Carbon dating is a lie and a deception!

Pin it

Due to the variable nature of our sun, it is far less accurate than touted.

You're wrong.

I've been on several dates with black women and they were usually pretty hot.

.

Unfortunately I think you're serious.

Which makes you stupid.

What if they have a nanotube?

this ... oh god ... so much this

people are starting to wake up ... awesome

one of the first steps in regaining our true history.

The world runs on dunkin. The only truth i know.

The world runs on dunkin. The only truth i know.

shhhh, it is a holiday coming up ... time to forget for just a little while and pretend ... just ease into the illusion for a bit ... there is always next week to come back to reality.

have a great one!!

If you take Trinangular Numbers, reverse them, since that what Satan does & apply the alphabet to spell QAnon you get 666

You know nothing about science. The rate of radioactive decay varies in exact parallel with solar variability.

[link to physicsworld.com (secure)]

Less than 50%
Further evidence that solar neutrinos affect radioactive decay rates on Earth has been put forth by a trio of physicists in the US. While previous research looked at annual fluctuations in decay rates, the new study presents evidence of oscillations that occur with frequencies around 11 and 12.5 cycles per year. The latter oscillation appears to match patterns in neutrino-detection data from the Super-Kamiokande observatory, in Japan. Other physicists, however, are not convinced by the claim.

The idea of fluctuating beta-decay rates is very controversial because for more than 80 years, radioactive substances have been thought to follow a fixed exponential decay, under all conditions. The theory of invariable decay constants was set by Ernest Rutherford, James Chadwick and Charles Ellis in Radiations from Radioactive Substances, published in 1930.

In recent years, however, there have been suggestions that decay rates are not constant and are influenced by the Sun.

Degree in Chemistry?

Formation during nuclear tests
Atmospheric 14C, New Zealand and Austria. The New Zealand curve is representative for the Southern Hemisphere, the Austrian curve is representative for the Northern Hemisphere. Atmospheric nuclear weapon tests almost doubled the concentration of 14C in the Northern Hemisphere. The annotated PTBT label is representative of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

The above-ground nuclear tests that occurred in several countries between 1955 and 1980 (see nuclear test list) dramatically increased the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and subsequently in the biosphere; after the tests ended, the atmospheric concentration of the isotope began to decrease, as radioactive CO2 was fixed into plant and animal tissue, and dissolved in the oceans.

One side-effect of the change in atmospheric carbon-14 is that this has enabled some options (e.g., bomb-pulse dating) for determining the birth year of an individual, in particular, the amount of carbon-14 in tooth enamel, or the carbon-14 concentration in the lens of the eye.

In 2019, Scientific American reported that carbon-14 from nuclear bomb testing has been found in the bodies of aquatic animals found in one of the most inaccessible regions of the earth, the Mariana Trench in the Pacific Ocean.

So, you can literally add carbon-14 if you do enough nuclear tests? This debunks the age of things on our planet. For all we know nuclear bombs or something nuclear could have hit our planet and added more carbon-14 to dinosaur bones!

sauce: [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Everything is a lie

The world has only been around for 5000 years

Don't believe this nonsense about it being millions of years old. Lmfaooooooo

everything is a deception wake up

Here is one of many papers written on c14 dating.

[link to www.purdue.edu (secure)]

This is what they use now. How accurate is it? Who the fuck knows unless you can actually establish an accurate time line.

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Exactly. Dating ASSUMES a constant rate of isotope decay.

[link to www.nytimes.com (secure)]

Since 1947, scientists have reckoned the ages of many old objects by measuring the amounts of radioactive carbon they contain. New research shows, however, that some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years.

It is too soon to know whether the discovery will seriously upset the estimated dates of events like the arrival of human beings in the Western Hemisphere, scientists said. But it is already clear that the carbon method of dating will have to be recalibrated and corrected in some cases.

Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They arrived at this conclusion by comparing age estimates obtained using two different methods - analysis of radioactive carbon in a sample and determination of the ratio of uranium to thorium in the sample. In some cases, the latter ratio appears to be a much more accurate gauge of age than the customary method of carbon dating, the scientists said.

.... less than 50%


come one people ... carbon dating could only be off by 3500 years.

say, what ever happened to this research anyways? I bet mainstream science was eager to revisit itself and pronounce it had made a mistake .... what? .... it doubled down?

hahahahahahahahahahaha


:spider222:

So they decided to carbon date some of the new lava formations from Mt St Helens .... to laughable results.

They didn't tell the labs where the samples came from and the lab guessed 10 year old samples were anywhere from 340,000 to 2.8 million years.


hahahahaha

science ... errr ummm ... religion?


[link to answersingenesis.org (secure)]


In August of 1993, with geologist Dr Steven Austin and others from the Institute for Creation Research, I climbed into the crater of Mount St Helens to view the lava dome.

The dating method Dr Austin used at Mount St Helens was the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles


The dating test

In June of 1992, Dr Austin collected a 7-kg (15-lb) block of dacite from high on the lava dome. A portion of this sample was crushed and milled into a fine powder. Another piece was crushed and the various mineral crystals were carefully separated out.3 The ‘whole rock’ rock powder and four mineral concentrates were submitted for potassium-argon analysis to Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, MA—a high-quality, professional radioisotope-dating laboratory. The only information provided to the laboratory was that the samples came from dacite and that ‘low argon’ should be expected. The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.

The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method. Probably some argon-40 was incorporated into the rock initially, giving the appearance of great age. Note also that the results from the different samples of the same rock disagree with each other.