There! That's the kinda facts I was talking about. You pretty much summed it up right there.
Thank you!
I guess basically scientist are getting these huge numbers by taking more accurate, recent data and using assumptions on how things evolve and decay to extrapolate the much older dates.
First, just to make it clear we're all just keeping things friendly;)
Okay... actually do you realize what you said just supported my points.
1. bad example on the yard stick... a closer one would be using a yard stick to measure the thickness of a piece of paper. With a correct process you should NOT get 2ft...you should get "cannot be measured" back from the man in the white coat. Or at least the minimum measurable time carbon dating can do. The point of that example was to show how inaccurate and easily thrown off the carbon-14 system is. This in my mind makes it almost worthless, unless you already know the general time period of the subject to begin with.
2. Likewise, carbon dating works perfectly well for relatively young things, but not for much older things. I hope that was a mistake...it's common knowledge the process is actually for the reverse of what you just said.
3. You're Humvee example actually proves my point further but again, you didn't use quite the right analogy... let's use a feather for that example again. The scientist puts a feather on the 300lb scale and gets 25lbs. This would accurately describe the coral test (amoung others that were also done and proved wrong). It should not read at all or maybe read the lowest setting of 1lb.
4. The mere fact that some factors can cause carbon dating to give wildly inaccurate results does not automatically discredit results obtained when those factors were not present. What factors are you speaking of? And yes, if anything can cause repeatable yet widly inaccurrate results the test is worthless. What "factors" would be causing a scientist to get 50,000 for a new piece of coral that would not affect or have any bearing on a random rock or bone found during an excavation? (note: coral is calcium...bone is calcium--same basic make-up too)
I know you're trying logical thought... but keep at it...you'll get it right someday.;)
and absolutely ignoring the huge number of uncontroversial dating results which contradict these theories is completely hypocritical.
Well, then I guess I'm confused on something then... If it can be proved that a process is wrong and not reliable, then how can it be trusted at all?! If sometimes you get 2+2=4 and others you get 2+2=4000... how do you know which is right and what you can trust?
Another way these creationists work is they take some sample that is way out of the age for which a lab process is accurate, find that the lab process indeed gives inaccurate results for these samples, and claim that this is a problem with "carbon" dating.
I'm sorry but if you hand a scientist a piece of current coral and he comes up with 50,000 years? The process does not work! He should come up with "too new to calculate" or "time undeterminable".
Just being devil's...er creationists advocate I guess. No not even creationist really... even if you believe in evolutionism it just seems that all these ages are totally inflated years. Maybe it's happening at a much faster rate or in large chunks/cycles. The posibility of that has been proven.
Though, on a more serious note... Everyone should do some real research on carbon dating. You'll find some facts that make you want to disbelieve everything scientists say and you'll realize that these rediculously large numbers of years can't be possible (and usually aren't). They basically use rocks to determine how to tell the age of rocks. They basically make some assumptions and use their own samples to set the date of other samples. You can't define a word using the word as part of the definition.
Also there are some assumptions on the decay of carbon-14--which are turning out to be false. Recent evidence has scientists baffled because they can't understand why some earth estimates on some things only come out to be a few 100,000 years old.
Wouldn't matter if you were told anyway...because chances are on most things you WERE told. Maturity/wisdom is not "knowing stuff"...it's using what you know. This doesn't mean you have to experience things for yourself necessarily...you just have to have the maturity to understand the importance of knowing truth when people tell it to you and applying it.
Oddly enough I have found that "Standard" looks better on modern LCD panels and laptops than "ClearType". And Standard (to me) does look better than none at all.
Well, that's actually pretty cool of them I guess. If nothing else it shows confidence in their processes that they think they will still do at least as good or better job than anyone else.
Okay...next question qould be... how'd they get the pics at the same time or first?
Someone is VERY imbarrassed right now... or scrambling for excuses.;) "Well, yes, sir, but see, our image are of much higher detail because.. er.. we have to do a much higher process...er..algorythm to them!"
Actually the whole idea is flawed. There would be NO Social Secirity. Or even better, the system would REALLY work then, since people would be working for more like 100-900 years before retiring and then that money would still only have to support about a 20 year retirement. Course the reason people would die will rarely be old age. So actual "retirement" would be rare.
I mean no offense I guess that's sorta kinda interesting... okay no not really.
No but seriously, why is this even article worthy? This stuff goes on all the time. I mean just because people are acting crazy lately about CD's, DVD's and the like...copyright protection is nothing new at all, nor are exceptions.
I've seen just about every single episode of TOS, STTNG, and Voyager and no offense, but I lost interest in Enterprise after the first or second show.
The show is definitely a "quantum leap" backwards from the feel of all the other shows. Maybe I've just lost interest in the whole Trek universe or something, but this series just seems like everythings been done and it's just sad or something. I'm frankly surprised it made it past the first season. Maybe it's because I want to watch a futuristic show and going backwards in technology with a "space" series just seems stupid and uninteresting. A mini series would have accomplished that purpose much better I think.
Slashdot Mirror
You Suck at the Internets!
I dunno... but I say we burn these "scientists'" degrees and find out. ;)
BUWAHAHAHA! 8D
There! That's the kinda facts I was talking about. You pretty much summed it up right there.
Thank you!
I guess basically scientist are getting these huge numbers by taking more accurate, recent data and using assumptions on how things evolve and decay to extrapolate the much older dates.
Yes it's a word... you just have to study it confusiously.
P.S....he was being cute. ;)
Finally, at least some intellectual and factual conversation.
Interesting and Bravo. wish I had mod points. ;)
1. bad example on the yard stick... a closer one would be using a yard stick to measure the thickness of a piece of paper. With a correct process you should NOT get 2ft...you should get "cannot be measured" back from the man in the white coat. Or at least the minimum measurable time carbon dating can do. The point of that example was to show how inaccurate and easily thrown off the carbon-14 system is. This in my mind makes it almost worthless, unless you already know the general time period of the subject to begin with.
2. Likewise, carbon dating works perfectly well for relatively young things, but not for much older things. I hope that was a mistake...it's common knowledge the process is actually for the reverse of what you just said.
3. You're Humvee example actually proves my point further but again, you didn't use quite the right analogy... let's use a feather for that example again. The scientist puts a feather on the 300lb scale and gets 25lbs. This would accurately describe the coral test (amoung others that were also done and proved wrong). It should not read at all or maybe read the lowest setting of 1lb.
4. The mere fact that some factors can cause carbon dating to give wildly inaccurate results does not automatically discredit results obtained when those factors were not present. What factors are you speaking of? And yes, if anything can cause repeatable yet widly inaccurrate results the test is worthless. What "factors" would be causing a scientist to get 50,000 for a new piece of coral that would not affect or have any bearing on a random rock or bone found during an excavation? (note: coral is calcium...bone is calcium--same basic make-up too)
I know you're trying logical thought... but keep at it...you'll get it right someday. ;)
and absolutely ignoring the huge number of uncontroversial dating results which contradict these theories is completely hypocritical.
Well, then I guess I'm confused on something then... If it can be proved that a process is wrong and not reliable, then how can it be trusted at all?! If sometimes you get 2+2=4 and others you get 2+2=4000... how do you know which is right and what you can trust?
Another way these creationists work is they take some sample that is way out of the age for which a lab process is accurate, find that the lab process indeed gives inaccurate results for these samples, and claim that this is a problem with "carbon" dating.
I'm sorry but if you hand a scientist a piece of current coral and he comes up with 50,000 years? The process does not work! He should come up with "too new to calculate" or "time undeterminable".
Just being devil's...er creationists advocate I guess. No not even creationist really... even if you believe in evolutionism it just seems that all these ages are totally inflated years. Maybe it's happening at a much faster rate or in large chunks/cycles. The posibility of that has been proven.
Also there are some assumptions on the decay of carbon-14--which are turning out to be false. Recent evidence has scientists baffled because they can't understand why some earth estimates on some things only come out to be a few 100,000 years old.
Some light reading to start:
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-189.htm
http://www.answers2prayer.org/bible_questions/Answ ers/carbon_dating/carbon_dating.html
http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/science/f lood.html
Actually there's another:
OWNED!
Wouldn't matter if you were told anyway...because chances are on most things you WERE told. Maturity/wisdom is not "knowing stuff"...it's using what you know. This doesn't mean you have to experience things for yourself necessarily...you just have to have the maturity to understand the importance of knowing truth when people tell it to you and applying it.
We Christians called it "the flood"...and it wasn't 250 mil. years ago.
DANG I wish I had mods points so I could give you a Score: 5 Funny :D
Oddly enough I have found that "Standard" looks better on modern LCD panels and laptops than "ClearType". And Standard (to me) does look better than none at all.
I thought they only had the bandwidth for like 350? 700 but they lost a channel...
Well, that's actually pretty cool of them I guess. If nothing else it shows confidence in their processes that they think they will still do at least as good or better job than anyone else.
Good point! It's easy to show off when you one-up someone on 10% of a project.
ha ha! good one! ;)
Okay...next question qould be... how'd they get the pics at the same time or first?
Someone is VERY imbarrassed right now... or scrambling for excuses. ;) "Well, yes, sir, but see, our image are of much higher detail because.. er.. we have to do a much higher process...er..algorythm to them!"
Yes, my new Fujifilm E550 actually has a "Web" setting to turn it into a web camera. Pretty sweet!
They do by now. ;)
Actually the whole idea is flawed. There would be NO Social Secirity. Or even better, the system would REALLY work then, since people would be working for more like 100-900 years before retiring and then that money would still only have to support about a 20 year retirement. Course the reason people would die will rarely be old age. So actual "retirement" would be rare.
"We have the best B-B-Q in town!!" 8D
I mean no offense I guess that's sorta kinda interesting... okay no not really.
No but seriously, why is this even article worthy? This stuff goes on all the time. I mean just because people are acting crazy lately about CD's, DVD's and the like...copyright protection is nothing new at all, nor are exceptions.
I've seen just about every single episode of TOS, STTNG, and Voyager and no offense, but I lost interest in Enterprise after the first or second show.
The show is definitely a "quantum leap" backwards from the feel of all the other shows. Maybe I've just lost interest in the whole Trek universe or something, but this series just seems like everythings been done and it's just sad or something. I'm frankly surprised it made it past the first season. Maybe it's because I want to watch a futuristic show and going backwards in technology with a "space" series just seems stupid and uninteresting. A mini series would have accomplished that purpose much better I think.