The Fossil Dating Paradox
Created on: September 4th, 2006
The Fossil Dating Paradox
This is really how scientists date fossils. They take a fossil and use an unreliable method called carbon dating (look up the unstable structure of carbon-14) and get a number from the fossil. They take that number and base it off of what is known as the
None ( ._.)

Sponsorships:

Vote metrics:

rating total votes favorites comments
Score: 1.5213 stars(1.52) 94 1 71

View metrics:

today yesterday this week this month all time
1 1 0 0 2,446

Inbound links:

views url
51 https://www.bing.com
9 https://www.google.com/
7 http://216.18.188.175:80
5 http://www.google.com.hk
4 http://ytmnsfw.com/users/adamadam

Add a comment

Please login or register to comment.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Maybe if you could f*cking spell "they're" correctly this would mean something. You'd think someone who's read The King James Bible so much would have a vested interest in proper usage of the King's English.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
spelling errors
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Also: The unstable structure of Carbon-14 is exactly what makes carbon dating work. Carbon breaks down, and you can tell how old it is by the amount of decay.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Go back to school, take spelling, take science.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Idiot, carbon-14 is used BECAUSE it is unstable. It's not the only isotope of carbon used for dating either, nor is it the only element. Also, learn to spell. It kind of takes away your credibility even more than your faith in the bible does.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Plus, relative dating is one method of dating of many. Carbon dating is one method of radiometric dating of many, some that can accurately date rock billions of years old. But then, you probably believe the earth is under 6k years.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Stop confusing third graders so much.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
also, you suck at mixing music.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
wow, weve never dug that far down!! go look up polystrata fossils
September 4th, 2006
(0)
radiometric dating is a little bit more acurate than carbon dating, but its still all based off of the geologic column, all circular reasoning
September 4th, 2006
(0)
carbon dating is radiometric dating, genius.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
every kind of dating process they have for dating fossils is based off of the geologic column. also no fossil counts for evidence, u cant prove those fossils had any kids, let alone evolved
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Radiometric dating is based upon observed rate of atomic decay.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating. there are a couple of radiometric dating processes all involve the geologic column.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
How about you get your facts straight before you attempt to lecture others on science?
September 4th, 2006
(0)
hey, i know a lot more than you think. if u dont believe me, then instant message me through AIM: Peterguy. We will have a nice chat, but first im off to get some food, so u might have to wait unitl 2morrow
September 4th, 2006
(0)
1. Spelling errors bring down the message in the first place. 2. Carbon-14 dating is based on the ratio of Carbon-14 to Carbon-12 in the organism, not an outside geological column. 3. The book of Genesis was largely written in the poetic language of worship and prayer, not as a scientific record. It is more concerned with WHY we got here than HOW we got here.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
4. I'm worried with your obsession about disproving evolution. Your faith goes much deeper than scientific theory, I'm sure. So I don't know why you think the masses will suddenly believe in God if you somehow manage to disprove it. God is supernatural, so thinking about God and verifying his existence requires thought that doesn't dwell on earthly science and sensory perception, but rather thought that goes beyond nature and into the extrasensory.
September 4th, 2006
(0)
Pst...YOU DON'T USE A GEOLOGIC COLUMN ON A MATHMATICAL HALF LIFE PROBLEM. Go get your *ss some data on the carbon-14 levels in some fossils and run the numbers your damn self. Now you're insulting our intellegence with this sophomoric tripe. If anything, the geologic fossil records are the one solid piece of evidence that you can't say God put there. Since you have no argument, it's a 1
September 4th, 2006
(0)
I agree. I think most of the above commenters are missing the point.
September 5th, 2006
(0)
"their" should be "they're"
September 5th, 2006
(0)
Peterguy, GO F*CK YOURSELF WITH A LOAF OF BREAD! Your god hates everyone, therefore the God you claim to worship is in fact, Satan. You lose, kthxbye.
September 5th, 2006
(0)
1 because that's not how it works noob. Take a chemistry course kthx.
September 5th, 2006
(0)
Wrong wrong wrong. The layers are dated using radiometric dating. You search for a material that retains a parent nuclide, but selectively rejects the daughter nuclides. For instance, while the material Zircon is forming, it retains Uranium and Thorium, and rejects Lead, one of the products of the uranium decay chain. By examining Zircon regions in rock, and measuring the Uranium-Lead ratio, you can tell how old a rock is.
September 5th, 2006
(0)
You're correct that carbon dating is unreliable for fossils older than around 50,000 years old. However, carbon dating is NOT used for fossils believed to be millions of years old. Look up potassium-argon dating, for an example of something that is actually used. The dating is not circular at all - they find the date of volcanic rocks in a layer of soil through something like potassium-argon dating and then that determines the date of every fossil found in the same layer.
September 5th, 2006
(0)
1'd for thinking you know something you don't. Not to mention it's a sh*tty gif. Also, google is not a source.
September 5th, 2006
(0)
you're a dipsh*t
September 5th, 2006
(0)
don't take poor peter's wool away.
September 5th, 2006
(0)
I love it. You win.
September 5th, 2006
(0)
Lol. This was really funny. I laughed.
September 5th, 2006
(0)
too many biblical paradoxes to list...
September 6th, 2006
(0)
I refer you to http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html . Leaving aside the NUMBERS of millions of years old any particular fossil group might be, clearly the fossil record itself is not seriously disputable. And notice that this area of science was developing quite nicely before evolution was even proposed by Darwin, let alone accepted by the scientific community.
September 6th, 2006
(0)
"From the 1830s onwards, geologists noted how fossils became more complex through time. The oldest rocks contained no fossils, then came simple sea creatures, then more complex ones like fishes, then came life on land, then reptiles, then mammals, and finally humans. Clearly, there was some kind of 'progress' going on."
September 6th, 2006
(0)
"Hey dudes, the Bible says that God is omnipotent and perfect!" "Well, how do you know the Bible is right?" "Because God wrote the Bible!" "What if he made a mistake?" "He couldn't have!" "Why not?" "Because the Bible says that God is perfect!" "But... >_
September 6th, 2006
(0)
"But... >_
September 6th, 2006
(0)
(Note to self: can't use angle brackets :( ) If you're going to complain about the circular reasoning used by scientists, you could at least consider that your entire faith is based on the same mistake...
September 6th, 2006
(0)
umm Uniformitarianism and the Law of Superposition can be used to calculate the age of an index layer and have nothing to do with fossils.
September 6th, 2006
(0)
relative dating is not the only way you date fossils. if you're claiming some rediculous young earth theory, please stop using a computer now
September 6th, 2006
(0)
Take some basic geology classes. One of the first things they teach is that they use Carbon and Uranium isotopes (and a wide assortment of other isotopes) to test for ages. Since we know what the half lives of those isotopes are, we can figure out how old a rock unit is by determining the amount of that isotope left. Bet you didn't expect geology majors to use this site, did you?
September 6th, 2006
(0)
In addition, ElPolloLoco's comments about Law of Superposition is also true. That is a law that states that flat layers will be younger towards the surface and older as you go deeper.
September 6th, 2006
(0)
are also**
September 6th, 2006
(0)
1'd for pseudo science
September 6th, 2006
(0)
F*ck you and the priest c*ck you road in on.
September 6th, 2006
(0)
That's not even remotely how it works.
September 6th, 2006
(0)
this is a joke right?
September 6th, 2006
(0)
^Then your teacher sucked hard
September 6th, 2006
(0)
F*CK SCIENCE
September 6th, 2006
(0)
But you believe in the Bible, the ultimate tool for circular reasoning.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
The bible is holy because it says so in the bible! And the rest has already been said.
September 7th, 2006
(0)
5'd for Earth Defense Force, but as someone who has taken geology courses you really don't know what your talking about. Winchester pretty much summed it up
September 7th, 2006
(0)
good grief: how can these same utterly clueless creationist arguments keep pulling in the rubes even after most creationists are too embarrased by them to use them anymore?
September 7th, 2006
(0)
CARBON DATING
September 8th, 2006
(0)
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW WWWWWWWW
September 8th, 2006
(0)
carbon dating is not "unreliable". also I don't think carbon-14 is the only isotope of carbon used in carbon dating. YOU ARE FAT.
September 8th, 2006
(0)
September 9th, 2006
(0)
Bow down to the f*cking antichrist.
September 9th, 2006
(0)
Carbon dating is incredibly reliable dipsh*t. Jesus freaks claim it isn't because they have their heads up their asses and can't belive the Earth is more than 6000 years old. So they lie through their teeth and invent stories to slam it; look at missing links, we have plently of fossils of primative man, but ask a Bible thumper and you get some sh*t about how they are all fake, based off 1 hoax, ever. I find it funny that they will lie and sin to protect their beliefs from something that doesn't in and of itself disprove them. And even if it did prove it wrong, wouldn't you want to know you were so wrong?
September 9th, 2006
(0)
holy f*ck...
September 9th, 2006
(0)
you remind me of this guy that stands around on my college campus and tells everyone passing by what horrible sinners they are and reads quotes from his king james bible really loud for hours on end... he compares a lot of things to hitler and makes poor arguments about links between them, it's actually quite entertaining to watch... he is more of an *ssh*l*e than you though, you seem quite nice
September 9th, 2006
(0)
wrong again idiot
September 9th, 2006
(0)
carbon dating is reliable to about 5000 years. It is used to date organic (once living) material. that is not how they determine the age of strata. They take measurements of deposits over time and extrapolate from there. You loose. Just say you have faith, because science does not agree with the bible, period. It is not possible for it to agree even in principle, since science is always changing, and religion is canon.
September 16th, 2006
(0)
That really isn't how it works at all. Not even mentioning carbon isotope dating methods, the age of the rock layers can be determined in several ways by geologists. There would be no way to initially place a date on certain plants or animals and then assign the layers based on that! Where would all our numbers come from? Talk to a geologist about this.
September 20th, 2006
(0)
People like you piss me off.
September 20th, 2006
(0)
And I'm Catholic! Theistic evolution FTW.
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
1'd for stupidity
September 23rd, 2006
(0)
Just like any devoutly religious person, you don't actually understand what you are talking about, but you still think you do.
September 26th, 2006
(0)
You fail at science....seriously....I promise
September 28th, 2006
(0)
1'd for strawman argument, and for atrocious grammar. NEDM would make that argument honest.
October 6th, 2006
(0)
Strawman to the rescue!
October 7th, 2006
(0)
haha.....hahahahaa....BWAHAHAHAHAH. Fail.
February 15th, 2007
(0)
actually they determine how old the index layer is by how deep it is and how fast sediments are laid down