The very many questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread XXIII

[hobbsyoyo]

That's not true.


And go back to your basement where you got no life Mr.7K posts . No one will miss you!

It was 7.5k until they archived some threads.

 

[madviking]

Just don't respond to him.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Why in stock photos do "hackers" always wear ski masks? I mean seriously?

 

[Dachs]

Why in stock photos do "hackers" always wear ski masks? I mean seriously?

In stock photos, criminals in general wear ski masks, not just "hackers".

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Is radiocarbon dating still used?

 

[Arakhor]

I imagine so. There are various methods of differing techniques, so unless science has revealed an even more accurate method recently, it's the most accurate method we have so far.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Is radiocarbon dating still used?

No. It's been proven fraudulent and a conspiracy to suppress the truth that the earth is 6000 years old.

 

[Arakhor]

No. It's been proven fraudulent and a conspiracy to suppress the truth that the earth is 6000 years old.

Thanks, Classical.

 

[Borachio]

I tried radiocarbon dating back in my youth. But I quickly found I prefer women.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, it doesn't work properly on artefacts dating later than 1950.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

I tried radiocarbon dating back in my youth. But I quickly found I prefer women.

You're such a frigging card.

And Arakhor you're just as bad!

 

[Chukchi Husky]

No. It's been proven fraudulent and a conspiracy to suppress the truth that the earth is 6000 years old.

I guess that's why I was told it's inaccurate. The one thing that I was told that radiocarbon dating got wrong was the age of the Shroud of Turin.

 

[Borachio]

How would anyone know that the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud was faulty?

Is there some more accurate way of determining its age?

I understand C14 dating has a measure of inaccuracy, but it has a well known error bar. And it's certainly accurate enough up to 2,000 years, isn't it? Or maybe I have it wrong.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

How would anyone know that the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud was faulty?

It dated the shroud to the Middle Ages.

 

[Borachio]

So? That doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

I don't know, but after saying that they said that radiocarbon dating is known to be highly inaccurate.

Another time they claimed that if something was made in five minutes from some wooden blocks, radiocarbon dating would claim it's 50,000 years old.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

It's origins are clearly shrouded in mystery

 

[Borachio]

I don't know, but after saying that they said that radiocarbon dating is known to be highly inaccurate.

Another time they claimed that if something was made in five minutes from some wooden blocks, radiocarbon dating would claim it's 50,000 years old.

It's complicated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Accurate_dating

I can still see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Turin Shroud dating.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

They made it seem like it could actually be the actual image of Jesus, and they said that blood samples taken said it comes from the Middle East.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It dated the shroud to the Middle Ages.

That's because it's from the middle ages. Even the history of it only goes back so far before it 'miraculously' appeared - you can't trace it's history (as in who had it when) all the way back to sweet baby white Jesus.

I don't know, but after saying that they said that radiocarbon dating is known to be highly inaccurate.

Another time they claimed that if something was made in five minutes from some wooden blocks, radiocarbon dating would claim it's 50,000 years old.

It is not know to be entirely innacurate. The second paragraph is also a complete lie. Tell your stupid friends to come up with better make-believe reasons why everything factual is wrong.