Carbon Dating, please tell me how it is wrong?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I'm a Christian, but I have a brain. I know that carbon dating is real. I just cannot see where creationists get the argument it is not accurate. Please tell me how you came to this argument? NOW, before you go and tell me, allow me to review what carbon dating is, stressing certain parts with capitol letters:

Carbon dating: The dating of ORGANIC material or ONCE ORGANIC material that WAS ONCE ALIVE in order to find how much CARBON 14 has been lost through the ages. all RADIATION decay keeps constant at all times and never changes. It divides by HALF its previous amount based at a CONSTANT rate.

So to all you guys who go and say "a rock from MT. St. Helen that was one day old showed up billion of years old", you must remember it was NOT alive and therefore cannot be accurately aged based on carbon. There are other materials that can be used, however.

So, why do you not believe it.




posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Great post and I can tell that you do have a brain! Unfortunately carbon dating is attacked as being inaccurate. I think most of this stems from contaminated samples. For example if one were carbon dating the shroud of turin and were to take samples from the shroud would one be getting samples from around the time the shroud was made, from the time it was scorched by fire, from samples found on the shroud of people who touched it with grimy hands. I think you can see some of the problems that can arise.

Been there done that in response to the place you now find yourself. I always was told that science was wrong, carbon dating was inaccurate, etc. I believed it until I went to college and learned about science for myself. It was almost like stepping out of the darkness and into the light. Religion is okay, you just have to realize that you can't mix religion and science. Keep the two parts of your life separate and you should be quite happy. Try to make the two agree and you'll soon be spouting nonsense like the world is only 6000 years old.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
It is inaccurate but all forms of dating are inherently inaccurate. It's all just best guess.

Carbon dating can be out by a few years and for some that is enough of a justification to say that it should never be trusted.

When you're dealing with creationists generally anything you present will be dismissed as a 'test of faith from god'.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by arius

I always was told that science was wrong, carbon dating was inaccurate, etc. I believed it until I went to college and learned about science for myself.


I laughed, because I went through the same, only in grammar school. Shows how fast the education system is going.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nerdling
When you're dealing with creationists generally anything you present will be dismissed as a 'test of faith from god'.


What's so bad with saying God created everything and that evolution is just how he created. He used Moses as a vessel to save the Jews, why not evolution as a vessel to keep life chugging along?



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   
Well, what's wrong with it is that there is absolutely no empiric evidence for the existence of a god whatsoever, so at best the existence of such a being is a belief that not everyone shares, and even people who believe in a god don't necessarily believe in the same one, or even the same version of one.

God is subjective. That's why certain arguments drive many atheists to distraction -- they just seem absolutely ludicrous from a scientific point of view.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Some people don't like it when they're looking at a Primate such as an Ape and someone says "You're descended from that, you know".


A little bit of genetic snobbery, a little bit of church condition and heavy doses of "we're a special, unique species".



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91

Originally posted by arius

I always was told that science was wrong, carbon dating was inaccurate, etc. I believed it until I went to college and learned about science for myself.


I laughed, because I went through the same, only in grammar school. Shows how fast the education system is going.


Lived at home during grammar school and was constantly indoctrinated with anti scientific preaching. When I got to college I was older and less apt to believe what I was told. Most of my teachers in grammar school were very religious as well so evolution was taught as something Nashville mandated be taught in all state grammar schools. Cut me a break man. I was trying to be a good kid. I did know that Kent Hovine was an idiot when I was in grammar school. I just didn't know about carbon dating yet. Dr. Dino. The man who caused me so much grief in grammar school.



posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Conclusions reached in Anatoly T. Fomenko's "History: Science or Fiction?" regarding carbon dating.

Radio carbon dating is flawed. W.F. Libby used false assumptions in reaching his conclusions. In theory, radiocarbon age measurement is simple. It suffices to know:
1) The radiocarbon volume from the moment of the objects departure from the exchange reservoir.
2) The exact half-life period of radiocarbon C-14. The real activity of ancient specimens may alter from the average value for numerous reasons, including, but not at all limited to: Cosmic ray intensity changes, a theoretical estimation shows a 20% deviation range. Variations in radiocarbon concentration depending upon geographical location and the tree species: 8.5% deviation range. at p-88 We deem it nonsensical to attempt the precise measurement of a value whose theoretical uncontrolled error rate may equal 10% if we are to make modest assumptions. The most optimistic calculations give a radiocarbon dating uncontrolled error range of 1200 years of arbitrarily added or subtracted age. p-88 Another specialist in radiocarbon dating, V. Boutomo, is of a more realistic opinion: "due to the considerable fluctuations of C-14's specific activity rate, the radiocarbon datings of relatively young specimens (under 2000 years of age) cannot be used as fundamental referential data for the absolute chronological scale." See p-83
To really get into the carbon dating problems, see the book C-14 Crash by Blöss and Nimitz. ...



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Fossils are underground, how can anything effect them from space? Not to mention it would have to be a carbon based molecule of the isotope C14 in order to disrupt this (proving life in space) . If it was anything else braking it then it would make it YOUNGER not older, because more C14 would be broken down. Plus if radioactive dating wasn't the same, then it would make carbon the single radioactive process that does so. All other radioactive decays that are from a one day difference in decay time to a millennium difference in decay time keep at a constant rate. Which means you're wrong.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Gorman91]

[removed quote of entire previous post]
Mod Edit: Quoting – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Well, what's wrong with it is that there is absolutely no empiric evidence for the existence of a god whatsoever, so at best the existence of such a being is a belief that not everyone shares, and even people who believe in a god don't necessarily believe in the same one, or even the same version of one.

God is subjective. That's why certain arguments drive many atheists to distraction -- they just seem absolutely ludicrous from a scientific point of view.


With the discovery of quantum space, there is plenty of room for a God. A region has been discovered to be outside the realm of time. God exists, it just has to deal with opening your mind to all forms of him. If you look past the thousands of years of corruption by man, God remains the same: a peace loving God who protects those when he promises to and opens his hands to all peoples of the universe. To take it in an off topic stance, whose to say Jesus doesn't just go planet to planet "saving" all beings?

But on topic, has it ever made you wonder perhaps it was God who made it so you could track down the ages of things and feel at awe at all the work he did before you ever were? Now, many would say "Well he's God, why take so long to do it?"

But then you have to realize: would you have more value to just have something pop up and know its invincible, or to have something that took ages to be formed into it's current state?

I know I'd value a 5 billion year old Earth over a mere 6 thousand year old Earth. Maybe that's why God took so long for it to be made, to increase you're love and respect of the world you are on.

But anyewho, I've had no credible proof to why Carbon dating would be bad.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   
OK, lets say for the sake of argument that I'm neither overly educated, nor religious. Lets also say that I read this thread, and then looked at what the arguments against radio carbon dating are.

Lets add that from what I just read on Google Scholar, there are some difficulties with radio carbon dating. Indicating its not a simple process, and that there is plenty of room for mistakes.

Finally lets say that I found an article that provides the exact arguments that the religious folks use to put down radio carbon dating. Just the sort of thing you were asking for.

Now, given those circumstances, please debunk each of the arguments, in an attempt to shed light on the subject for the unenlightened masses.

Lets start with this religious article. Please be sure to address each of the 5 arguments one at a time, then we can move to the google scholar articles later.

Bare in mind you dont know which side of the fence I sit, if any. This is just an exersize, using a random article on the internet.



1. First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.




2. The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.




3. Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.



[edit on 7/18/07 by makeitso]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   

4. 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. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.



5. Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position.



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   
It will be very difficult to refute parts of my own religion. (creates a paradox of sorts) But I will due so. Sadly, it is 2:02 AM in the morning where I live, and so I will do it tomorrow on a fresh brain. I'll do a little research and answer a little now, but don't respond until I am fully completed. (least the argument go off topic in refutes of my refutes).

Update: I'm too tired to do anything but say for one thing: Never in all my readings of the bible has it said the time gap between the creation of the universe and adam and eve. Tomorow I will explain how all this can be easily intagrated into science.
For Now, I bid you good night, and a very merry God blessed tommorow.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 08:33 AM
link   
The only time I've ever heard of Carbon 14 Dating being wrong is when Creationists use it wrong. "We used it on a rock(Not living material) and it got the wrong answer so Carbon 14 Dating is wrong!!!!"

Not that it matters. There are probably trees older then 6,000 years old out there somewhere. And of course the Mammoths we find frozen, and the dinosaur bones, and the Trilobyte Fossils...



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

1. First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates.



This could be true, but that means an outside source is responsible (all objects in motion (or reaction) continue in motion (or reaction) until something slows them down or speeds them up). Because fossils have been underground, they are unaltered. It is simply because the underground world is the best place to remain un effected by outside events. Underground, the vast layers of dirt and rock protect it very well.



2. The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years. There are a few reasons to believe this assumption is erroneous. The industrial revolution greatly increased the amount of carbon-12 released into the atmosphere through the burning of coal. Also, the atomic bomb testing around 1950 caused a rise in neutrons, which increased carbon-14 concentrations. The great flood which Noah and family survived would have uprooted and/or buried entire forests. This would decrease the release of carbon-12 to the atmosphere through the decay of vegetation.


All of which were at ground level, un effecting sub-terrain objects. Oh yea, the flood was for 40 days and 40 nights. Forests would survive by going into hibernation (as they do in winter) and then returning to a stable state post-flood. Thank God that trees do this, because without any trees, the O2 would be absorbed quickly by fire, people, and lava.






3. Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph, the flood provides another evidence that this is a faulty assumption. During the flood, subterranean water chambers that were under great pressure would have been breached. This would have resulted in an enormous amount of carbon-12 being released into the oceans and atmosphere. The effect would be not unlike opening a can of soda and having the carbon dioxide fizzing out. The water in these subterranean chambers would not have contained carbon-14, as the water was shielded from cosmic radiation. This would have upset the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12.


Once again, these were at ground level. Any subterranean chambers being breached would not be effecting fossils that are miles away. Because C14 and C12 do remain at a constant level in living things today, we can only know for sure they would have in the past. If altered, then this proves evolution as animals would have evolved to hold more or less of the elements in the future. But because completely frozen mammoths and other creatures perfectly preserved in ice have shown to be the same as today, then this shows us that it has never changed.





4. 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. The formation of carbon-14 increases with time, and at the time of creation was probably at or near zero. Since carbon-14 is radioactive, it begins to decay immediately as it’s formed. If you start with no carbon-14 in the atmosphere, it would take over 50,000 years for the amount being produced to reach equilibrium with the amount decaying. One of the reasons we know that the earth is less than 50,000 years old is because of the biblical record. Another reason we can know this is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is only 78% what it would be if the earth were old.


Well, you are talking about the atmosphere, not living materials. Life creates the balance until it dies and no longer can do this (obviously its dead, so it can't) secondly, the Bible speaks nothing of the gap of time in between creation, Adam, and then even more importantly, no time period between Adam and Noah. The bible gives a birth record if I remember correctly, But because people lived to be thousands of years back then, that leaves all the time needed. Let me ask you this, Would you value an Earth a mere 6000 or so years old, or one that God spent time creating and was 5 billion years old?



5. Finally, Dr. Libby and the evolutionist crowd have assumed that all plant and animal life utilize carbon-14 equally as they do carbon-12. To be grammatically crass, this ain’t necessarily so. Live mollusks off the Hawaiian coast have had their shells dated with the carbon-14 method. These test showed that the shells died 2000 years ago! This news came as quite a shock to the mollusks that had been using those shells until just recently.

The accuracy of carbon-14 dating relies on faulty assumptions, and is subject to human bias. At best, radiocarbon dating is only accurate for the past few thousand years. As we’ve seen though, even relatively youthful samples are often dated incorrectly. The Biblical record gives us an indication of an earth that is relatively young. The most reliable use of radiocarbon dating supports that position.


Good, shells evolved fast. Let us not forget that the Wollymammoth evolved into the elephant in just 2000 years. Mammals, I find at least, have faster evolution then other animals. The Earth has changed much throughout history. All cultures around the world speak of a great flooding some few thousand years ago. Let us not forget that this was right after the last Ice age that ended 10,000 years ago. As to the flood, well, There is not enough water on Earth to food everything, but of course, the seas may not have been as deep then, and became deep due to the water's weight on it.(much like glaciers create boulders due to their weight)

If there is anything else I failed to address please tell me, because I may have missed a little or not be clear on some things. To me, evolution goes perfectly in line with the bible, as the "x" number of years that were in between creation and Adam is never address. Supposedly, because the bible never said so, the seventh day is still happening.

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Gorman91]

[edit on 18-7-2007 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 18 2007 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lightstorm
There are probably trees older then 6,000 years old out there somewhere.


The red woods in California are many thousands of years old, and the petrified forest there also had to be present for millions of years to be petrified.

Well, many things also prove Earth's general age. Oil for instance requires million of years for organic materials to be pressurized and decay into oil.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
it's wrong if you're dating something outside of the range of dating...
or the wrong material...
but that's about it. it's a bit off by a few years, but it's good enough.



posted on Feb, 15 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Carbon Dating - The Premise
Carbon dating is a dating technique predicated upon three things:

* The rate at which the unstable radioactive C-14 isotope decays into the stable non-radioactive N-14 isotope,
* The ratio of C-12 to C-14 found in a given specimen,
* And the ratio C-12 to C-14 found in the atmosphere at the time of the specimen's death.

Carbon Dating - The Controversy
Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.1 We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"2 which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio).

And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176)

www.allaboutarchaeology.org...
find at the above website please check it out i also have a brain but believe in creation!!! from my own personal studies of radio metric dating my conclusion is that the unobservable past provides a big block for any evidence found with this formula there is too much wrong with it. but dont believe everything you hear or just take my word for it. found out for youself!!! dont just believe everything you hear, the seek the truth and you will find it.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
I'm a Christian, but I have a brain. I know that carbon dating is real. I just cannot see where creationists get the argument it is not accurate. Please tell me how you came to this argument? NOW, before you go and tell me, allow me to review what carbon dating is, stressing certain parts with capitol letters:

Carbon dating: The dating of ORGANIC material or ONCE ORGANIC material that WAS ONCE ALIVE in order to find how much CARBON 14 has been lost through the ages. all RADIATION decay keeps constant at all times and never changes. It divides by HALF its previous amount based at a CONSTANT rate.

So to all you guys who go and say "a rock from MT. St. Helen that was one day old showed up billion of years old", you must remember it was NOT alive and therefore cannot be accurately aged based on carbon. There are other materials that can be used, however.

So, why do you not believe it.

Under Certain Conditions carbon 14 can decay slower or faster than usual





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join