There are like, 60 different ways of carbon dating, this alone proves it’s unreliable.

In 3 years the earth will be 4,543,000,003 years old.

Tom Brady will still be playing. Book it

This is an overrated quality in a person. Of course, sometimes it's admirable. Most of the time it's just someone digging their heels in on the thing they were taught as children, regardless of evidence or reason.

Carbon isn't the only element used for dating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

Oh, jeepers. Yes, you're right.

9. At least one college or NFL team will have an Ermines nickname.

You can tell by its vestigial tire balancing station

Even after taking chemistry in college, I was never convinced of the accuracy of half-lives. When I say that, we are considering things we cannot accurately observe and making assumptions. Every radioactive isotope is at some stage of decay. Say we are comparing samples of uranium. We may see that there is x number of uranium atoms and x number of lead atoms. We continue to take these samples. What we can say is that one sample may be more decayed than the other. We can also look at the septillion, decillion, or whatever quantity of atoms there are of uranium and watch how quickly those atoms decay over a small time period and get a relative rate of decay at that point in time. What we actually don't know is if that rate of decay is constant. We assume, for science, that this rate is constant using exponential distribution theory. It is not a fact and has never proven to be factual. For all we know, the rate of decay could be exponential (accelerating over time) and not constant. These isotopes could also have had periods of accelerated decay in the past and have now slowed down. What if uranium's actual half-life is 50,000 years and not 1.3 billion years? We have been observing this for what, 100 years?

Like I tried to project, I don't have an issue with belief in either case. I just question when people assume science is 100% accurate. I'd love to be convinced that it is, but I need alot more than a Wiki article rehashing the same theories I learned in college.

If you would like to dig deeper here is my textbook for P Chem. It will help you understand why it's not an assumption that decay is constant and not variable.

https://www.directtextbook.com/isbn/9780935702996

we don't "know" that atoms exist, but we have ample data to show that they most likely do exist and we do not have experimental data to show that the atomic model is inaccurate. same goes for radioactive decay of atomic nuclei.

Edit: Is decay constant? https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...69804317303822

Religion....because thinking is hard.

Matt Cassel will be reunited with TB in NE only TB will be the backup giving way to the younger MC

Do you predict your affections for Ms. Ryder will still be going strong?

Simply Red will still be in denial, but we'll still love him anyway.