Orange_Crush
Resident windbag genius
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2004
- Messages
- 38,382
- Likes
- 77,057
A bit incomplete. I asked you to explain the assumptions made in each-- which you failed to include.
Radiocarbon dating assumes (1) the amount of carbon in the fossil/rock being tested, (2) the ratio of C12 and C14 in the atmosphere at the time of the sample, and (3) that the decay rate of C14 has remained static over time.
The dating of rock strata, as you alluded to, makes assumptions based on procedures that make assumptions. In other words, RCD is used to date rock strata, which are used to date RCD.
I truly don't know. I'm simply stating that I believe the procedures used to establish long eons are flawed and your best way of defending an old earth is appeal to authority.
What percentage of geologists would you reckon share your view that this is not settled science as far as its accuracy? I was taught all the same garbage in my little church of christ sunday school about how it was very inaccurate and so forth...it's settled science.
This is just too priceless. Thank you.
So, would you say that your trust in the assumptions of the geological community has "shut off your inquisitive thought"?
You are a question wrapped in an enigma, dude...