Results 1 to 5 of 5
Dinosaurs and carbon dating
@gungasnake,
"Common sense would dictate that if we could see red blood cells , the fossils arent as old as they say"
WHY NOT?? We already see blood from mosquito guts trapped in Ypresian aged (EarlyEOCENE) AMBER, why not blood cells a mere 12 million years older??
Their entire argument os NOT based on any facts, its based totally on "Supposititiousness" and an assertion derived from ignorance. There is no science involved in any of these "YOUTUBE PROPOGANDA ACTS"
When you think about it.... If you start with the 20K - 40K radiocarbon dates they're now getting for dinosaur remains and assume 40,000 years to be something like the beginning of dinosaurs on Earth and also assume that the establishment scientists at least got the ratios right, you can plug the 40K number back into the standard little 24-hour clock analogy which has dinosaurs appearing around 10:40 PM, and you get an estimate of age for the Earth of around 720,000 years, which seems intuitively believable enough.
@gungasnake,
why are you so unskilled at treading about radioisotopic dating?? It is really some of the simplest straightforward math and physics. We use the same lambda values of radioactive elements for nuclear power, weapons, as well as time recording.
Your entire premise would have the rad constants all over the place and therefore totally unable to have the math "work out"
Your "belief" in radiocarbon dates of 40 K is all loaded with simple errors of math, chemistry and logic that a high school student could work out.
Too bad youre so damned gullible.
@gungasnake,
Carbon-14 radiometric dating isn't used for dating dinosaur fossils. Only works out to about 50,000 years.
