Dating fossils and rocks mike riddle effective online dating usernames
Or consider the statement of an evolutionist who didn’t agree with the radiometric dating (using five different radiometric techniques) of Australia’s “Mungo Man”, thinking it placed humans in Australia too early.He stated: So here’s another evolutionist who refused to accept the results given from radiometric dating.In fact you may have already noticed a number of dead give aways in the above description of the hard science parameter specifications of aircraft performance above.Those give aways are words like: Precisely quantifying aircraft performance is all about knowing conditions and circumstances.Why is there so little confidence in the outcome of radiometric dating that scientist admit that they regularly reject data provided by that means?All you need to do is compare the methodology of radiometric dating with that of predicting aircraft performance and the answer becomes perfectly obvious.So scientists aren’t actually measuring age with any technique they use.
As a licensed pilot and certified flight instructor, I’ve bet my life, and the life of my students and passengers that I know exactly how a given plane will perform under given circumstances: how much runway it will take to take off, fly a specified distance and land at another airport. What inputs it takes to recover from a stall (that’s not a reference to the engine by the way) and spins. Anyone who has flown in a plane is betting the science of flight is a “hard science” with consistent predictable results.By “objective, hard science” I mean science that is measurable, repeatable, predictable, consistent and accurate.For instance I would could consider the physics of flight a “hard science.” Here’s how those terms apply to the performance of an aircraft: Predictable: Since they’re repeatable, they’re also predictable.The rate of that transformation is constant, and for Carbon it takes about 5,730 years. after the first 1/2 life of 5,730 years, half the Carbon-14 is gone, having been converted to Nitrogen-14.After the 2nd half life, 11,460 years have elapsed and another 1/2 of what remained is gone leaving 1/4 of the original Carbon-14 and so on.
On the other hand, would I bet my life on the supposed age of a rock, or fossil based on radiometric dating and the testimony of some Ph D scientists?