one.opinion Posted March 28, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2018 On 3/21/2018 at 10:14 PM, Sojourner414 said: On 3/21/2018 at 8:49 PM, Cletus said: sorry man but some dude cut a pigs ear off and burned it with a torch, took it up to a place with a fancy carbon dating doohickey. the scientist guy said it was thousands of years old. thise dude walks the pig in and holds the scorched ear up to where it used to reside. there is enough info out there if you look into it for yourself to see carbon dating is not accurate. actually, i dont see any conclusive data that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is accurate. everyne just jumped on board with it like a lot of stuff the preachers now a days talk about. Yes; I posted some a few posts back in this topic. There may be special circumstances that can interfere with the accuracy of carbon dating. What that means is that carbon dating isn't perfect, it doesn't mean that it is inaccurate. It's always best to have a separate verification method to confirm accuracy. I will really need to see verifiable evidence to corroborate the story about the pig's ear before I consider it a serious argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted March 28, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 28, 2018 On 3/21/2018 at 9:49 PM, Cletus said: sorry man but some dude cut a pigs ear off and burned it with a torch, took it up to a place with a fancy carbon dating doohickey. the scientist guy said it was thousands of years old. thise dude walks the pig in and holds the scorched ear up to where it used to reside. there is enough info out there if you look into it for yourself to see carbon dating is not accurate. actually, i dont see any conclusive data that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is accurate. everyne just jumped on board with it like a lot of stuff the preachers now a days talk about. You don't carbon date living or recently dead things. If you purposely don't use tools properly why would you say "ah hah!" when the results are poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 29, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 29, 2018 25 minutes ago, Cletus said: because there are other examples of inaccuracy where something was not living or recently dead where carbon dating said an age thousands of years apart. how can anyone say thousands of years apart is accurate? maybe those who want it to be no matter what the data says. which is indeed very common these days in the scientific community. That’s why scientists like to use independent methods of verification. These can help validate results, since there are, in rare occasions, problems with results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 29, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 29, 2018 7 minutes ago, Cletus said: problems with results? if i was to do a search for a synonym for "problems with results" if the search would yield an option of the word "inaccurate" things that make ya go, Hmmmm. Can you accurately touch your nose with your index finger? If you happened to be highly intoxicated and had “problems with results”, would you conclude that you were unable to accurately touch your nose in nearly all circumstances? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted March 30, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 30, 2018 17 hours ago, Cletus said: because there are other examples of inaccuracy where something was not living or recently dead where carbon dating said an age thousands of years apart. how can anyone say thousands of years apart is accurate? maybe those who want it to be no matter what the data says. which is indeed very common these days in the scientific community. Like One is suggesting often times they use other methods to help verify. Carbon dating is also but one method there are many using many different radio decay signatures etc. These methods do indeed work within margins of error and yes there is no time machine to go back and know for 100% sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick jane Posted March 30, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 596 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 320 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/16/2018 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/01/1969 Share Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) IMO, dinosaurs never existed and the bones are fake. They were never found before the mid 1800s? Somethings fishy, like a Coelacanth. Edited March 30, 2018 by patrick jane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted March 30, 2018 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 30, 2018 Just now, patrick jane said: INO, dinosaurs never existed and the bones are fake. They were never found before the mid 1800s? Somethings fishy, like a Coelacanth. What do you mean the bones are "fake"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 30, 2018 5 hours ago, patrick jane said: They were never found before the mid 1800s? I’m not sure that’s accurate. This is what wiki says: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paleontology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick jane Posted March 30, 2018 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 27 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 596 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 320 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/16/2018 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/01/1969 Share Posted March 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, one.opinion said: I’m not sure that’s accurate. This is what wiki says: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_paleontology I think that's fossils. I found those as a kid too. Not dinosaur bones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one.opinion Posted March 30, 2018 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 5,240 Content Per Day: 2.11 Reputation: 1,356 Days Won: 4 Joined: 07/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted March 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, patrick jane said: I think that's fossils. I found those as a kid too. Not dinosaur bones. Oh, gotcha. There are some reports of some earlier discoveries, but I do think most of them only go back to the 1800s. I don’t think it is because people started faking them, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts