Do science books say anything about carbon14 dating or not apolo julianne dating

Rated 4.92/5 based on 784 customer reviews

The following quotation may be somewhat difficult to understand because of its big words, but what it is trying to say is that radioactive dating is worthless in providing us with datings for anything in the history of our world (including the appearance of species, other events, or the age of the planet itself):"The literature contains few age determinations (perhaps no more than one) on syngenetic radionuclides from paleontologically defined stratigraphic units, and almost all radioactive age determinations are made on igneous, hydrothermally introduced, or secondarily transported minerals that cannot as a rule be referred to a precisely defined place in the stratigraphic succession.At present, no coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive datings." Of the 1400 radioisotopes known to exist, only 75 have half lives longer than 700 years.

Without it, the whole thing collapses) (1) None of the other dating methods (the twelve methods discussed in this present chapter) are reliable, but instead are in continual conflict with one another and with fossil/strata dating conclusions. In chapter 17 (Fossils and Strata) we shall discuss in detail the problems associated with fossil and strata dating, but let us right now put to rest a frequently-stated misconception: that radiodating methods have successfully dated and positively established as reliable the dating system conjectures in the so-called "geologic column" of rock strata. ONLY THREE USABLE TEST RESULTS in reality, it is impossible to date sedimentary rock strata and the fossils within it by radioactive mineral dating.The age of the Swedish shale is the only one of these that is paleontologically controlled . All other absolute ages have been derived from the three radioactive tie points by interpolation based on thickness of strata or by 'reasoned guesses.' "*Adolph Knopf, "Measuring Geologic Time," in Scientific Monthly, November 1957, p. (Italics ours.)In other words, out of tens of thousands of tests only three radioactive samples have been found to be near enough to rock strata age theories to be usable, and two of them are just interpolated guesses based on "strata thickness." Evolutionists use but three undiscarded radiodatings to vindicate the reliability of the hundred-year-old strata and fossil dating theory!"As long ago as 1936 the conclusion had been reached by Twenhofel [a leading authority on sedimentation] that estimates of time based on thicknesses of strata 'are hardly worth the paper they are written on,' and he presents detailed evidence in support of this revolutionary concept." "In attempting to build up a time scale, it is clear that we have to steer a difficult course through a maze of data of very variable quality, guided in some places by atomic weight evidence, in others by series of probabilities. only a few points can be fixed with precision into the [fossil-bearing] geological column, and the total assemblage of data is too confused.Repeatedly, scientists have tried to correlate radioactive dating with the dates they APPLIED to fossils and strata a century before radiodating was known. Out of literally thousands of tests, they have been able to correlate only three of them (the Colorado, Bohemian, and Swedish dates given in the Knopf quotation above).But three successes out of hundreds of thousands of test failures was enough to make their fossil/strata theory "scientific." It is on this basis that evolutionary scientists now grandly proclaim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals!

Leave a Reply