Accurate carbon dating Find fucking buddy webcam
In all, 406 human-fossil individuals which evolutionists feel are crucial in documenting the evolution of modern humans fall into the gap between radiocarbon and K-Ar dating and hence have uncertain ages.Creationists have noted an interesting pattern in evolutionist writings regarding the dating of fossils.It is impossible to give an evolutionary sequence to the human fossils because there is a coverage gap involving the dating methods which evolutionists believe are the most reliable—radiocarbon and potassium-argon (K-Ar).This gap is from about 40,000 ya (years ago) to about 200,000 ya on the evolutionist's time scale.This problem period may be even larger because: (1) some dating authorities believe that the effective range for K-Ar doesn't begin until about 400,000 ya, and (2) many of the older fossils are found at sites that lack the volcanic rocks necessary for K-Ar dating and hence cannot be dated by this method at all.Although young-earth creationists challenge the legitimacy of all of the dates obtained by the long-term radiometric methods, even evolutionists are beginning to admit that this dating gap presents a problem for them.
Yet, accurate dating of fossils is so essential that the scientific respectability of evolution is contingent upon fossils having appropriate dates.Because bone is porous, it is subject to ground-water leaching.Hence, the method fell into disfavor because it gave questionable dates.However, because ostrich eggshell is thought to be a rather closed system, it is claimed that items found in association with it can be dated more accurately by the amino-acid-racemization method.The admissions now being made about the dating methods that have been previously used by evolutionists to cover this time period are particularly interesting.
Search for accurate carbon dating:
The result is that the public assumes the dating methods used at any given time are adequate, whereas the dating specialists working with those methods know that this is not necessarily the case.