Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
"...got down on my hands and knees...and there where bones all ocver the place..." Just the way he tryed to sound exciting.
But Davy, the very BASIS of the 6,000 year old earth theory is that carbon and radiometric dating are unreliable!! If you bring facts into it, what can we use for winning arguments then!?
With all due respect Lionhart my esteemed colleague, the only people who generally debate the shortcomings of radiometric dating methods in the 21st century (typically in support of a 6000-year old earth like The Book says) are religious fundamentalists with limited understanding of science and a favourites bookmark for Answersingenesis.org. So yeah, chances are it would indeed lead to a (somewhat engineered) religious debate.
And @ Negative: hehehe.
Jeez. Just say whale. pronounced wale.
No point getting into a debate on the relative shortcomings of carbon and radiometric dating methods here, it will only lead to a religious debate. They KNOW these fossils are 40 million years old because that`s how long it was between the initial order for the marble top by the customer and the delivery, this is Egypt after all (if you`ve ever been to Egypt you understand).
Well, dammit, turns out there`s a fairly major branch of science known as `Geology`."
Uh oh, you done it now...
You don`t lol at rocks with a Ph.D in geo.
Well, dammit, turns out there`s a fairly major branch of science known as "Geology". Check wikipedia, they`ve probably got an article on it.
The limestone that encase these fossils are Eocene in age. That would be about 40 million years old. And for future reference, carbon dating is only good for samples in the 10`s of thousands of age range - archaeologists use carbon dating. You`re referring to radiometric dating, of which there are many dozens of isotopic techniques. And yes, they are used extensively in dating fossils such as these.