Hoax is a hoax

[o_e_l_e_o]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

[notbatman]

^^ You know all those carbon dating, etc.. methods you mentioned give such conflicting results that scientists base the age of fossils on the type of rock instead, they go on how old the geologists says (a variation of "rabbi says") it is.

[BADecker]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?

Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Because we have performed carbon dating on samples taken from trees, and used tree ring dating to independently verify that the carbon dating results are accurate.

We also know thanks to magnetite containing clay artifacts, in which the strength of Earth's magnetic field when the clay was fired is permanently recorded, that the magnetic field was weaker 5,000 years ago, not stronger. The field being weaker means more carbon-14 due to cosmic radiation, not less.

Now please answer the same question. How do you know there was less carbon-14 5,000 years ago? Creationist websites aren't valid answers, by the way.

[af_newbie]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?

Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.

Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago?  Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?

If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).

[BADecker]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?

Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.

Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago?  Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?

If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).

I suppose that is possible, but I was referring to the idea that we don't know how much if any C-14 was in the atmosphere back 5000 years ago... like I sorta posted, and you sorta quoted.

[af_newbie]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?

Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.

Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago?  Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?

If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).

I suppose that is possible, but I was referring to the idea that we don't know how much if any C-14 was in the atmosphere back 5000 years ago... like I sorta posted, and you sorta quoted.

Isn't carbon dating calibrated using things like tree rings to make sure we start with the correct initial content of C14?

If you want to question carbon dating you have to question the actual decay rates, but that will get you nowhere fast.

[notbatman]

What do the folks who spend most of their time destroying archaeological evidence [of giants] think about carbon, warming balls and radio activity?

"Today, the amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into Earth’s atmosphere is threatening to skew the accuracy of this technique for future archaeologists looking at our own time. That’s because fossil fuels can shift the radiocarbon age of new organic materials today, making them hard to distinguish from ancient ones."

-
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/ | http://archive.ph/KDvVZ

Looks like they've thrown radiocarbon dating under the bus for global warming virtue signal points. The so-called experts on this sort of thing claiming this method is flawed when shit burns.



disclaimer:
   The globe, global warming, ancient earth [older than 10k years], and "so-called experts" are all hoaxes.

[styca]

What do the folks who spend most of their time destroying archaeological evidence [of giants] think about carbon, warming balls and radio activity?

"Today, the amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into Earth’s atmosphere is threatening to skew the accuracy of this technique for future archaeologists looking at our own time. That’s because fossil fuels can shift the radiocarbon age of new organic materials today, making them hard to distinguish from ancient ones."

-
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/ | http://archive.ph/KDvVZ

Looks like they've thrown radiocarbon dating under the bus for global warming virtue signal points. The so-called experts on this sort of thing claiming this method is flawed when shit burns.



disclaimer:
   The globe, global warming, ancient earth [older than 10k years], and "so-called experts" are all hoaxes.

I think we're okay with historic carbon dating. It's not like our distant ancestors burned loads of fossil fuels. Neither did the dinosaurs. Have you seen a T-Rex's arms? No way you can build a coal-fired power station with those things. But then you probably don't believe in dinosaurs. Or arms. Or ancestors. Or fossil fuels. Or the passage of time. Or reality.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Now please answer the same question. How do you know there was less carbon-14 5,000 years ago? Creationist websites aren't valid answers, by the way.

I like how you just glossed over the hard evidence I provided and refused to answer where your "evidence" is coming from. Please address this.

destroying archaeological evidence [of giants]

Lol.

[notbatman]

^^ Evolution and the "official" historical narrative are hoaxes and destruction of evidence [of giants] is part of the fraud.

@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.

[styca]

@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.

What about the rest of it though? What about arms, ancestors, fossil fuels, the passage of time, and reality? Hoax or not?
Is this forum a hoax? Am I a hoax? Am I a person? My Wikipedia entry suggests that I'm actually a small coin minted in the 8th or 9th century. Are coins a hoax? Is the 8th century a hoax? How can we ever know? We've already established (sort of) that facts are a hoax and evidence is a hoax - right?

Please answer these important questions.

[BADecker]

@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.

What about the rest of it though? What about arms, ancestors, fossil fuels, the passage of time, and reality? Hoax or not?
Is this forum a hoax? Am I a hoax? Am I a person? My Wikipedia entry suggests that I'm actually a small coin minted in the 8th or 9th century. Are coins a hoax? Is the 8th century a hoax? How can we ever know? We've already established (sort of) that facts are a hoax and evidence is a hoax - right?

Please answer these important questions.

The answer is simple and easy. Everything is perfect to an exactness of zero imperfection. But, we aren't strong enough to see or understand the perfection... except by faith, perhaps.

Regarding what people see and understand, there are those who are more accurate than others.

[notbatman]

T-Rex arms prove the dinosaur hoax.





Radiocarbon dating "accuracy" is a hoax.

[Spendulus]

If there wasn't any C-14 in the atmosphere back beyond 5,000 years ago

There was.

There are indications that there wasn't anything other than a hint of C-14 in the atmosphere back then.

Only if you believe Answers in Genesis or some similar creationist nonsense. All the actual evidence points to carbon 14 production rates being higher 5,000 years ago than they are today.

Hey, man. Just got back from shopping. But I can't wait to hear the method you used. What was it? Time machine? Simple time viewer; and how did you take the samples back then? Revived a cave scientists frozen in the ice from 5,000 years ago? Ancient aliens? Bible-like books or clay tablets from back then?

Now don't disapoint me with some hogwash circular evidence that says that because we know that there was C-14 back then, that the reliability of carbon-dating shows us exactly how much C-14 there was.

Are you saying that the chemistry of C-14 was different 5000 years ago?  Electrons behaved differently, filled different configurations, beta decay was occurring at different rates, weak forces were different?

If weak forces were not the same, all known chemistry would not work and you would have no life as observed today (or 5000, or 5M years ago).

I suppose that is possible, but I was referring to the idea that we don't know how much if any C-14 was in the atmosphere back 5000 years ago... like I sorta posted, and you sorta quoted.

Isn't carbon dating calibrated using things like tree rings to make sure we start with the correct initial content of C14?

If you want to question carbon dating you have to question the actual decay rates, but that will get you nowhere fast.

Tree rings are the joke in climatology, but I think they'd be fine for establishing average compositions of C14 for various years in the past. On a regional basis.

[o_e_l_e_o]

@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.

If fossils are a hoax, is gasoline a hoax too? What about plastic?

[tvbcof]

I've seen a lot of "Evolution/Vaccination/ISIS/Global warming/XXX is a hoax" threads, so I came to conclution that we need a more generic one.

Dear antivaxxers, feel free to comment this chart:

Ah, so this is where your laughably ignorant 'chart reading' thing came from.  The one which I smacked down hard on another thread specific to vaccines.

(Teaser:  The guy is showing that two basically straight lines look like one another.  Yeah, no shit.  If he had any intellectual curiosity he would muse about the minor squigle, but he doesn't.  Corp/gov tells him how he should think about vaccines so for some reason he wants everyone else to do the same.  Insecurity I suppose.)

Anyway, why do you need to call up phony straw men about things which nobody believes?  If you have a disagreement about vaccines, or instance, state your case about vaccines.  Calling up some 'margarine of 'flat earth' or whatever straw-man shows that you've got nothing.

[notbatman]

@styca, yes dinosaurs are a hoax.

If fossils are a hoax, is gasoline a hoax too? What about plastic?

1. The comment is not directed at you.
2. I said "dinosaurs are a hoax".
3. You said "fossils are a hoax".

Prepare your brain cell, concept incoming...

Some fossils (dinosaurs) are a hoax.

Keyword "some".

...?



Most fossils are real but they're created rapidly like concrete; the devil is in the details. The devil is also into gasoline but that's another argument.

[BADecker]

Tree rings are the joke in climatology, but I think they'd be fine for establishing average compositions of C14 for various years in the past. On a regional basis.

If we only knew for a fact that tree rings were an accurate representation of the past.

[DaftAjax]

^^^^

BADecker and nobatman: Questions the accuracy of Carbon dating... Questions the Earth's existence 5M years ago... Questions the existence of dinosaurs... Questions the evolution...
also BADecker and nobatman: Does not question the existence and validity of God.

When you put it that way, I guess "cultures" and "traditions" are hoaxes as well. Well, you know I don't know how old these things are, or how it came to be in just 10, 000 years of existence. Oh, I almost forgot, the Pyramids and Stone Henge are hoaxes as well. Well, you know, few "stupid" people just "perfectly" planned, aligned, and built it, no big deal.

This just came to mind: if I want to believe that it's only been 10, 000 years since we are here on Earth, then we must be a "colony" from another planet or from a superior civilization (where the so-called God resides). I wonder why they didn't teach us everything, Oh! That's the "apple" right?