Most people think radio-dating is only done by carbon, they don't understand that we use different element in different context..
They usually don't understand the principle of half-life and think we have to wait that time to measure it..
Typical creationist argument
There is a very good Anime about Hikikomori : N.H.K.
Since Darwin's groundbreaking theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, scientists all around the world have found monumental amounts of evidence in favor of the theory, now treated as scientific fact by 99.9% of all scientists.
However, even after 150 years after the establishment of evolution, some schools across the US are "teaching the controversy," including Creationism and Intelligent Design. Both of these so-called "theories" have no basis in scientific fact, and have absolutely zero evidence pointing towards these conjectures. These types of loopholes in our education are partially to blame for our dangerously low student performances in math and science.
Therefore, we petition the Obama Adminstration to ban the teachings of these conjectures that contradict Evolution.
Sign the petition!"
Link to Original Source
As long as you are qualified to judge what you download and read, then you can choose to seed it.
If "approval" is not restricted to qualified people (like current peer review process) it's a open door to a big mess!
Massive approval != correct publication. (just look how many people use homeopathy...)
> Do you even understand what it means to "calibrate"? Do you understand what it means that they have to consider things such as sample contamination and so on?
> An accurate measurement of the ratio of C12 to C14 atoms does not mean you have an accurate measurement of the age of the item, because you do not know the starting ratio, and you have not validated the assumption that decay rates stays constant over long periods of time.
You seriously think they don't know about that?
> Why did you use "almost surely"? Why not "definitely"? What uncertainty are you accounting for with that phrasing?
Since I am not a expert in that field, I can't affirm this with certainty, and since you are the one with doubt, you should be the one learning on the subject, you obviously lake the necessary knowledge to understand what you criticize.
> Because those values are estimated based on models and not experimentally verified
Most are experimentally verified, even if you stat the contrary.
> An experiment that verifies the accuracy of long term age estimates requires multiples of the time period in question. When it comes to millions to billions of years, we do not and have the millions and billions of years of data to validate the estimates. In short, they're unprovable claims until we've performed some million/billion year experiments. Inconveniently, those results are outside of our lifetimes.
No. This is not necessary to do it that way. We have tons of evidences and experimental data to backup those claims, but you obviously refuse to admit that. Do some research, try to understand how the age of the universe is calculated, how each 'tool' works, what data are used, how they are verified, what experiments have been done. I think you don't understand there is not on one way used to calculate the age, but multiple ways which all converge to the same value. And with advance in science, this value is more and more accurate.
1. Carbon is one of many isotopes you can use for dating, some of them has short half-life which has been tested and proven. Even in your life time. The process itself is accurate, but a specific half-life can't give you age precision under that half-life.
2. Red shift is one tool which help us to measure the expansion of the universe, which help us to measure the age of the universe. This tool associated with many others allow us to do a pretty accurate measure. I was just pointing out to you other means of measure than radio-dating.
3. "Estimates are not verifications": this is why we give uncertainty range. The good value is almost surely in that range. At least all evidences and experiments point to it. Certainly not 6 000 years.. Actually, we have 'verified' that estimations, multiple times, refine its accuracy.
It's not because we use the word "estimation", the values are wrong or unknown.
Well, not really.
There are others laws and you can work anything between 35 and 39 hours.
With some other contract types, you don't have hours rules, but days. My contract state I must work something like 220 days per year, my boss ask 40 hours per week. But in practice, as long as you do your job in time, you can work less hours. (but more in "rush periods")
Most CEO will try to make you do over-hours and not paid them to you, so in most case, you have a 35 hours contract and work near 40, if you don't or protest or anything, well, they made you quit.
I only drink coffee at work, never on weekend, and I don't feel any withdrawal.
Even when on vacation for 20 days, I don't drink coffee and don't feel any withdrawal.
I think it's Yoda, not Spock
Not to mention that Hagia Sophia is originally a orthodox basilica.. and so a orthodox design..
This is what scare me, 'cause I am also a sw fan, at some point, and I'am afraid to be disappointed, again..
"Nuclear war would really set back cable." - Ted Turner