Amf Bowling Utah Prices

absolute dating methods and

University of Oxford. Image: http://tustiendas.gentearte.com

The clearest evidence of the inaccuracy of the radio-dating methods is the amount of information that is published on dating "curious" made with this method carbon - 14, for example:

The same piece of oak, has been dated at several universities with the following results: The archaeological museum of Cairo, was awarded an antiquity of 7,000 years.
The University of Madrid, was awarded an antiquity of 4,000 years.
Bordeaux University, was awarded 5,000 years.
UC Berkeley, was awarded 1,250 years.
The Pennsylvania State University, was awarded 1,440 years.
The Search Foundation in Washington, he won 5,000 to 6,000 years. [1]

have been dated shells alive today, in 2,300 years. [2]

mortar Oxford Castle, built 785 years before dating, was "having" 7,370 years. [3]

have been dated to Eocene rocks younger than 40,000 years. [4]

has been dating a recently dead seal, in 13,000 years. [5]

monk seal. Image: http://encina.pntic.mec.es

In 2003, British researchers discovered near the Mexican city of Puebla, human footprints of several adults with some children. The layer of the footprints were dated at the University of Oxford, by carbon-14 from the shells of molluscs, which contained, in 40,000 years later, another team of Berkeley Geochronological Center, dated to the method of Argon Argon 40 → 39, the volcanic ash that were the footprints of 1,300,000 years. [6] And that taught us that humans arrived in America 10 or 15,000 years ago across the Bering Strait.

And not to tire, we will quote, finally, the solemn "gaffe" of the dating of the Shroud of Turin, which was dated by saying that the linen that is made, "died", that is, was collected between the year 1,200 and 1300 of our era. (Just an object that we have enough accurate historical and scientific references for many centuries before that date). Precisely dating the date corresponds to the time when it is known that the sheet was exposed frequently to the public in the Plaza de Besançon (France). An object that has been dipped twice, we know, by the water from the fire! [7] How can thirteenth century a fabric that contains among its fibers, pollen grains of plants endemic to Syria and Palestine which became extinct in the ninth century?.

Given all this we have explained, it is logical to ask, is that scientists realize this?. We must try to get a little on your situation and understand that:

Behind all this matter there are many millions of dollars or euros, and if you doubt this, ask how much a team to make the carbon-14 dating, or simply " much is dating an object?.

top, most prestigious scientific journals rarely publish articles on paleoanthropology which do not have absolute dating.

In these conditions, add to the evolutionary paradigm is closeted to most scientists, who prefer to overlook in this matter, because deep faith or submission to the paradigm is such that operation scheme, in many cases, is: If the dating

I have done in the laboratory, the evolutionary scheme fits official magnificent.

If dating does not fit, for example: I get on the dating that the remains of a modern man are 2,000,000 years ago, "something goes wrong." Or the dating is wrong, or evolution, is not true. Menudo problem. If I get a reputable journal I publish this, "I will throw all over, going to marginalize me and we'll see if I lose my job." Well, I'll see a new date to another facility, or try it with another method of absolute dating, two, three or seven times, until one of them give me a date that is not opposed to the "truth" established.

Basically, as you know perfectly well that the dating is not very reliable, they have many problems of consciousness to find another date less problematic.

Luckily there are some who are brave and have played their reputation, and in most cases, lost. But there is always someone who follows in his wake.

end this point with the comment by Lee, R.: "The problems of radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious as no surprise that half of the dates made, are rejected. The question is rather: Llegar to accept the other half? ". [8]


[1] Sanvicens, A. "The truth about evolution" p. 132.
[2] Borruso, S. "Evolutionism in trouble," p. 146.
Jueneman, CF Industries in Research - 14, 1972, p. 16.
Wysong, RL "The Evolution-Creation Controversy" - Inquiry Michigan Press, 1976 p. 151. Rev. Science. Vol 141, p. 634-637. - 1963.
[3] Von Fang: Creation Research Society Quarterly - 11-1974, p. 18.
Borruso, S. Op cit. p. 146.
Wysong, RL op. cit. p. 151.
[4] Slusher, HS, and Whitelaw, RL, "The radiometric dating" Edit. Clie - 1986.
Sanvicens, A. Op cit. p. 59 and 60.
[5] Antarctic Journal. vol. 6 p. 21 to 1,971.
[6] Renne, Paul R., Feinberg, J, M,, et al. "Age of Ash with Alleged Mexican Footprints" Nature - 438: E7.
[7] What we had is apparent in any of the many books written about the Shroud of Turin. For example: Alarcón, Juan "The Fifth Gospel" - Edit. Numbert vassal - 1984.
[8] Lee, RE "Radiocarbon ages error" Anthropological Journal of Canada - Vol. 19 to 3 p. 9 to 1981.

Semogil March 3, 2010

Congratulatory Wordsfor A Chief

II METHODS Absolute dating - I

Image: http://blog.clarin.com

To tell the story of life on Earth have not been enough floors determined by traditional geology was not enough to say that dinosaurs lived in the Jurassic, or are extinct in the Cretaceous to Paleocene step. The question arises: But exactly how many years?. Science should try to response, if this is possible, this curiosity is natural.
But it has become a critical once it has begun to number of years at particular times, especially when you start to ask who is descended from whom, the date on which each fossil lived , becomes more important, almost critical.
In this context, "to which we must add the urgent need for evolutionists, that the age of the earth was immensely long, so that elapsed time to pass from a puddle, until you're reading this, the precise method of "going random testing" - and in that framework we said, is how come the absolute dating methods, of which hardly anyone knows anything, but the results of which everyone uses as evidence.

not going to review all methods, they are many and deep down we all suffer from the same defects. Let the best known example:

ON THE METHOD OF CARBON 14:

This method of absolute dating, [1] alleges that living things have carbon in all biomolecules and even the bone collagen . But that carbon, not all the same, normal is that carbon is called carbon 12, but it appears that in the upper layers of the atmosphere, cosmic rays become nitrogen 14 at a variety of carbon to carbon 14 is known. [2]
This isotope of carbon in the atmosphere, becomes part of living. When a plant or animal dies, and goes no more carbon 14 to be part of their biomolecules, from the time of his death, carbon-14 from your body continues to emit subatomic particles, to go slowly becoming carbon-12.
The amount of carbon 14 in a body at the time of death is reduced by half approximately every 5,700 years, so by measuring the amount of radioactivity given off by an organic remains, we can estimate the amount of carbon-14 that remains, and Therefore, knowing how long ago died. [3]
all sounds very nice and very scientific, and stating that I have no doubt whatsoever that have equipment capable of measuring, with accuracy the amount of radiation emitted by a body. But pretending to accept that is an absolute value (accurate, precise) the number of years in which they date, with this method, fossil remains, is come as naive. Because:

is false that the amount of carbon 14 has been stable over geological time, because the earth's electromagnetic field is weakened gradually, and has a decisive effect as a shield for insight into the atmosphere of cosmic radiation. [4]

is not true that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere is constant, not only because of cosmic radiation varies in both hemispheres and on the latitude and the seasons, but because solar activity is not constant, have multiyear cycles peak times. wheat field. Image: www.oviedo.correo.es

is not true that all living beings have within us the same amount of carbon 14. Now we know for example that in wheat, the carbon isotope content, varies consider the straw or grain. So the estimate the amount of carbon 14 that a living being has to die, not be done. We also know that the carbon isotope content, ranging from trees to plants. [5]

The amount of carbon isotopes varies in plants and soil as the rainy season or drought. [6]

carbon-14 production is now higher than in the past. [7]

No one can determine the exact amount of carbon 14 has a living to die, and besides no one has been waiting 5,700 years to measure and verify that after that time, half of the carbon is 14 that that be had to die.

No one can prove that the rate of conversion of carbon 14 to carbon 12 is constant regardless of the number of isotopes that exist.

Many other isotopic elements in nature and in living organisms, so that the analysis can not define what percentage of radiation corresponds to carbon 14, and what the rest of them.

Very few remains could be done with this test of carbon 14, even assuming that the rest of the arguments were true (which are not), and the remains may not have been, since the death of the individual in contact with ground water, rain water, the roots of trees, in contact with pollen, even in contact with air. In any of these contacts, they incorporate new carbon-14 dating sample and would be erroneous.

With all this, how can they believe the absolute nature of the carbon-14 dating?.


[1] They put the adjective, to distinguish the estimates of geologists based in rocks and fossils, were related. When one sees how these methods are absolute, one wonders what the word means to them all?.
[2] course, no one has seen the carbon 14, but its existence is clear evidence indirect. The fact is that it is accepted that this isotope of carbon, instead of having 12 neutrons per atom, is 14. And also agree that it is unstable and is slowly firing those neutrons that have more, in order to become carbon-12.
[3] can find a detailed explanation of this method and other well used - Stringer "Human Evolution" p. 31.
[4] Bloxham, J. and Gubbins, D. "The evolution of Earth's magnetic field." Research and Science - 161, 1,990, p. 2.
[5] Quade, J. et al. "Late Miocene environement change in Nepal and the northern Indian subcontinent - Evidence from stable isotopic paleosols "- Geological Soc of America Bullt. - 107 - 12, 1995, p. 1,381 to 1,397.
[6] http / / homepage, mac.com / Uriarte / carbon 13, html.
[7] Fairhall, AW and Young, JA "Radinucleids in the Environement" Advances in chemistry. vol 93, p. 402.

Semogil February 26, 2010