Erasmus, FCD
Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007
|
| Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,22:00) | | Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 11 2011,20:44) | | Quote (forastero @ Nov. 11 2011,21:15) | | Thirdly, your whole point here is mute do to the fact... |
"Mute do to the fact" forastero? Really?
| Quote | | ...that the C14 dating depends upon the how much carbon is in the atmosphere...[blah blah blah] |
So, then, it is your assertion that:
1) environmental fluctuations can result in changes in radiometric decay rates of up to 0.5%
2) these and similar errors can "accumulate" to the point that dated objects (such as the earth) have been estimated to be 227,000 times older than they actually are (4,540,000,000/20,000 = 227,000).
Rather like: Upon my discovery that when the speedometer of my car reads 70 miles per hour I am actually traveling 70.35 mph, I am justified in concluding that I may at times have moved down the interstate at over 15 million miles per hour.
Because small errors may accumulate. |
You are confusing our c14 ratio problem with the decay fluctuation discussion |
No muppet you are just talking empty bullshit and you know it. If you don't like the error estimates RB provided why don't you show us yours, instead of just wanking yourself off with a buncha whiny fingersniffing conspiracy sobstory attention whoring.
Or, why don't you try to go suck off a nuclear reactor?
--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK
Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG
the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat
I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles
|
