I'm Looking for Evidence Against Current Dating Techniques

[Noitartst]

I was arguing elsewhere with someone, and as a result, I am looking for evidence against current dating techniques. If someone could send me some links, or point me to a book or two, that would be nice.
Sincerely, Noitartst

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If you're not going on successful dates, that's all the evidence that you need.

 

[Skwim]

I think the current dating technique of hopping into bed without protection can be judged imprudent by the increase in unwed mothers.

 

[Engyo]

Blind dating, speed dating, online dating, carbon dating, count-the-tree-rings dating, what?

 

[Skwim]

If you're not going on successful dates, that's all the evidence that you need.

 

[astarath]

Google it.

 

[bobhikes]

This is about dating using radio active decay and its fairly new. No numbers yet they say it is very small error.

Physics News :: Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation: research

 

[bobhikes]

Here's one for carbon dating again the errors are quite small in the scheme of things.

ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - NYTimes.com

 

[outhouse]

I was arguing elsewhere with someone, and as a result, I am looking for evidence against current dating techniques. If someone could send me some links, or point me to a book or two, that would be nice.
Sincerely, Noitartst

There is two sides to this coin. the truth and the lies

first the truth

There are no books, and there is NO reputable evidence of any kind against dating methods that are currently in use.

and the lies

Now if you want to go to a bunch of creationist trash websites you can find all kinds of erroneous garbage that have 0 credibility and no factual basis

 

[bobhikes]

There is two sides to this coin. the truth and the lies

first the truth

There are no books, and there is NO reputable evidence of any kind against dating methods that are currently in use.

and the lies

Now if you want to go to a bunch of creationist trash websites you can find all kinds of erroneous garbage that have 0 credibility and no factual basis

Why don't you check the websites. They one is a valid physics site the other is The New York Times which could definitely be questionable.

There are also several reputable websites for each. The first is a new discovery just this year by valid scientists.

They are not creationist or religious web sites as I would never use them.

 

[David M]

This is about dating using radio active decay and its fairly new. No numbers yet they say it is very small error.

Physics News :: Radioactive decay rates vary with the sun's rotation: research

The variation is in terms of fractions of a % and, if confirmed, of course casts no doubt on radiometric dating because it varies about a mean on a 33 day cycle.

So as long as you are dating things more than about 1 year old the fluctuation is meaningless in terms of getting an accurate date.

And it is not clear which types of radioactive decay are affected as there are a number of mechanisms by which isotopes decay.

Also I have a feeling that on further investigation it was found that the "seasonal variation" was happening in the instruments and not the isotopes.

Here's one for carbon dating again the errors are quite small in the scheme of things.

ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING - NYTimes.com

Again not a problem as they are talking about dating beyond the dendrochronology calibration limits for C14 of 10,000 years in 1990. It was a known fact back then that radiocarbon dating was a bit innacurate once you got beyond the calibration curves.

To good news is that in the last 2 decades a lot of work has been done to extend the calibration curves for radiocarbon dating. It now goes back 50,000 years so there is a high level of confidence in radiocarbon dates up to 50k years ago.

 

[outhouse]

Why don't you check the websites. They one is a valid physics site the other is The New York Times which could definitely be questionable.

There are also several reputable websites for each. The first is a new discovery just this year by valid scientists.

They are not creationist or religious web sites as I would never use them.

I wasnt going after you bob

 

[Noitartst]

Blind dating, speed dating, online dating, carbon dating, count-the-tree-rings dating, what?

Scientific dating, and I'm not talking love textbooks, either. I mean carbon, and so on.

 

[David M]

Scientific dating, and I'm not talking love textbooks, either. I mean carbon, and so on.

You are out of luck then because there are no reputable sources that provide evidence against current dating techniques. This is due to the fact that they are reliable when used properly.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

On a related note, I'm looking for evidence that the sun is made out of cheddar cheese. Can somebody send me some links or point me to some books? Thanks.

 

[astarath]

The whole community of our church uses the courtship method and the results are amazing.