๐๏ธ ๐งต Radiometric dating Debate
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 04:50:15 UTC No. 16384212
How reliable is radiometric dating to determine how old things are? One of the main arguments that people like Apologists like to use is that they show how unreliable these methods are (mostly focusing on carbon dating specifically) in determining how old the Earth is. I would appreciate if anon's who actually know a lot about this stuff weigh in because I'm not even gonna pretend to know how any of this shit works.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 08:19:53 UTC No. 16384326
>>16384212
Those apologists claim the sun influences decay rates, but give no data to show that's true.
They make the claim that general accepted stuff is false, then they backuo that claim.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:01:22 UTC No. 16384443
>>16384212
>Radiometric dating Debate
there is no debate
>How reliable is radiometric dating to determine how old things are?
very
>I would appreciate if anon's who actually know a lot about this stuff weigh in because I'm not even gonna pretend to know how any of this shit works.
how about reading a book?
>>16384326
>Those apologists claim the sun influences decay rates, but give no data to show that's true.
made up bullshit
>They make the claim that general accepted stuff is false, then they backuo that claim.
more made up bullshit
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:34:12 UTC No. 16384465
>>16384443
>gay climate change shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkT
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 10:46:19 UTC No. 16384471
>>16384465
cool story, /pol/.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 12:39:34 UTC No. 16384569
>>16384443
sneed. Science can't even determine why mass is varying. Any dates starting from roughly 100+ million years ago on the high end is completely made up bullshit - in any terrestrial field. As for cosmological origins, they have just assumed everything is the same everywhere, which is retarded and also invalid.
As for dating from 10-100 million years, these can be safely ignored because their dogma pushes a narrative which assumes data prior is of a certain shape. Since it conforms to invalid data, it is also invalid.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 13:30:00 UTC No. 16384629
>>16384569
cool story, /pol/.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 21:12:06 UTC No. 16385095
>>16384471
>>16384629
Do you realize you're shitposting or do you genuinely believe that response is a legitimate response?
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 23:39:27 UTC No. 16385343
>>16385095
100% legitimate response.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 23:52:09 UTC No. 16385371
>>16385095
Shut up, bitch.
Anonymous at Tue, 17 Sep 2024 23:57:46 UTC No. 16385385
>>16385371
Fuck off you whoreson, son of whoreson.