Talk:Carbon dating
|
This Geology related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Don't let your sister date Carbon[edit]
Carbon is known to associate with all sorts of other elements and your sister could catch any number of elemental diseases. The Silicon boyz are also bad news, but Carbon will stick its electrons just about anywhere! CЯacke® 11:48, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
- Am I my sister's keeper? 193.113.235.167 11:54, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
- Jon Stewart likes Carbon because it is a chemical slut. another +++Swedish+++ conspiracy by +++Laurogeita Hamabost+++ 17:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Conservapedia[edit]
Given that CP is growing more and more irrelevant to the world at large, maybe it's better to replace the "CP is full of shit" part with the somewhat more interesting reversal in the "101 Reasons" article where they assume carbon dating is accurate because it measures thousands and not millions of years. It's rather a glaring inconsistency on the part of a much larger and more influential organization. --Kels 19:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've actually removed a few "lightweight" CP references from normal mainspace articles recently, because, yeah, they are pretty irrelevant. ħuman
20:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- How's that look? I think there needs to be more to the article, but that's a start in trimming the excess reliance on CP for points. --Kels 21:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's great. General YEC viewpoints (which may refer to CP things, I guess) are fine, since that's our job. These big fat "CP says" sections get old, though. Nice work! ħuman 21:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's great. General YEC viewpoints (which may refer to CP things, I guess) are fine, since that's our job. These big fat "CP says" sections get old, though. Nice work! ħuman
- How's that look? I think there needs to be more to the article, but that's a start in trimming the excess reliance on CP for points. --Kels 21:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Better C14 benchmark in Japanese lake.[edit]
See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121018141834.htm etc etc. The research team used cores of preserved layers of sediment which had organic material. It has been undisturbed for many millennium and this can now give more accurate C14 out through the whole 11,000-53,000-year time range. Byofrcs (talk) 08:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Carbon dating in dinosaurs[edit]
There have actually been carbon dating in dinosaurs as opposed to what is currently stated. They are shown to present with C14 as well as soft tissue at times. More research is definitely required before this can be explained. — Unsigned, by: Flewk / talk / contribs
- See Soft tissue preservation. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
After arguing with another willful ignorant christian, I did some research. While there is carbon 14 in coal/diamond, the argument is of course bunk. To quote " Observations also have been made of carbon-14 from radium-222, radium-224, and radium-226, as well as neon-24 from thorium-230, protactinium-231," And what is commonly in coal? Why Uranium and radium. https://www.britannica.com/nobelprize/article-48282 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/ — Unsigned, by: 69.66.145.0 / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 23:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Heh[edit]
Creationist makes claim using a paper as support. Get's called out for quote mining. Makes a turnaround and suddenly disagrees with own source. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 13:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)