Out of all the religious debates....

[redguru]

You can carbon date anything made from organics, but anything that didn't aspirate won't work. There are other radioisotope dating methods used for tooling.

 

[silverbackn]

You can carbon date anything made from organics, but anything that didn't aspirate won't work. There are other radioisotope dating methods used for tooling.

My bad, I'm a douche

 

[samoth]

[Shameless plug]

Purdue Rare Isotope Measurement Laboratory (PRIME Lab)

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/primelab/


Radionuclides measured at PRIME Lab/
Radionuclide Half-life (years)/
Detection limit (10^-15)

10Be 1,500,000 5
14C 5,730 3
26Al 730,000 5
36Cl 301,000 1
41Ca 100,000 5
129I 16,000,000 20

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/primelab/introduction/cosmogenic_nuclides.html

[/Shameless plug]

 

[samoth]

Purdue! Purdue!

 

[redguru]

You get along with the chemists? I thought you dropped the Chem major?

 

[imnotsurewhattocallmyself]

oh, i didnt realize this is only opinions
i thought... no,
ok carry on
carbon dating is limited to 70,000 years and the rest if you research...
i forgot we just have opinions
you cant understand that you are the ones who "believe"
without having researched.
who told you what you know?
where did it come from?

i once was an atheist, but now after much research and more i am not... creation science is very real, althought you are clearly frightened by it. so attack grammar, etc.. but the truth is still out there for anyone who doesnt want to just think, but wants to know.
seek the scientific community and stop being so... "i think" ignorant the facts are just that the fact that you state such wild and unsupported "facts" shows me you are not seeking anything, you are blathering
and thats ok, but it isnt truth

 

[redguru]

imnotsurewhattocallmyself, you must be an alter or English is not your first language. If you expect anyone to regard your science with any objectivity, you may want to check your sentence structure. Your rambling syntax is not conducive to conversation.

If you will look, your arguments have been destroyed by hard science already in previous posts. Science is not jargon. Your argument is nonsensical and could have been taken out by a high school survey of chemistry.

 

[foreigngirl]

imnotsurewhattocallmyself, you must be an alter or English is not your first language. If you expect anyone to regard your science with any objectivity, you may want to check your sentence structure. Your rambling syntax is not conducive to conversation.

If you will look, your arguments have been destroyed by hard science already in previous posts. Science is not jargon. Your argument is nonsensical and could have been taken out by a high school survey of chemistry.

lol..OMG, I thought I was the only one thinking this

 

[Mr. dB]

carbon dating is limited to 70,000 years

Carbon dating is not the only method out there, and an artifact is not really considered to be properly "dated" unless two or more dating methods have been used, at least one isotope and by dating the geological strata.

 

[silverbackn]

oh, i didnt realize this is only opinions
i thought... no,
ok carry on
carbon dating is limited to 70,000 years and the rest if you research...
i forgot we just have opinions
you cant understand that you are the ones who "believe"
without having researched.
who told you what you know?
where did it come from?

i once was an atheist, but now after much research and more i am not... creation science is very real, althought you are clearly frightened by it. so attack grammar, etc.. but the truth is still out there for anyone who doesnt want to just think, but wants to know.
seek the scientific community and stop being so... "i think" ignorant the facts are just that the fact that you state such wild and unsupported "facts" shows me you are not seeking anything, you are blathering
and thats ok, but it isnt truth

Are you saying that you believe in Intelligent Design?