Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Previous Previous Next Next
Are they for real? - hojo_bds
Are they for real?

Creation Museum Science Fair 2010

That has to be one of the biggest oxymorons I have ever seen.  


Current Mood: confused confused

2 comments or Leave a comment
sin_vraal From: sin_vraal Date: May 21st, 2009 12:02 pm (UTC) (Link)


So carbon dating is completely meaningless, I take it. How provincial.
thebruce0 From: thebruce0 Date: May 25th, 2009 04:59 pm (UTC) (Link)

Re: wow

Here's the way I see dating: All things considered, it's accurate. But it also presumes that the parameters for the period of testing that produced the results being announced also apply universally to any and all periods in the past, without alteration. And that must be considered in any conclusion.
eg, if I test an amount of anything at any point, based on a rate that was determined previously between time A and B, then I can calculate an amount, based on the rate found between A and B, and project an initial amount at any point in the past, thus giving me an age at this specific point in time. But that presumes the rate between A and B also applies, without adjustment or external influence, to all points in time. So, IF that rate is universally true, THEN the calculated age would be accurate (presuming of course that the measurements are also accurate).

Fact: Observed decay rate for in a material between time A and B.
Fact: Material amount at time C.
Extrapolation: Given rate A-B, and amount at C, age can be posited.
Problem: If rate A-B is not applicable universally, extrapolated age may be inaccurate.

That is all :)
2 comments or Leave a comment