RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2011,03:35   

Quote (forastero @ Nov. 09 2011,23:26)
In case you hadnt noticed, the decay that we have  been discussing all along is about radioisotopes striving for equilibrium and if evolutionists didnt "assume" that c14 was broken down at the same rate at which it is being produced; we wouldnt even be having this discussion.

The fact of the matter is, C14 is being produced nearly one third faster than it is disintegrating and the C14 in the earth's atmosphere is 20% out of secular equilibrium with the C14 breaking down by radioactive decay.  If this is true, then none of the fossils that have been dated by this method could be more than a few thousand years old. In fact, tree rings prove that C14 begins to falter after just 1000 years.

C-14 dating and it's reliability

eta:non-carbon-dated boldness for strawman's sake.

All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington

  1510 replies since Oct. 21 2011,05:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (51) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]