etrange:


I don't think the statement "relative dating is what is used to assign dates to fossils anyway" is entirely accurate. Both are used. A lot of legacy fossils date records have relative dates (in other words, majority of the dates were calculated using the relative dating technique) but this is as a result of the fact that the technique predates absolute dating. Radiometric dating is presently the most common choice of fossil dating method in the developed world except in cases where it's not an option.

I clearly acknowledged in my writeup you quoted that the dating techniques (all of them) have their limitations but radiometric dating is still the closest thing to perfection. I do have rather scientific responses to some of your questions though (especially about parent/daughter aka unstable/stable isotopes) but I wish not to prolong the chat. Just bear in mind that someone somewhere is always challenging whatever we know in science but until they come up with something concrete, we still use what we have.

dynicks:
Lala!! BEHOLD THY ANCESTOR!!

emeijeh:
Who calculated the maths?

donbachi:
Dont think they can unearth something like dis in nigeria..nigerians dey chop animals,chop their bones join.

emeijeh:
Who calculated the maths?

rottennaija:
They should just don't unearth pathogens that killed the world once.

GidiCars:
These things defy logic and makes no sense, nothing can come of nothing. Anything designed that has a system and works, certainly have a brain behind it. It didn't come about randomly. Before you castigate me, whatever you think you know from what you read on the topic, I know it, not like you carried out any research or findings yourself nor can these things be replicated. That's one of the reason stuff like this are termed Pseudo-science.

Atheists usually think they're smarter than creationist, but they are just different sides of the same coin. You both got your knowledge from reading a book even though you can't demonstrate or show proof. Christians/Muslims have historical sites that they claim as proof and many other stuff. The findings these people claim to find around are just another part of the hole.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-contradictions-in-science?share=1

Righteousness2:
So many Strange Discoveries in these Strange times.
Men and Brethren, I am not interested in these 48million and 60 million years Discoveries.

What I am Interested in is to announce to you that the Greatest Event of all times is upon us..

JESUS is Coming Folks..

Be Ready!
Live Ready!
Stay Ready!

It will be a Huge Mess to Miss Heaven..

KBdownloads:
I know some Christians would have expected the snake fossil to have legs

DollarBuddy:
Who else thinks COVID-19 May have been brought upon this world through all those their discoveries?

Scientists nogo just allow sleep dogs lie, na so so trouble them go dey find.

Nature cannot be fully explored o. Make those people no wipe out all humanity with one single ancient key wey dem go open one day o. I don talk my own finish.

etrange:


Were you an art student? No offense really but while some dating techniques might be questionable, the question "who did the maths?" suggests you don't even know about the existence of these techniques. To answer your question, modern science uses radiometric dating techniques and this involves measuring the decay of isotopes in the fossil. It's called absolute dating cause isotopes break down at a constant rate over time through radioactive decay. Since rate is constant, the ratio of the amount of original isotope (parent) to the amount of the new isotope (child) can be used to calculate the 'absolute' age of the fossil.

These fossils can also be dated using relative dating techniques (not sure anyone does that these days) and carbon dating (generally not suitable for dating fossils).

etrange:


Were you an art student? No offense really but while some dating techniques might be questionable, the question "who did the maths?" suggests you don't even know about the existence of these techniques. To answer your question, modern science uses radiometric dating techniques and this involves measuring the decay of isotopes in the fossil. It's called absolute dating cause isotopes break down at a constant rate over time through radioactive decay. Since rate is constant, the ratio of the amount of original isotope (parent) to the amount of the new isotope (child) can be used to calculate the 'absolute' age of the fossil.

These fossils can also be dated using relative dating techniques (not sure anyone does that these days) and carbon dating (generally not suitable for dating fossils).

Pelecius:

Relative dating is what is normally used for assigning dates to fossils anyway. Comparing the 'rock' in which they are found with the local geologic column.

For the first paragraph, the methods stated are actually correct but problems being raised is the assumptions behind such methods which many don't know.
1. The rate been constant throughout? (There are evidence for it not being constant)
2. It a closed system? (There are evidence that does not support this also)
3. The initial amount of parent and daughter isotopes known? (There are evidence that challenge this assumptions also)

But getting these to the general public is an issue. The age of the earth is taken as FACT and proving otherwise with sound evidence would bring persecution for you; "publish or perish"

Stewart883:
If all of you here believe the earth is just 6000 years old, all of you are big fools!!!

pegix:

Archaeologist bro
Radio-Carbon dating is more than 95% effective in determine past events like dix...with minimal approximation

Grandmeister:

I like the fact that you agreed like many other followers of science that carbon dating is hugely flawed in dating fossils, unlike the pseudoscience carbon dating crooners here on nairaland that shout the word like some magic spell they learnt recently. It was found out that carbon dating beyond 15 to 20,000 years is completely unreliable. The measuring of isotopic decays for fossils also has its inherent argument but that’s for another topic.

GidiCars:
These things defy logic and makes no sense, nothing can come of nothing. Anything designed that has a system and works, certainly have a brain behind it. It didn't come about randomly. Before you castigate me, whatever you think you know from what you read on the topic, I know it, not like you carried out any research or findings yourself nor can these things be replicated. That's one of the reason stuff like this are termed Pseudo-science.

Atheists usually think they're smarter than creationist, but they are just different sides of the same coin. You both got your knowledge from reading a book even though you can't demonstrate or show proof. Christians/Muslims have historical sites that they claim as proof and many other stuff. The findings these people claim to find around are just another part of the hole.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-contradictions-in-science?share=1