50,000 year old forest found, Gulf of Mexico:

Originally posted by RJHinds
Apparently carbon dating is not very accurate, if the wrong assumptions are being made. 😏

The Instructor

what kind of wrong assumptions are being made?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
what kind of wrong assumptions are being made?

Turin Shroud 'could be genuine as carbon-dating was flawed'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

http://www.innoval.com/C14/

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Turin Shroud 'could be genuine as carbon-dating was flawed'

The article you link does not say the carbon dating was inaccurate, only that the thing being dated was not the original shroud.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Turin Shroud 'could be genuine as carbon-dating was flawed'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

http://www.innoval.com/C14/

The Instructor

there are reasons why they had carbon dating problems on the turin shroud. but regardless of them nobody said each test was 100% perfect, like most tests there are margins for error.

can you think of a way of verifying if any tests are inaccurate? (because scientist have a very simple solution)

Originally posted by stellspalfie
there are reasons why they had carbon dating problems on the turin shroud. but regardless of them nobody said each test was 100% perfect, like most tests there are margins for error.

can you think of a way of verifying if any tests are inaccurate? (because scientist have a very simple solution)

ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
ERRORS ARE FEARED IN CARBON DATING

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/31/us/errors-are-feared-in-carbon-dating.html

The Instructor

have you actually read the whole article?

it says 'Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30,000 years' that kinda causes your young earth theory a few problems.

id also point out that the article is 23years old!!!!!
current dating technology is accurate upto 80,000years with a error margin of around 1000years.

do you think any carbon dating is accurate?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
have you actually read the whole article?

it says 'Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30,000 years' that kinda causes your young earth theory a few problems.

id also point out that the article is 23years old!!!!!
current dating technology is accurate upto 80,000years with a error margin of around 1000years.

do you think any carbon dating is accurate?

I just gave one reference here without reading it completely, however, I am quite sure the scientist that believe in an old earth are going to give their excuses to support their worldview. He is in damage control mode.

To say 'Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30,000 years' isn't saying it is reliable for objects under 30,000 years old, even though that is what they want you to think.

Note this quote:

"Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years."

They must KNOW the true age for this statement to be true.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I just gave one reference here without reading it completely, however, I am quite sure the scientist that believe in an old earth are going to give their excuses to support their worldview.

To say 'Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30,000 years' isn't saying it is reliable for objects under 30,000 years old, even though that is what ...[text shortened]... 3,500 years. They must KNOW the true age for this statement to be true.

The Instructor

" estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They must KNOW the true age for this statement to be true. "

no they dont need to know the true age. there is a margin of error. the older an object is the bigger the margin of error is. currently the margin for object 80'000 years is around 1000 years. when looking at objects around 10,000 years old the margin is just a few years.

so the question still stands, do you believe any carbon dating is correct?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The article you link does not say the carbon dating was inaccurate, only that the thing being dated was not the original shroud.

It has been claimed that if during mankind’s earliest history, before the worldwide flood for example, the cosmic rays averaged only half the intensity they have today, any sample from that era would appear to be 5,500 years older than the actual age, even if all other assumptions are correct.

The Instructor

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]" estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They must KNOW the true age for this statement to be true. "

no they dont need to know the true age. there is a margin of error. the older an object is the bigger the margin of error is. currently the margin for object 80'000 years is around 1000 years. when lo ...[text shortened]... t a few years.

so the question still stands, do you believe any carbon dating is correct?[/b]

Some carbon dating may be correct, within the margin of error, if all the assumptions are also correct. As you should know, theory and practice do not always match.

Yes, they do have to know the true age or very close to the true age to be able to tell approximately how much the carbon dating is off. It has been stated by scientists that carbon dating should not be taken to be accurate or used as the only method used in dating an object.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some carbon dating may be correct, within the margin of error, if all the assumptions are also correct. As you should know, theory and practice do not always match.

Yes, they do have to know the true age or very close to the true age to be able to tell approximately how much the carbon dating is off. It has been stated by scientists that carbon dating s ...[text shortened]... t be taken to be accurate or used as the only method used in dating an object.

The Instructor

In other words, reading behind the lines and taking full into account the context of your religious agenda, the answer to stellspalfie question is:

"only some of the carbon dating that doesn't contradict the Biblical tale according to creationists is correct"

You could have just said so.

And where you say "if all the assumptions are also correct.", the only really critical "assumption" you are really referring to here is the implicit "assumption" that Biblical tale may not necessarily be correct and thus may be contradicted by the evidence.
I take it you refer to the plural of the word "assumption" i.e. you say "assumptions" in order to hide from him the only one "assumption" that matters to you here. All the other "assumptions" function fine here to obscure the one implicit "assumption" that really matters to you i.e. the assumption of the Biblical tale being true, and are just there to endlessly fog him off with irrelevant answers forever sending him (and us) in endless circles without ever spitting out your actual real agenda.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Some carbon dating may be correct, within the margin of error, if all the assumptions are also correct. As you should know, theory and practice do not always match.

Yes, they do have to know the true age or very close to the true age to be able to tell approximately how much the carbon dating is off. It has been stated by scientists that carbon dating s ...[text shortened]... t be taken to be accurate or used as the only method used in dating an object.

The Instructor

using the word 'assumptions' again. could you clarify (in your own words) what you mean by assumptions.

can you also say which carbon dating you think is correct (within the margin for error).

Originally posted by stellspalfie
using the word 'assumptions' again. could you clarify (in your own words) what you mean by assumptions.

can you also say which carbon dating you think is correct (within the margin for error).

I am not aware of any words that I own the exclusive rights to. Therefore, I can only use words available to the general public and I do not know all of them. But I will try to explain what I believe assumptions are in relation to the carbon dating issue by using common words.

The theory behind carbon dating requires certain facts be true about the item being dated. Certain facts may just have to be assumed, because those facts are not known for certain. To ASSUME can make an ASS out of U and ME.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not aware of any words that I own the exclusive rights to. Therefore, I can only use words available to the general public and I do not know all of them. But I will try to explain what I believe assumptions are in relation to the carbon dating issue by using common words.

The theory behind carbon dating requires certain facts be true about the item ...[text shortened]... e facts are not known for certain. To ASSUME can make an ASS out of U and ME.

The Instructor

"The theory behind carbon dating requires certain facts be true"


what kinda of 'facts'? can you give some examples? (no youtube video's or links please).

Originally posted by RJHinds
I just gave one reference here without reading it completely, however, I am quite sure the scientist that believe in an old earth are going to give their excuses to support their worldview. He is in damage control mode.

To say 'Carbon dating is unreliable for objects older than about 30,000 years' isn't saying it is reliable for objects under 30,000 year 0 years."

They must KNOW the true age for this statement to be true.

The Instructor

…. old earth …. …. carbon-dating ….

You do know that carbon dating is not used to date the Earth, right?

Carbon dating is NEVER used to date the oldest rocks and oldest fossils. As far as I am aware, Potassium-argon dating is the main radiometric dating used for the oldest rocks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Potassium-argon_dating_method

“.... Potassium-argon dating
This involves electron capture or positron decay of potassium-40 to argon-40. Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 billion years, and so this method is applicable to the oldest rocks.
...”

but, there are several OTHER radiometric dating methods that can and have been used and they give good independent agreement of the approximate age of the oldest rocks:

(on the same link - )

“...The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.[13][18] An error margin of 2–5% has been achieved on younger Mesozoic rocks ...”

"….Rubidium-strontium dating
This is based on the beta decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87, with a half-life of 50 billion years. This scheme is used to date old igneous and metamorphic rocks, and has also been used to date lunar samples. Closure temperatures are so high that they are not a concern. Rubidium-strontium dating is not as precise as the uranium-lead method, with errors of 30 to 50 million years for a 3-billion-year-old sample....”

Note the margin of errors stated in each -even for allowing the greatest possible margin of error, several radiometric dating methods can be and have been used to independently verify that a rock sample is far more than, say, one billion years old. Basic science has thus inadvertently irrefutably disproved young-Earth and inadvertently irrefutably proved old-Earth.

If this is not physical proof of old earth, then what can be? -I mean, what evidence would you accept as physical proof?
Is there ANY evidence physical evidence you would accept as proof of old Earth!? if not, then this because your religious belief in young earth is not evidence-based.