Buckster

The bomb effect doesn’t have any effect on Argon. Again you are missing the point of course, someone is handed a rock to date, they are not going to be told it was formed in 1986, so what happens? The try to date it making the usual assumptions and come up with 350,000 years. If you can’t see the problem with that then I can’t help you. If you are really stupid enough to state “precisely because they are known to produce wildly inaccurate results in samples of such recent geologic record” and still think that the dating of minerals is credible science then there is no hope for you. Time to toddle off to some web site or forum where like minded folk will soothe your bruised ego.

Well that’s the whole point, rocks known to have been formed in 1986 have been dated as being 350,000 years old, if you can’t figure out why that would be a problem then I’m guessing you are suffering from the zzzak effect.

That would take @Six30 three minutes at the most.

Radioactive carbon, also known as carbon-14 exclusively isn’t even used to age minerals, it is only suitable for organic matter, therefore the bomb effect is not part of this equation, the most likely method used to date minerals is the potassium/argon method, although uranium/lead is also used. The first element is the unstable one with the latter in each case being the “stable” daughter element actually used for the dating process.

Well we certainly found your limit very quickly. Maybe you should try some big words, they are always good for a laugh.

You just backed yourself into a corner and you can’t even see it, you should probably stick to microbiology.

Don’t blame me, I only believe in climate change when it is convenient, I.e. when I want to wind you up. The climate is changing but it’s entirely natural, it is a testament to man’s hubris that he thinks he is the cause.

Are you talking about Carbon 14?

You were the one pm’ing other guys asking for bum sex.

Try again with your glasses on.

I’m saying that no one knows either way because it is based on unobservable assumptions.

It’s irrelevant if they are coming up with ages like that.

Plus the oil wells refill themselves on an ongoing basis.

I have never met bummer, isn’t he a friend of @Tym?

Radiometric dating assumes that the measurable elements have always existed in the same quantities as today. It also assumes that radioactive decay has always occurred at the same rate. It is also very selectively applied. It is based on untestable assumptions and it has been proven incorrect when it failed to age rocks formed during volcanic eruptions, sited of returning dates of less than 100 years old it returns ages of hundreds of thousands to millions of years old.

Those shiny things you avoid so you don’t scare yourself.

They better be, I spent £800 on these bad boys.

Aging fossils is already being debunked by the scientific community without any help from me. You stick to your pseudo science and I will stick to written observed history.

I think the technical term is "fucked".

It is due to shit soaking into the seat fabric.

Are you sure it isn't a bladder infection?