1 edit
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThe Dating Dilemma
only to an unimaginative sort like yourself who needs shyster creationists to do the thinking for you.
despite your ignorance on the subject, there are various uses for C14 dating and even with advances in other areas of technology that increase the range, it is still a valid dating method in scientific circles, something you would know nothing about.
One of the most notable problems with the fossil record is related to how fossils are dated. Like many “sciences” dealing with evolution, there are sweeping generalizations and assumptions applied. Archeologists typically use two different types of dating—radiocarbon and associative.
The first, and most known, is called radiocarbon dating. In this form of dating, researchers measure the ratio of non-radioactive carbon (carbon-12) to radioactive carbon (carbon-14) to determine the age of the object.
In nature, scientists have discovered that when cosmic rays come into contact with the earth’s atmosphere, they react with nitrogen-14 and create carbon-14. In turn, carbon-14 then reacts with oxygen, producing carbon dioxide. Plants then take in carbon dioxide. Animals will then eat plants, allowing them to also ingest carbon dioxide. When plants and animals die, the decaying process produces nitrogen-14. And hence, the cycle continues.
For example, you could take a sample of petrified wood. When it was alive, the wood would have had a similar ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 as the air surrounding it. However, when it died, the decomposition would slowly release carbon-14 into the air, while the carbon-12 remained constant.
If the scientist knew the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the air, and the rate at which carbon-14 was released from the sample, he could theoretically calculate its age. Scientists have generally assumed that the ratio of these isotopes has remained constant in the atmosphere. But there is one major problem with this assumption—it has not!
Notice: “Not only then has open system behavior of these isotopes been demonstrated, but apparent ‘isochrons’ and their derived ‘ages’ are invariably geologically meaningless. Thus none of the assumptions used to interpret the U-Th-Pb radiometric system used to yield ‘ages’ can be valid” (A.A. Snelling, “U-Th-Pb ‘Dating’: An example of False ‘Isochrons’,” Third International Conference on Creationism).
No matter how loud the confusing and misguided attempts to explain away the variations of these isotopes, variations exist. This is why scientists cross-reference their finds, with items that have already been dated. This would allow them to declare the radiocarbon date “reasonable,” based on other finds.
This is problematic because many of the items used for comparison were also dated using radiocarbon! Remembering the logical fallacies we have already covered, this is a perfect example of Begging the Question. Basing a conclusion on an assumption is not only unscientific, it is dishonest!
For the last century, archeologists have used radiocarbon analysis to create a variable chart on which to compare other finds. When a new fossil is discovered, it is compared to existing fossils at that depth of ground—called the strata. It is assumed that millennia of time compressed each layer of strata and, therefore, all fossils found at a particular layer are of similar age. If a radiocarbon test then shows a similar date, the sample’s date is established as fact.
Can you see how such a system allows samples to be placed within a wide age range? Furthering this is the fact that small samples can become contaminated by the surrounding environment. Further still, different parts of larger samples have also been shown to vary by hundreds of thousands of years.
Much more could be said about these dating methods. But as you can see, they are far from reliable. In fact, it is puzzling that such a system is used at all!
http://rcg.org/books/effai.html
Originally posted by RJHindshere, use this source, it's not the greatest, but it's hell of a lot better than that nonsense you've found.
[b]The Dating Dilemma
One of the most notable problems with the fossil record is related to how fossils are dated. Like many “sciences” dealing with evolution, there are sweeping generalizations and assumptions applied. Archeologists typically use two different types of dating—radiocarbon and associative.
The first, and most known, is called radi ...[text shortened]... e. In fact, it is puzzling that such a system is used at all!
http://rcg.org/books/effai.html[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
it's good for starters. once you absorb the information there, you can move on to this:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
and then look out! other testing methods. C14 is not alone.
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/courses/anth42web/DATINGmethods.pdf
don't be a douche all your life, get some education!
Originally posted by VoidSpiritBut the problem here is that he is not interested in learning anything.
here, use this source, it's not the greatest, but it's hell of a lot better than that nonsense you've found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating
it's good for starters. once you absorb the information there, you can move on to this:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton.html
and then look out! other testing methods. C ...[text shortened]... courses/anth42web/DATINGmethods.pdf
don't be a douche all your life, get some education!
Originally posted by humyi know. but looking on the bright side, he has graduated from complete mythology to pseudoscience. why, that's only a stones throw (if you're the hulk throwing that stone) from real science.
But the problem here is that he is not interested in learning anything.
he can't help but learn something, even if his cognitive dissonance forces him to deny what he has learned.
2 edits
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThe Reality of Carbon Dating
i know. but looking on the bright side, he has graduated from complete mythology to pseudoscience. why, that's only a stones throw (if you're the hulk throwing that stone) from real science.
he can't help but learn something, even if his cognitive dissonance forces him to deny what he has learned.
The myth is that radiocarbon dating can accurately establish exact dates of the death of organic remains almost as far back as 50,000 years. The reality is that one would have to know the 14C/12C ratio in the environment at the time of the death of the sample. The fact is that we can only infer that ratio for the past 5,000 years or so using historical records. The inference is that the ratio changes sufficiently so that calibration factors have to be used to convert radiocarbon years to actual calendar years. Since the ratio is known to have changed in historic times, it is irrational and unscientific to think that it was constant before historic times.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v10i10f.htm
Originally posted by RJHindsWow, how convenient. Notice how well your new time line matches your creation date. My, what a coincidence.
The Reality of Carbon Dating
The myth is that radiocarbon dating can accurately establish exact dates of the death of organic remains almost as far back as 50,000 years. The reality is that one would have to know the 14C/12C ratio in the environment at the time of the death of the sample. The fact is that we can only infer that ratio for the past 5,000 year ...[text shortened]... t it was constant before historic times.
http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v10i10f.htm
3 edits
C-14 is not accurate and I think they use different things for wanting to answer questions that range from hundreds of years to 1million (?), or so I have been led to believe. As sonhouse has pointed out , carbon is not the only isotope dating system. They are all innacurate for determining a certain year, for example, but thats not what they were used for. They are trying to ascertain certain 'periods' or 'eras' in time.
Like dinosaur bones. You cant tell the exact year they were wiped out - for example , BUT you can narrow it down to + or - 3 or 4 thousand years.
Do you get it? They are just an indicator (and some of the evidence that it has yielded, I contend, has been classified from public presentation because doing so may require a huge re-write of history, and possibly expose some people that do not want to be exposed. )
(BTW , any sciency guys that can see flaws in my general argument could you please point them out, so I can hone my aim a bit better? 🙂 )
Originally posted by karoly aczelThey can not even ascertain certain 'periods' or 'eras' in time because they start with wrong assumptions.
C-14 is not accurate and I think they use different things for wanting to answer questions that range from hundreds of years to 1million (?), or so I have been led to believe. As sonhouse has pointed out , carbon is not the only isotope dating system. They are all innacurate for determining a certain year, for example, but thats not what they were used ...[text shortened]... my general argument could you please point them out, so I can hone my aim a bit better? 🙂 )
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd of course the right assumption is to start with the incredibly idiotic idea the Earth and indeed the entire universe is 10,000 odd years old.
They can not even ascertain certain 'periods' or 'eras' in time because they start with wrong assumptions.
You still can't come up with an answer to my charge that the moon shows itself to be billions of years old because it has cooled down from all the impact craters that scar its surface.
What's the matter, no creationist websites to draw on? You can't come up with a refutation on your own?
Originally posted by sonhousehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
And of course the right assumption is to start with the incredibly idiotic idea the Earth and indeed the entire universe is 10,000 odd years old.
You still can't come up with an answer to my charge that the moon shows itself to be billions of years old because it has cooled down from all the impact craters that scar its surface.
What's the matter, no creationist websites to draw on? You can't come up with a refutation on your own?
You need to read up on the moon before you start making stupid statement. In the link you will find then the used radiometric dating to date rocks on the moon. So those are bogus dates already. You should know better than that. Where is your data on impact crators heating the moon up and how long it takes to cool down. The moon gets very cold when the Earth is between the Sun and the moon. So I do not see a problem.
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThe moon gets very cold when the Earth is between the Sun and moon. Now there is an educated statement. That happens SO often, its surprising there isn't liquid water on the moon, is that how it goes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
You need to read up on the moon before you start making stupid statement. In the link you will find then the used radiometric dating to date rocks on the moon. So those are bogus dates already. You should know better than that. Where is your data on impact crators heating the moon up and how long it takes to cool down ...[text shortened]... moon gets very cold when the Earth is between the Sun and the moon. So I do not see a problem.
Think about the kinetic energy of an incoming asteroid hitting the moon full bore, and the asteroid is 100 km across, coming in at 50,000 kilometers an hour. That is an unimaginable amount of kinetic energy, all of a sudden turned into heat. Try doing the math if you are still able, Ke=MV^2. Try to figure out where that energy goes. A lot goes directly into heat which has to be dissipated. The main way is through convection into the mantle of the moon and it drills kilometers deep, and radiating into space, which is a slow process. It splatters a good deal of itself and the moon right out of orbit but a good portion of both the asteroid and the kinetic energy from the collision stays right on the moon and it does not dissipate in a mere 10,000 years.
If you look at ice cores, they take the temperature of each layer and even though the ice may have been a mile deep and thousands of years old, the ice retains a tiny portion of the temperature of the environment when it was on the surface, the change in temperature between layers can be measured, it may only be a thousandths of a degree different from its closest layer but that temperature difference stays for thousands, hundreds of thousands of years.
The same with the moon. When we take pictures of it with IR telescopes it measures only a couple hundred degrees max temperature even though it is in the sun for such a long time, two weeks at a time. The unimaginable energy of a large asteroid strike is like the ice core but stays hot for a million years. Now, billions of years later, the moon has lost most of that heat and you can't see much difference in temperature anywhere on the moon and if you went back 10,000 years and took the same pictures in IR it would look just the same because it had been hit billions of years ago not last summer geologically speaking.
Originally posted by RJHinds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
You need to read up on the moon before you start making stupid statement. In the link you will find then the used radiometric dating to date rocks on the moon. So those are bogus dates already. You should know better than that. Where is your data on impact crators heating the moon up and how long it takes to cool down ...[text shortened]... moon gets very cold when the Earth is between the Sun and the moon. So I do not see a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
You need to read up on the moon before you start making stupid statement.
it says:
“...
Most of the Moon's mare basalts erupted during the Imbrian period, 3.0–3.5 billion years ago, although some radiometrically dated samples are as old as 4.2 billion years,[47] and the youngest eruptions, dated by crater counting, appear to have been only 1.2 billion years ago.[48]
The lighter-coloured regions of the Moon are called terrae, or more commonly highlands, since they are higher than most maria. They have been radiometrically dated as forming 4.4 billion years ago, …
….
…
the famous high-titanium "orange glass soil" of volcanic origin collected during the Apollo 17 mission in 1972. The inclusions were formed during explosive eruptions on the Moon approximately 3.7 billion years ago.
….”
so you have given a link that shows evidence that the moon s billions of years old -sorry, it is YOU who are making a “stupid statement”.
In the link you will find then the used radiometric dating to date rocks on the moon. So those are bogus dates already.
your early criticism of radiometric dating was with carbon dating.
But carbon dating is never use to date moon rock so, even if you were right about carbon dating giving “bogus dates” which you are not, that would not logically imply that the radiometric dating to date rocks on the moon gives “bogus dates”.
Originally posted by RJHindsThat is a great link.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radiocarbon-in-diamonds
Thank you! I only got to this site to play chess but that is an unexpected bonus.
Do you think God has laid down these clues for us to discover over time?
I believe He has laid down clues for us.
1 edit
Originally posted by godspawn(Oh god - here we go )
That is a great link.
Thank you! I only got to this site to play chess but that is an unexpected bonus.
Do you think God has laid down these clues for us to discover over time?
I believe He has laid down clues for us.
Welcome new member on behalf of rhp spirituality forum 🙂
Have you read much of RJHinds posts? He has a lot to say after all .Some a bit repetitive. Do you find yourself agreeing with most of his posts?
(Remember Dasa'a sidekick? ... hang on. Maybe I am jumping the gun here a bit quickly)
edit: the profile thickens the plot.