo style by Pixel Exit. Close Menu Home New Threads Trending Topics Recent Posts. Search Forums Recent Posts.

Banished Words List

Interweaving — yes; intertwisting — yes; splicing — no, never. My book has over footnotes. You got it all wrong whence your needless comment. The problem is not everyone takes AP Biology in high school. The non-authenticist cannot make such a claim. Can the damage be undone? Carbon dating inaccuracy error fallacy Carbon dating inaccuracy error fallacy To maintain and develop faith inaccurxcy God in the face of mounting attacks on the truth from all quarters religious, social, economic and politicalculminating in the most intense period of pressure and opposition Russian for dating human history, the Tribulation. And it is for this reason that He is the Mediator of a New Covenantso that those who have been called might receive their eternal inheritance on Carbon dating inaccuracy error fallacy basis of the death He suffered to redeem us from the transgressions [committed] under the first Covenant. The Jewish Ceremonial Calendar: KK 6 0 debbie October 15, at If every human Carbon dating inaccuracy error fallacy on this planet understood the whole story, our spirit would have flourished in every aspect as nature intended.



One Comment