Carbon-14 Dating
BEAST said...
My question here: Do you actually understand the concept behind carbon dating? If you don't, tell me and I will dedicate one post just for your poor grasp of science. My advice to you: Don't make yourself stupid by writing what you do not understand. Picking up Christian websites to debunk evolution is simply ludicrous.
My question here: Do you actually understand the concept behind carbon dating? If you don't, tell me and I will dedicate one post just for your poor grasp of science. My advice to you: Don't make yourself stupid by writing what you do not understand. Picking up Christian websites to debunk evolution is simply ludicrous.
Beast,
Since I don't know much, I would be most interested in your post of Carbon Dating. While you compose your post, could you take into account the following assumptions?
The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years.
Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere.
To make carbon-14 dating work, Dr. Libby also assumed that the amount of carbon-14 being presently produced had equaled the amount of carbon-12 – he assumed that they had reached a balance.
Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12.
It seems like "the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin" has caused quite an issue. :)
Also, since you like penguins, I thought you might like this, "But there are some problems again, because penguins living in the Antarctic today have yielded 3000 year old carbon 14 ages when tested. Seals killed recently gave ages of 1000 years."
Thanks.
11 comments:
Hey Moron:
Don't you ever learn? Why do you always quote Christian sources to justify Science?
Science is Science, religion is religion. Quit mixing the two together.
I shall compose a C-14 dating article, not for your benefit, but for others to know so that they won't be conned by the far-rightist bastards.
First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years.
Well there are several different types of radiometric dating other than carbon-14 dating and the rate of decay is not an assumption
"But there are some problems again, because penguins living in the Antarctic today have yielded 3000 year old carbon 14 ages when tested. Seals killed recently gave ages of 1000 years."
The Antarctic question has been answered before because it's a common claim.
Interesting Beast,
You claim science is not absolute and that it is "potential falsifiability: Any scientific phenomenon or observation has the possibility of being proven false", yet you have shown that you apparently despise any and all Christian and/or Christian scientists questioning, correcting, showing error, or anything against your precious atheists scientist's ideas. Why claim it is all relative only to cleave to it as if absolute when questioned?
Why do you kick so hard against your Creator, God, who has clearly made Himself known deep down within your being?
the alpha,
I'll take a look at the info you provided and will see what Beast Boy writes at his blog.
The reason is simple, Splinter.
Ken Ham and his bunch of fraudsters (in the league with all those evil evangelistics, Falwell, Oral Roberts, Kent Hovind, etc) do not even carry out an ounce of work in the scientific community, yet they talk as if they are bloody authorities in the scientific community. Is it fair?
I have no problems with Christian scientists, as long as they present real data and real work, although such scientists are increasingly rare (One of them is actually a British Bishop, but what the hell).
I think you can stop appealing to me to convert. Like I said before, you couldn't even convert my hamster into a churchmouse even if you wanted to.
Oh, one last thing, my post is ready. Go read it. Make intelligent comments. Otherwise......you know the drill.
Beast
Alpha:
Thanks for that bit of info. I didn't include the penguin thing on my blog because I was basically writing a general post on carbon dating.
Regards
Beast
Yet their remains still doubts and questions to the great trust put in Carbon Dating from others:
How can we really know the "the original ratio of carbon and radioactive carbon"?
How can we ensure there is no "possibility of contamination of the sample"?
Should we not consider that "Factors as diverse as changes in the earth’s magnetic field and changes in the amount of carbon available to organisms in times past could translate into perceivable differences in the carbon ratios in artifacts and remains from ancient times"?
It also appears there can be "Unfortunately there are many problems in the direct application of dendrochronological dating."
It has also been noted that "Radiocarbon dating has grown exponentially, and many problems and inaccuracies have been isolated and examined, some leading to major adjustments of the results." So what else needs correcting and are scientist willing to correct that which even goes against their own ideas?
Some also voice concern in saying, "Radiocarbon dating is a useful tool in archaeological research, but the precision hoped for by some is not attainable because of the nature of the radiocarbon assay itself, possible contaminations, the Suess effect, and especially the peculiar nature of wood structure and growth."
It is noted that "Even a small amount of c14 from a contaminant can produce an incorrect date in an old sample."
I also find it interested that it is said, [What is the youngest thing that can be radiocarbon dated?]"This is a difficult one, because we can date pretty much anything from today or in modern times, but getting an actual 'date' is hard."
But then says, "We can also date things that have happened since 1950 rather well because of the sudden jump in radiocarbon on Earth, so that it is possible to figure out within 2-3 years sometimes, the date of a sample."
Then adds, "Generally, we can date things pretty well over the past 1000 years, it becomes difficult from about 1700 AD to 1900 AD because of natural changes in radiocarbon, and since 1950 AD dating is quite possible."
And also to note, with the creation of God, all was created with "age". Adam was not created an embryo, but a mature adult man. There is no reason to doubt the earth and all else was created in maturity also - unless you simply discount the Genesis account which is one's right to do so.
Creationist attempt to discredit any and every method of independently derived, mutually buttressed form of dating. If another independently derived form of dating such as dendrochronology is reinforced by another form of dating then they BOTH must be wrong or seriously inaccurate for one fallacious reason or another. From radiometric dating to dendrochronology, they seem to believe that NONE of them are reliable. One has to wonder what independently derived and verifiable tool they are using to substantitate their claim that the earth is as young as they say. If radiocarbon is decaying at an accelerating rate as they suggest I'll need them to explain why the Earth didn't simply melt due to the level of heat released. If the earth and the entire universe are as young as they suggest, they'll need to explain why we can see light from stars millions of light years away. If the earth is only 6,000 years old, they'll need to explain how Sumerians invented glue 7,000 years ago. The list of inconsistencies with Creationism is incredibly long.
Considering that God is the creater of all things with maturity, this cannot answer any of your questions, or is the refusal to acknowlege any chance of God alone keep it from any merit?
A denial of God leaves science with many unanswered questions, assumptions, and ideas itself.
Sumerians: Is there really complete consistency without the chance of error in dating (due to any number of factors) them above 7000 years old?
HOW FAR BACK DO THE RECORDS GO?
Genesis Under Fire.
I'll leave you with the wisdom of one of my favorite agnostics, Fred.
"Parenthetically, my impression, based on a small sample, is that the more incensed of the Evolutionists tend to be either of the hard Right or the hard Left: those who need to believe one thing categorically seem to need to believe other things categorically. Which means that if they are wrong, they are unlikely to notice it.
And this is what disturbs me about them. I do not object to the content of Evolutionism. Some, all, or part of it may be correct. I would like to know. A more fascinating question does not readily come to mind. But dispassionate discussion with them is not possible, anymore than it is with Gloria Steinem or Herbert Marcuse or Cornell West, and for exactly the same reasons. They are the same people. How sad."
"Early on, I noticed three things about evolution that differentiated it from other sciences (or, I could almost say, from science). First, plausibility was accepted as being equivalent to evidence. And of course the less you know, the greater the number of things that are plausible, because there are fewer facts to get in the way. Again and again evolutionists assumed that suggesting how something might have happened was equivalent to establishing how it had happened. Asking them for evidence usually aroused annoyance and sometimes, if persisted in, hostility."
"By contrast, he who doubts the divinity of Christ, the prophethood of Mohammed, or the sanctity of natural selection will be savaged. It is the classic emotional reaction of the True Believer to whom dissent is not just wrong but intolerable. Which is unfortunate. If the faithful of evolution spent as much time examining their theory as they do defending it, they might prove to be right, or partly right, or discover all manner of interesting things heretofore unsuspected."
Here
and here
a little more
done
The problem with carbon dating is that there is reasonable doubt as to it's accuracy even when used along with other dating methods.
The rate of decay is, beyond a doubt, an assumption. To assume otherwise is to remain blind to the obvious.
No doubt better methods are being developed and will continue to be developed, but carbon dating is over 50 years old and needs to be questioned as to whether it is the best method for such long time periods.
Post a Comment