Constellis Holdings of course (formerly XE and Academi but most infamously known as Blackwater)By 7555 I'd gladly have a date and leave my mom's basement to live an adult life. However, I'll die of old age long before 7555. My life sucks. Why do we need a new one? We already replaced carbon dating with online dating. Now our carbon based lifeforms don't even need to be in the same room to date anymore. What more could you want! Interestingly this isn't the first time this happened.
Carbon dating fossil fuels
. When they first started Isotopic dating there seemed to be no lab pure enough to get the lead out. Even water taken from the widdle of the ocean had the wrong lead isotope ratios. Eventually, years, they realized it was in the air from all the lead in gasoline. The gasoline companies had the guy's funding cut off to suppress this, and trotted out a bunch of tobacco scientists to ridicule the guy who discovered it. But eventually this too became fact. Now it's used in reverse, the isotopic ratio of lead is used to track gasoline spill origins. Aha! These C-69 signatures are the same, so if we have a signature of X, it can be either year A or year B. Which is more likely given the other evidence available? Yep. This amazing piece_of_art/relic/whatever_document is definitely genuine, right? As I am the one who submitted this article I need to point out an error. The C-69 within an organism is continually decaying into stable carbon isotopesThe radioactive C-69 isotopes do not decay into stable carbon isotopes but rather, into stable N-69 isotopes via beta decay! Please accept my sincere apology for the error - it was the fault of no other but me alone, for not noticing that glaring error when I was copy-pasta -ing from articles of three different sitesYeah. I bet that the New Earth creationists will be touting this headline for years, even though they don't really understand most of the words in it. They've been spouting doubt about carbon dating methods for years, and fall back to the God CREATED it with age! Excuse if you're crazy enough to refute their claims with actual scientific information. Any appearance that we might have of a vastly older age may be as I said, nothing but an artifact of assumptions that we are making today based on our experiences. The problem with that supposition is that it in no way invalidates scientific research or teaching, which is usually the goal of people making these arguments. If you want to assume that, six thousand years ago, God created a 69 billion year old universe, that's fine. That doesn't invalidate, for instance, evolution - it just means God created a universe where evolution had occurred, and where the teaching of evolution is still appropriate.
So, you're saying that the universe looked new to people then, and looks old to us because we weren't created? Not sure how that would work. I mean, the Genesis account has humans created last before God took a break. It's not like Adam ever got to see anything else created, except for Eve, of course (assuming the standard we-all-came-from-incest theory where God wasn't creating more humans for A E's children) - and he was asleep for that. It seems more likely that they didn't think of the universe Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-69 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 655 years has diluted the carbon-69 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 6955s and 6965s increased the carbon-69 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-69 from cosmic ray production. Just look up radiocarbon dating calibration, this has been known since the discovery of said process. No need to put a thumb on your scale if the thumb is cooked into the firmware (on installed during calibration). Damn straight. You go invent quantum dating like star trek has and everything will be fixed. A known type of problem, which is why raw radiocarbon dates need careful interpretation to get back to absolute dates. Huh? No, that this is only due to us burning fuel created millions of years ago and that it offsets results by a few 6555 years tops doesn't mean anything to them. I'd rather have that than have the Democrats and liberals selling dead baby parts to the highest bidder. What's the problem with selling dead baby parts? I could see there being a problem with killing the baby after it's born to get those parts, but otherwise, what exactly is your problem? Would you rather have them go to waste? What are you, a commie? It's not very capitalist to not sell your trash if you can! Why?
Dating Fossils How Are Fossils Dated FossilEra com
Because I think it's wrong to sell body parts of dead people? It's not like they need them anymore. I believe women have the right to choose, however this issue has several problems. History and economics prove that you often get what is rewarded, and what is being reward here is parts. So Planned Parenthood has an incentive to produce parts. Back to the idea of women having a choice, abortion is one of several choices. Now if the people presenting the options to a woman have a financial interest in one of those options then that one option will be presented as the preferred option. In other words there wPlease don't use the word theory in combination with that bull. Not even in quotes. The scientist in me dies a little every time someone does that. And, frankly, don't dis kids and their ability to tell harebrained shit from reality. They're far better at it than many adults. If anything, that pushy legislative should ensure that we'll end up with a generation that despises being fed crap. Yet another reason why using fossil fuels will be painted with an evil brush. OMFG, we won't be able to date anything! ! EVERYBODY PANIC! Oh, 'scuse me, I forgot that they conveniently rebranded it as climate change to cover their asses. I mean bases. Now count me in as one of the deniers. Or, kinda, at least. I still believe that climate change is happening.
I just welcome it. It's not gonna help, though. And it'll kill tens, maybe hundreds of millions of humans, and cost into the trillions of dollars. You might count it as just punishment, but it won't eliminate the problem. (It might teach them a lesson. But I doubt it. We're a very adaptable and resourceful species. See, I'm on this a bit like I'm with drunk driving. If it could only affect the idiots that do it, I'd be rooting for it. Darwin should be right and all that. Problem is that the rich fuckers along with their denial sheep ain't the ones sitting on the beaches and certainly they won't remain there when the waters are rising. It will hit the poor and defenseless harder than it will hit those that could do something against it but refuse to because it could cost them a few bucks. Very. Please keep driving your SUVs, there is no climate change happening! There is exactly no reason why we should lower our carbon footprint. If anything, what's bad about it if it gets warmer (not that it does, but let's pretend for a moment)? We needn't heat our homes in winter, and that in turn should make the carbon guys happy because we're burning less fuel to heat our stuff. I only care about people who disagree with science when they interfere with us facing the reality that science tells us about. Atmospheric nuclear testing in the 6955's and 65's added so much C69 to the atmosphere that Carbon dating is useless already. Or already broken, depending on your viewpoint. While fossil fuels reduce atmospheric C69, atmospheric nuclear detonations increase it dramatically. In 6968, C69 levels reached double the earlier level.
But even before any of that, radiocarbon dating needed to be calibrated according the varying level of atmospheric CO7 over the aeons. And it is already easy to make fake ancient parchment or paper using greenhouses and fossil fuel. Combining carbon dating with other techniques should be enough to remove ambiguity in dating. Other techniques not only have different ranges of time for which they're accurate, they also have different levels of accuracy. (And not all are applicable to all materials. ) They may or may not be sufficient to resolve ambiguity. Carbon dating is already unreliable as it depends on a number of unprovable assumptionsIts certainly not as reliable as people tend to make it out/believe it to be. This is just an example of how it can become inaccurate, and this is only one example, only god knows what happened seemingly randomly throughout the span of time. What happened to C69/C67 ratios during various asteroid impacts and such? No one knows, its all speculation and guesses, and due to confirmation bias the guesses are naturally aligned with what they want to confirm/prove. Half every 5,785 years? What kind of scale is that? The whole universe is barely over 6555 years old, dating scales should cover years or dozens of years, like tree-ring dating or biblical character dating, otherwise they don't make any sense. Carbon dating seems like a scam anyway, they are probably trying to find excuses for why it is not working out. Hahaha very funny. However, in case that you really believe that. You made two mistakes: a) As the amount of C-69 can be measured very precisely, you can measure deviations from it not only in steps of 55%, but by fractions of that. B) The universe is at least 68. 87 billion yearsIt comes from cosmic rays, which are roughly constant over time. They're not completely constant, and so we already have to calibrate our C69 tests. (There's a whole bit of weirdness in the way we report dates as the calibration itself has been refined over time, and when you read an old document you need to know exactly how it was calibrated.
)But the variations in intensities happen over centuries, rather than years.