Yes, that's what I was talking about. They use the isotopes of other elements.
Col Jimmy Emerici still think that there are problems with the carbon dating i'v done experiments on the decay rate of items and there are plenty of things you can do to speed up and slow down the rate of decay[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Blood n Guts][color=black]Anyways, Potassium-Argon dating is used on items as old as dinosaur fossils, and that is open to less error. Also, any anomalies that could potentially impact the dating of Potassium-Argon are so rare that they would not affect every single fossil ever found. [/color]
Exactly. Single miscalculations don't mean that ALL scientific observations are wrong. That is why science has VERY many ways to determine the age of objects. Even if creationist may question some results of age determination they will have problems to prove them ALL wrong. Source: http://www.museum.vic.gov.au/dinosaurs/time-earthage.html
After almost a century, geologists have found many different radioactive isotopes of elements to use for dating. Of these, the most widely known is carbon-14 (14C), which decays into nitrogen-14 (14N); however, this process proceeds at such a rapid rate in geological terms (half-life 5,730 years) that it can only be used to date objects younger than about 70,000 years. It is like a highly accurate stopwatch, useful for dating the very recent past, during the period of human written history and back into the last Ice Age. For dating older rocks that are millions or even thousands of millions of years old, other radioactive isotopes such as potassium-40 (40K, half life 8,400 million years) or uranium 238 (238U, half-life 4,510 million years) must be used. Another method for determining the absolute age of rocks by radioactive decay is called fission track dating. Certain minerals in rocks contain small amounts of uranium which decay radioactively by the splitting apart of the atomic nucleus (nuclear fission). The two fission fragments produced are highly energetic and highly charged, and they produce a linear trail of radiation damage in the surrounding crystals of the rock. This trail is known as a fission track. Fission tracks can be enlarged by chemical etching until they can be observed and measured under a microscope. The number of tracks is proportional to the time since they started to accumulate, and to the amount of uranium in the rock. The amount of uranium present can be determined by irradiating the rock with neutrons to produce a second set of fission tracks. The ratio of the original tracks to the new ones gives a measure of geological age. A recently developed method for determining absolute age is the amino-acid racemisation method, used to date bones and shells that are up to several hundred thousand years old. The method relies on the fact that molecules of amino-acids, the building blocks of proteins, occur in two different forms that are mirror images of each other. These two forms are referred to as left-handed and right-handed. In living organisms, only left-handed amino acid molecules are present, but once the organism dies they slowly convert to their right handed form. Simultaneously, the right handed forms produced slowly convert back to left handed forms, until an equilibrium is reached (half left handed and half right handed), at which point the ratio remains constant. The time taken to reach equilibrium is known, so by determining the ratio of right handed to left handed forms it is possible to estimate the time elapsed since the organism died.
And these are only ABSOLUTE methods. There are still plenty more RELATIVE methods to determine the age of objects. EDIT: If creationists want to believe in the bible in a literally way, it is ok. If they want to build a creationist museum, it is ok. As long as kids are not forced to have creationist/ID bible lessons at school. If people have scientific education at school I don't see a problem. Everybody is free to make use of his own brains.
Komrad_BIndeed, google gives some pretty good results. i did find many famous scientific sites by searching "humans and dinosaurs"
No need for the sarcasm dude - you obviously need to do a bit more research other than bash the bible lovers :D For instance there are cave painting in france that depict man and dinosaurs together (amongst others!). There are instances of dinosaur bones and human remains in the same rock strata. That plus all the sightings around the world of unexplained creatures and the dragon legends (must have come from some where dont ya think?). So why not dinosaurs and man coexisting? Crocs are from that period and they didn't die out ;) I don't really give a toss about the creation crap (or God for that matter) but there's too much weird shit in this world to just dismiss things offhand like that.
'[jobero InCogNiTo']For instance there are cave painting in france that depict man and dinosaurs together (amongst others!). [/QUOTE] You are obviously referring to pictures like this. This is what you see... And this is an interpretation (A dinosaur fighting a mammoth). IMO it could be anything and is NO scientific proof. [QUOTE='[jobero] InCogNiTo']There are instances of dinosaur bones and human remains in the same rock strata. That plus all the sightings around the world of unexplained creatures and the dragon legends (must have come from some where dont ya think?). So why not dinosaurs and man coexisting? Crocs are from that period and they didn't die out
Ancient Humans could have simply found fossils as we do today. And used them in a way to demonstrate power ("Hey, look at this skull. I killed a monster. I am great..."). As they had no scientific explanations for these "monsters" they created bizarre dragons and other creatures of their imagination. If in 20.000 years people find remains of our prehistoric museums they will possibly think that we actually lived with these creatures. If they should have no scientific knowledge anymore. Until there is scientific proof of a co-existence (namely by age determination of the fossils) I consider these ideas fantastic, but not scientific.
I believe primitive man would have been completely whiped out if they were to be living with dinosaurs. If they found some way to survive, they would have never spread to take over the world. And how does the guy explain the fact that *every* dinosaur is dead (with exeption of like.. a few), and humans are still here? Its simply to rediculous for words, a huge flood could never do something like carve the grand canyon, the guy is even disputing basic geological science, when do we start warning people not to sail out to far cos they might fall of the edge of the world...? *sigh*