Stop guessing start learning at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 02:32:33 UTC No. 16461687

>>16461578
Carbon dating isn't really that accurate or precise. Hell I don't even know if it's reliable. There's no way to experimently confirm something that is 60,000 years old how do you really know. You don't it's just a guess. You have trust it bro lmao

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 04:35:09 UTC No. 16461795

>>16461687
Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 04:38:57 UTC No. 16461797

>>16461687
>>16461795
>retard confirms other retard's "suspicions"
Interesting. Is this a new form of knowledge creation?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 05:16:40 UTC No. 16461813

>>16461578
>myself
You build a lab with a ~100+ keV accelerator that can fire ions into a mass spectrometer.

>am I expected to just take the word of scientists that the method of testing is flawless?
Nobody claims that it's flawless - variance in the probable age of a sample is part of the results of the analysis and depending on the level of contamination in a sample from its environment you can very easily end up with a not-insignificant spread in results. Samples with minimal contamination, however, can get fairly reliable results. It's the same for any radioisotope dating method.

The technology and methodology aren't some secret knowledge there's tons of videos and books and shit online about what these labs do and how most of them go about doing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xKvq6VLe4s

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 06:08:00 UTC No. 16461842

>>16461813
Seems like it's a complicated process to build. Not even going to get into the fact that things that would need to be carbon dated are swooped up by billionaire private collectors and government agencies.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 06:21:34 UTC No. 16461847

>>16461578
Is that your tranny penis cage?

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 06:22:34 UTC No. 16461848

>>16461847
It's a pocket sonar to help me cast bait on my game boy pocket

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 06:32:56 UTC No. 16461852

>>16461797
>i personally measured carbon isotopes in a carbon sample 60,000 years ago and compared them to todays carbon samples.
good try midwit

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 15:35:32 UTC No. 16462224

>>16461797
It's not new. They've been doing this shit for pretty much all of human history.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:29:32 UTC No. 16462547

>>16461578
It is not reliable since they started nuclear testings... oops, that's exactly when they learn how to do the test (at least so they told us)
Ignore all jewish contribution to science.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 05:00:26 UTC No. 16463186

>>16462547
>It is not reliable since they started nuclear testings
It is, you just need to calibrate differently for things you suspect are from pre or post atomic age.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 06:43:24 UTC No. 16463246

>>16463186
Wtf are you even talking about?
You cannot carbon date objects from the 20th century.
And even if you could, that would still be retarded to drill precious objects only to date it in the manner, which can be never verified by an indipendent party.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:22:15 UTC No. 16463469

>>16463246
>>16462547
>>16461852
>>16461842
Retard takes

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 15:39:50 UTC No. 16463658

>>16463469
Jewish fingers typed that.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:19:10 UTC No. 16463722

>>16463469
Imagine being so midwit, you think that trusting the science makes you intelligent.
Not sure you would be able to imagine that, but the good news are you don't have to.

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 16:38:18 UTC No. 16463748

>>16461578
Carbon dating works by measuring the proportion of Carbon 12 (the usual carbon) to Carbon 14 (+2 neutrons, radioactive).
As a living being, you are constantly taking in new carbon atoms. This means that the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 is the same in your body as it is in the atmosphere.

When you die, you stop taking in carbon. Thus the remaining carbon-14 slowly decays over time, without getting replaced. Since we know the half life of Carbon 14 (5730 years), we can then estimate the time at which the organism died by measuring the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14.

None of this is new or controversial, I don’t see how you could doubt something like this. You might be able to try carbon dating with a beta counter, if you have some money and put in some effort. But (you) and I both know that you’re just a baiting retard. I mean come the fuck on, is it so hard to have decent threads on /sci/ that aren’t “SCIENCE IS FAKE” schizos, IQ, race bait, vaccines, etc.?

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 17:46:27 UTC No. 16463837

>>16463748
>Since we know the half life of Carbon 14 (5730 years)
How do "we" know that?

>if you have some money
So not only do I need money to buy the instrument to test with, I'd also need even more money to either convince or buy something that can actually be carbon dated (at least something of importance). Not baiting, just thought the other day how easy it is for scientists to make claims using extremely expensive methods and claiming things when they know most people wouldn't be able to replicate it themselves, whether it be due to lack of funds, connections or interest.