resistance is futile, you will be assimilated

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Paleophyte]

[Paleophyte]

[Ravenshire]

In my life, I’ve know roughly a double dozen actual, working scientist, and not ONE of them was confused about radiometric dating.

Boru

the only radiometric dating I know how to do is carbon dating...

I don't understand how to do the other dating methods... do you???

Could you give a layman's description of what radio carbon dating is, what specific material is used as the dating medium, and how the dating is accomplished?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm guessing that you'll want to date a fossil.

Dude, did you hack my contacts list?

[Nay_Sayer]

 Then study more.

feel free to teach me or link to a site that actually teaches it

K-Ar dating
Uranium series dating
Thermoluminescence (TL) Dating
ESR dating
Fission track dating

All non carbon based ways to date fossils.

I'm not responsible for your inability to learn or have better than 2/10 trolling.

That's on you. Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You're ignoring quantum effects that may or may not be known. You need to demonstrate that these cannot effect the results of any particular cause.

Did that help you?

Probably not. You didn't even know about the limits of C-14 dating, Wile E.

we would include quantum effects with the causal chain of events

I did know the limits of c14 dating.

If you did, then you wouldn't suggest using it to date a 70 million year old sample.

Boru

[Paleophyte]

feel free to teach me or link to a site that actually teaches it

K-Ar dating
Uranium series dating
Thermoluminescence (TL) Dating
ESR dating
Fission track dating

All non carbon based ways to date fossils.

I'm biased, but U-Pb dating really is the gold standard for most hard rock applications. It's hard to beat zircons with two clocks ticking simultaneously and a third running as backup. K-Ar and Ar-Ar both work reasonably well with a few caveats. Rb-Sr and Sm-Nd can both be useful too, though the latter finds more use in provenance tracing and modelling.

Thermoluminescence and fission track dating both find more use in archeology or timing of uplift and erosion. They're uselul for surface phenomena in the short-term but suffer limitations in the longer term due to low closure temperatures.  I've never done anything with ESR but have heard that it has very low closure temperatures for most minerals and suffers reset even under conditions common to most sedimentary rocks. You can get older ages off of it under the right cicumstances but you have to be much more careful.

There are a slew of other, less common methods including molecular racemization rates, cosmogenic isotope accumulation, and a host of other niche techniques. We can even use tritium to date water. If you get into meteorites you can end up using some of the shorter-lived isotopes that have long since burnt out to trace of processes in the early solar system. At the end of the day it all depends on the question that you're trying to answer and the materials that you're likely to be able to analyze.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

What part of "They want to but don't have anything like enough material" did you miss? If it was possible it would have been done. You can't carbon date individual cells. Nowhere near enough mass.

The fact that you think stuff is locked up in the fossil simply shows that you don't know what you're talking about. They had to dissolve the fossil to release the "blood cells".

the connective tissue found in the fossils are rather meaty and have lots of carbons

It doesn't matter how many 'carbons' they contained. It matters how much carbon-14 they contained. Since the half-life of C14 is ~5000 years, there's no point trying to use that method to date ANYTHING that's 70 million years old.

Boru

[Mister Agenda]

If this is regarding your proof from observation, it seems to be a string of assertions followed by a loosely-connected conclusion. You should get rid of any premises not needed to reach the conclusion.

For instance 'monism exists' doesn't seem to add anything to the argument. If you were trying to assert that monism is the case and dualism is not, that ought to be the conclusion of a different argument. And I say that as a monist.

(10) F; "energy exists"
(11) F; "every experiment ever constructed shows that everything is made of energy"
(12) (10,11) C; "monism exists"


12 is a natural deduction from 10 and 11

The reason I prove monism... is to demonstrate there is but one supreme God.

Mentioning monism isn't the same thing as proving it. Wait, was 'monism exists' supposed to be the conclusion of 'energy exists' and 'every experiment, etc.'?