Carbon Dating, please tell me how it is wrong?

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
The website talkorigins.org lists all major points of criticism mentioned by creationists. It does not only present the creationists talking point, but will also provide sources and the reasoning behind their criticism.
www.talkorigins.org...




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
All RADIATION decay keeps constant at all times and never changes. It divides by HALF its previous amount based at a CONSTANT rate.
So, why do you not believe it.


If you want the short version it is because radiation decay is assumed to be constant but it MAY not be, or other unknown variables may effect the radiation levels on the earth at a given time. The true version is that the answer is a bit complicated.

It is human nature to think of absolutes. By simplifying things we can handle more information consciously. It is estimated that our brains process 2 billion bits of data per second, but are only conscious of 2,000 of them. Without such processes we would have to consciously regulate all bodily functions and would probably die because we forgot to breathe, or because we could never sleep.

However, science itself tells us reality is not absolute as perceived. The 5 senses interpret reality, but are not reality itself. To test this, take a white piece of paper with a black dot, and a black piece of paper with a white dot. Move that into your blind spot. both dots match the background around it. It is a hallucinated reality that the dot isn't there. Also hallucinated is our entire information is taken in upside down via our brains reflecting the signal and it is only our minds that flip them. There have been experiments with mirrored glasses and your mind adapts and flips the reality so you perceive it as right side up. After becoming accustomed to the glasses, it will appear upside down after taking them off until you adapt again.

There is no universal criterion of truth. Mathematical truths work GIVEN the context of the rules set. In reality Synergy tells us the sum of all parts is not equal to the whole. One man plus a woman and 9 months must equal more than 2 plus 9 months occasionally, or we wouldn't be here. One live killer plus another live killer do not always equal two live killers but sometimes 0 live ones, other times 1 or 2.

Ultimately everything we try to determine externally is only based upon our internal perceptions. So if the process of interpretation of reality is wrong, then everything we think we know could be wrong. There is no observable difference to a dreamer between a vividly imagined dream and reality itself. There is no single verifiable criterion of truth, therefore everything we observe should only be looked at as one potential consideration of reality given our other understandings using observation.

So any assumption I will challenged, at the same time respecting the probability that given observations are "correct", and given other people's studies are, that it probably has some merit. It's not as if we have something we have watched over thousands of years to verify that the rate of decay is always constant, which would certainly be a lot stronger evidence that it could hold up over a long period of time. In fact, there is evidence that it is not. If it wasn't, certainly that could throw a huge loop in a lot of assumed truths.

link

What some establishment tells me (religion, scientific or otherwise) is nothing I will accept even after research, but I will give a degree of credence (weight) to it that will always be less than 100%.
Many early scientists challenged the status quo, and were philosophers as well and it seems the scientific establishment is based upon scientists who when they challenge the most commonly accepted ideas are the ones that get in trouble.

In the early days the church-state would excommunicate them, or charge them with treason and hang them. But now they simply cut off access and/or funding. Very limited research was done on the relationships of quasars to galaxies, which happened to show evidence that Hubble, who measured galexies when concluding that the universe was expanding, and they seemed to contradict that evidence. Rather than investigate, they shut down the research.
kubj

A strong observed correlation on a very small scale relative to the things being dated (tens or hundreds of years tested and results in the millions) does not mean fact, and may not be an adequate sample size. Any correlation is working with a confidence interval, any math may be missing a variable.

I know that many subtle changes can potentially have effects, and although I don't dismiss carbon dating entirely, but I think assuming anything is "true" completely without conditions, is dangerous to our concept of reality. If our galaxy passed through a radioactive cloud in space, different results. If aliens visited they could have left foreign substances that effected radiation. If say Atlantis was a civilization more advance then ours before it fell, then they could have had nuclear plants or some other device that effected radiation. However implausible, there are always POSSIBLE alternative explanations for everything.
edit on 8-1-2012 by secretbonus because: addition
edit on 8-1-2012 by secretbonus because: addition2



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by secretbonus
 





If you want the short version it is because radiation decay is assumed to be constant but it MAY not be, or other unknown variables may effect the radiation levels on the earth at a given time. The true version is that the answer is a bit complicated.


It's assumed to be constant because only specific moments cause it to change. Namely, solar flares and resonance frequencies. And these things are incredibly rare. Resonance frequencies being only possible through active intelligent intent.

In the future, this is how you will destroy radiological elements in seconds rather than millennia. But this technology did not exist.

Furthermore, the act of a solar flare would result in half the world's fossils being hugely different in age to their similar species elsewhere.




It is human nature to think of absolutes. By simplifying things we can handle more information consciously. It is estimated that our brains process 2 billion bits of data per second, but are only conscious of 2,000 of them. Without such processes we would have to consciously regulate all bodily functions and would probably die because we forgot to breathe, or because we could never sleep.


False. The human brain is always in use. Different sectors flare up and different sectors blur down. Some people, myself included, have learned to even manipulate this data stream speed through prayer and meditation. But that's for another topic. Point is. It is fully possible to light up your brain at once and not die. You can forget to breathe in theory, but once you faint, basic human instinct takes over and the breathing returns. This is why you cannot strangle yourself to death with your own hands. The body has fail safes for this.




However, science itself tells us reality is not absolute as perceived. The 5 senses interpret reality, but are not reality itself. To test this, take a white piece of paper with a black dot, and a black piece of paper with a white dot. Move that into your blind spot. both dots match the background around it. It is a hallucinated reality that the dot isn't there. Also hallucinated is our entire information is taken in upside down via our brains reflecting the signal and it is only our minds that flip them. There have been experiments with mirrored glasses and your mind adapts and flips the reality so you perceive it as right side up. After becoming accustomed to the glasses, it will appear upside down after taking them off until you adapt again.


False. Reality is as it seems. Data is re-converted back to as it is. The data itself only exists as an abstract electric signal during its transmission to the brain. The brain knows how to change this signal back to what reality is because if it did not, it would be irrelevant data. The real world is not upside down. It is as it is. The reason the image is backwards is because that's how light works in lenses. Your brain knows this, and properly adjusts it.

Furthermore, the blind spot does not get made invisible. It does not exist because it is at a location your eyes cannot see. The nerve must pass through the retina, and that location has no detector cells for which to see. It is NOT that the location is a hallucination. It is that the eye literally has no cells to see at that location because the nerve is there.

Species that do not have this design have no blind spot.




There is no universal criterion of truth. Mathematical truths work GIVEN the context of the rules set. In reality Synergy tells us the sum of all parts is not equal to the whole. One man plus a woman and 9 months must equal more than 2 plus 9 months occasionally, or we wouldn't be here. One live killer plus another live killer do not always equal two live killers but sometimes 0 live ones, other times 1 or 2.


Metaphysical BS. All the data to create dozens of humans exist in the presence of one man and one female. Her egg and his sperm are simply not together. Mass is conserved and all data still present. There is simply no action taken to create more unique genetic identities. Two dead male killers have over 9000 half human beings.




Ultimately everything we try to determine externally is only based upon our internal perceptions. So if the process of interpretation of reality is wrong, then everything we think we know could be wrong. There is no observable difference to a dreamer between a vividly imagined dream and reality itself. There is no single verifiable criterion of truth, therefore everything we observe should only be looked at as one potential consideration of reality given our other understandings using observation.


False again. The act of observing changes nothing. It is the photon that hits a something that causes a change that then is sent back to our eyes by the photon entering it. The person bares no action of changing the thing. The light hitting it does. If you looked at something without any photons present, you would not change anything. You would not see anything. If you transmitted data directly from the thing to the human being, you would observe it without changing it, beyond the fact that the observation tool must send something to and back to confirm its existence.

Furthermore, have you ever lucidly dreamed? I have. A perfectly sane mind can easily delve into the dream state fully aware what they are seeing is not real, and willingly go deeper or leave the dream. There very much so is a discernment between dream and reality. I myself have a tendency to dream things in wire frame mode for some reason, with my brain adding color and data too it after the dream. Sometimes when I wake up, the dream still continues in my mind. The raw data must be in a different format from reality. But as I enter conscious, it is clearly visible what is dream and what is real. Because once I open my eyes, that data takes precedence, and the dream becomes nothing but a though occurring, as my brain is still processing the data causing the dream.

Most amusing: the last time I had a lucid dream, the trumpets at the intro of inception started playing while I fell into the dream. I chose not to put up with such silliness and woke up out of it. Bit of sleep paralysis. Fun none the less.



So any assumption I will challenged, at the same time respecting the probability that given observations are "correct", and given other people's studies are, that it probably has some merit. It's not as if we have something we have watched over thousands of years to verify that the rate of decay is always constant, which would certainly be a lot stronger evidence that it could hold up over a long period of time. In fact, there is evidence that it is not. If it wasn't, certainly that could throw a huge loop in a lot of assumed truths.


In fact we do. The dead.

Get in the real world. There are others far more advanced in these studies who know reality from dream.
edit on 8-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by secretbonus
 



False. The human brain is always in use. Different sectors flare up and different sectors blur down. Some people, myself included, have learned to even manipulate this data stream speed through prayer and meditation. But that's for another topic. Point is. It is fully possible to light up your brain at once and not die. You can forget to breathe in theory, but once you faint, basic human instinct takes over and the breathing returns. This is why you cannot strangle yourself to death with your own hands. The body has fail safes for this.

I am not arguing that the brain is always in use, but what percentage is conscious. Perhaps you can increase data stream and understanding consciously, but I am saying without the subconscious handling much of the organization from chaos to order, and functions to keep us alive, most of us could not handle the data load consciously. The point is, Our level of focus on a particular information we receive is not consciously thought at a very deep level at all times. Information gathered is at times incorrect. The instinct to breathe is a subconscious limbic system function along with the rest of the autonomic nervous system responses. Of course we breathe, but we don't usually do it consciously. It is the very subconscious response you speak of or "body's fail safes" that keep us alive as I am (and you are) trying to say. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear because it seems that you are not arguing against my point.



False. Reality is as it seems. Data is re-converted back to as it is. The data itself only exists as an abstract electric signal during its transmission to the brain. The brain knows how to change this signal back to what reality is because if it did not, it would be irrelevant data. The real world is not upside down. It is as it is. The reason the image is backwards is because that's how light works in lenses. Your brain knows this, and properly adjusts it.

This type of logic is a loop. "reality is as it is because it is". You are judging that how? Your electrical signals to your brain. IIf we were all in the matrix, none of this would be "real". I have had vivid dreams where I considered I may be dreaming and I could even "remember" what I did before I got into the situation. Reality could very well be abstract. I am well aware the way the brain adjusts to understand, that is my point, the brain adapts to try to make sense of chaos to put into an absolute understanding of the world, when all it is is an abstract series of electrical waves. A person we consider schizophrenic or delusional does not know he is crazy. Logic is not effective without context. Take away the emotional brain and one will analyze the light and shadow for hours, or brush his teeth 15 times a day because it seems "logical" but lacks the emotional context and understandings of motivations. A cold blooded killer or idiot criminal with the right emotionally damaged context will say "it seemed like a logical idea at the time". It can be as much an emotional sickness as it is logical.




Furthermore, the blind spot does not get made invisible. It does not exist because it is at a location your eyes cannot see. The nerve must pass through the retina, and that location has no detector cells for which to see. It is NOT that the location is a hallucination. It is that the eye literally has no cells to see at that location because the nerve is there.

Then the lack of cells would make it "always black". Try it with a more complex pattern, and you will still not see the dot, nor white or black, but the complex pattern. The mind hallucinates or attempts to reconstruct the pattern where the blindspot is. The area in which the blind-spot shows us a different vision of reality, is an optical illusion that blends in the background of whatever is around it. The brain is organizing order from chaos, to better make sense of it. Around 50% of the visual inputs is filtered out by the time it gets to our perception of reality. This is my point, not that reality shouldn't be trusted, but that we have no way of verifying it without perception itself.


Mathematical truth is the closest thing to "absolute" truth, but it is true given the rule set. If
.=1
..=3
...=2
then 1 plus 1 is 3. The rule set of what constitutes 1 is still needed. The context is needed.

With incorrect context you can have things that don't make sense

(2x)=x(1+2)
2x=1x+2x
2x=3x
2=3

This is a fallacious proof, because it starts with what we view as an "impossible" equation. It lacks the proper context, however if our feedback loop of gathering data is flawed, then our understanding of reality is flawed. We really just judge reality on our best guess estimation of our idea of understanding.

What we agree certain definitions are what makes up reality, but these definition can only be understood using our 5 senses. Optical illusions exist, a great illusion would be one of hallucinations of all sorts. I realize the "accepted" notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed, however it cannot be proven that it can't be, only that man has so far been unable to create or destroy matter. A single experiment in which matter is destroyed would prove that wrong, and from what I understand neutrino reactions appear to have proven that wrong although there are alternate explanations, of course.
edit on 8-1-2012 by secretbonus because: irrelevant information deleted, and addition
edit on 8-1-2012 by secretbonus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by secretbonus
 





The point is, Our level of focus on a particular information we receive is not consciously thought at a very deep level. Information gathered is incorrect. The instinct to breathe is a subconscious limbic system function along with the rest of the autonomic nervous system responses. From my understanding you certainly can cause oxygen deprivation of the brain that can result in severe coma or death, there have been instances of people playing the "fainting game" and dying from it, or going into a coma by repetition.


Repeated perhaps. I doubt death on the first time. And it depends on how much they were trying to force lack of oxygen. IE, was someone else doing it?





This type of logic is a loop. "reality is as it is because it is". You are judging that how? Your electrical signals to your brain. IIf we were all in the matrix, none of this would be "real". I have had vivid dreams where I considered I may be dreaming and I could even "remember" what I did before I got into the situation. Reality could very well be abstract. I am well aware the way the brain adjusts to understand, that is my point, the brain adapts to try to make sense of chaos to put into an absolute understanding of the world, when all it is is an abstract series of electrical waves. A person we consider schizophrenic or delusional does not know he is crazy. Logic is not effective without context. Take away the emotional brain and one will analyze the light and shadow for hours, or brush his teeth 15 times a day because it seems "logical" but lacks the emotional context and understandings of motivations.


No. Logic would say this is a waste of time and to go do something else with your life.

Let me tell you how reality is real. Certain parts of the brain will always process the same thing. However, where the actual word "cat", and its meaning, is stored on your brain, is not the same as it is on my brain.

If we were in the matrix, the location of the word Cat would be predetermined, and its location always the same. Why? Why because it's logical. It is illogical to have a system file manager that sorts the same file and same system in different locations and across different patters in the brain. It would be more efficient to store this data on a single source, at the same location, mass produced. This is why our brains have the same location for just such logical operations, like walking and talking. But that which is learned is never in the same location, because we each learn different.

Even though we learn different, and the location is at a different location, and a different pattern, it is still possible to now visualize what the mind sees in this data, even if it is different. As a result, we know it is real. Because the different data from different brains reveals the same actual processing in the final product.

Encryption works similar. It's how we can hack into a video game. Search a code, change it on the game, then search the new value. Every time you play that game, the code value will have a different index on the memory, but the data will always reveal the same results. This process of identification always allows you to hack the code, giving you, say, infinite life. We know that that data is real.





Then the lack of cells would make it "always black". Try it with a more complex pattern, and you will still not see the dot, nor white or black, but the complex pattern. The mind hallucinates or attempts to reconstruct the pattern where the blindspot is. The area in which the blind-spot shows us a different vision of reality, is an optical illusion that blends in the background of whatever is around it. The brain is organizing order from chaos, to better make sense of it. Around 50% of the visual inputs is filtered out by the time it gets to our perception of reality. This is my point, not that reality shouldn't be trusted, but that we have no way of verifying it without perception itself.


No, black is a receptor. It's no different than how you cannot see the edge of your vision, even though you know it exists. Don't you imagine what you're thinking in a sort of third visual field? Yet your eyes can never actual see this field. It is a field of view only for your mind. You know your vision is limited, but you cannot see the border.




This is a fallacious proof, because it starts with what we view as an "impossible" equation. It lacks the proper context, however if our feedback loop of gathering data is flawed, then our understanding of reality is flawed. We really just judge reality on our best guess estimation of our idea of understanding.


metaphysical silliness.




What we agree certain definitions are what makes up reality, but these definition can only be understood using our 5 senses. Optical illusions exist, a great illusion would be one of hallucinations of all sorts. I realize the "accepted" notion that matter cannot be created or destroyed, however it cannot be proven that it can't be, only that man has so far been unable to create or destroy matter. A single experiment in which matter is destroyed would prove that wrong, and from what I understand neutrino reactions appear to have proven that wrong although there are alternate explanations, of course.


You cannot destroy it because it must exist. Reality is no different. If you destroyed it, then it never existed right? I mean there's no way to confirm it ever existed if you destroyed it. If it can be destroyed, then it never existed in the first place.

edit on 8-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by secretbonus
 




Repeated perhaps. I doubt death on the first time. And it depends on how much they were trying to force lack of oxygen. IE, was someone else doing it?


Correct, not on first time. Students were concerned at how often the student did so. The death I read about was not due to strangulation but oxygen deprivation, so I concede that your original point is still valid, but I understand that to be a subconscious response.



No. Logic would say this is a waste of time and to go do something else with your life.

Logic under the emotional context "this feels boring" or "given there are different underlying "rewards" based on my emotions, there are more productive things to do". The desire "my teeth are not perfectly yellow, white teeth was said to be desirable (no way of verifying without emotion) therefore I should brush my teeth until they are white" is certainly not an illogical statement. Governed by logic alone the process bares repeating. Given that certain things have different priorities based upon some concept of moving towards reward or away from pleasure, and that the return on brushing your teeth each time you brush it gets reduced, it is not logical, but note that you had to place context for that understanding.


Let me tell you how reality is real. Certain parts of the brain will always process the same thing. However, where the actual word "cat", and its meaning, is stored on your brain, is not the same as it is on my brain.

If we were in the matrix, the location of the word Cat would be predetermined, and its location always the same. Why? Why because it's logical. It is illogical to have a system file manager that sorts the same file and same system in different locations and across different patters in the brain. It would be more efficient to store this data on a single source, at the same location, mass produced. This is why our brains have the same location for just such logical operations, like walking and talking. But that which is learned is never in the same location, because we each learn different.

Even though we learn different, and the location is at a different location, and a different pattern, it is still possible to now visualize what the mind sees in this data, even if it is different. As a result, we know it is real. Because the different data from different brains reveals the same actual processing in the final product.

Encryption works similar. It's how we can hack into a video game. Search a code, change it on the game, then search the new value. Every time you play that game, the code value will have a different index on the memory, but the data will always reveal the same results. This process of identification always allows you to hack the code, giving you, say, infinite life. We know that that data is real.


A very good, thought provoking response, you certainly could be right... However I can think of a scenario where programming would be more advanced and artificial intelligence would rise to a level eventually that it is nearly equivalent to real life and it's holographic memory, with holographic data on a holographic system (one molecule could contain the entire information contained in all the universe). It could certainly happen in less than millions of years that power supply isn't limited. Scientific view of the universe is much older. The motivations would be to accurately simulate reality would be to predict, as well as try to understand and better redefine the various variables of reality. Those trying to accurately simulate a reality almost exactly like our own that had the potential to do so and computing millions of years more advanced, certainly may not be concerned as much with the ease of the file storage system. Additionally, if we were the product of a 4th dimensional (or higher) being or beings (or perhaps G-d) coding the "matrix" they may not have the same usage of file system, nor be concerned about such an organizational structure. In any case I still maintain the concept of reality COULD be abstract, or an illusion of sorts.



No, black is a receptor. It's no different than how you cannot see the edge of your vision, even though you know it exists. Don't you imagine what you're thinking in a sort of third visual field? Yet your eyes can never actual see this field. It is a field of view only for your mind. You know your vision is limited, but you cannot see the border.


The blind spot doesn't have color cones to perceive color, yet your mind "sees" colors, or interprets the colors around it and fills it in. What you should see, you don't.
Isn't the mind's filling in of the background color into a void of color on the piece of paper a "hallucination" of sorts? Perhaps that's a dramatic word and there's a more appropriate one?



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by secretbonus
 





Logic under the emotional context "this feels boring" or "given there are different underlying "rewards" based on my emotions, there are more productive things to do". The desire "my teeth are not perfectly yellow, white teeth was said to be desirable (no way of verifying without emotion) therefore I should brush my teeth until they are white" is certainly not an illogical statement. Governed by logic alone the process bares repeating. Given that certain things have different priorities based upon some concept of moving towards reward or away from pleasure, and that the return on brushing your teeth each time you brush it gets reduced, it is not logical, but note that you had to place context for that understanding.


Boredom is not based of emotions. Things get bored. The mind wants to do something. It evolved to process data. Not to sit around doing nothing. This is not emotion. This is a bored mind.

You should prefer white teeth because it is healthier, not because people say it is. Because yellow teeth is staining and decay. Things that ultimately don't look good because the human eye was made to pick up differences. And there are several points on the face the human brain is programmed to look at. Teeth, eyes, etc etc. The human brain evolved to pick up these visual cues to understand a person. And altering them automatically causes the brain to be blocked from understanding something, which annoys it. It is not logical to constantly brush your teeth because if it is not working, you are doing the same thing and expecting different results. That's insanity.

Furthermore, logic can cause the doing of things without any reason. These are isolated actions that have no reason to be done, and no goals to doing it. They are simply done. Maybe you call that crimes of passion and emotion. But that's also part of the brain.

To separate logic and emotion as something else is to ignore the fact that the human mind uses logic to create emotion, and uses emotion to create logic. There really is no difference at the core of a tame mind. In fact, there are illogical things that are perfectly logical at the end of the day.

These enter into areas of faith. Why did I trust a sudden blast into my mind of a location and time? Because I had faith it was important. No emotion was present. It was given, I did. The logical reason for doing it was present after doing it.




A very good, thought provoking response, you certainly could be right... However I can think of a scenario where programming would be more advanced and artificial intelligence would rise to a level eventually that it is nearly equivalent to real life and it's holographic memory, with holographic data on a holographic system (one molecule could contain the entire information contained in all the universe). It could certainly happen in less than millions of years that power supply isn't limited. Scientific view of the universe is much older. The motivations would be to accurately simulate reality would be to predict, as well as try to understand and better redefine the various variables of reality. Those trying to accurately simulate a reality almost exactly like our own that had the potential to do so and computing millions of years more advanced, certainly may not be concerned as much with the ease of the file storage system. Additionally, if we were the product of a 4th dimensional (or higher) being or beings (or perhaps G-d) coding the "matrix" they may not have the same usage of file system, nor be concerned about such an organizational structure. In any case I still maintain the concept of reality COULD be abstract, or an illusion of sorts.


The human mind is infinite in its imagination. Yet limited in its matter.

If you simulated the human brain, you would simulate a simulator that can simulate more than the simulator.

There's thought provoking.


It is possible to deactivate all sensory import into the human mind. The only way to tell if reality is abstract would b to raise someone like that from birth, than look into their mind to see what reality they constructed.



The blind spot doesn't have color cones to perceive color, yet your mind "sees" colors, or interprets the colors around it and fills it in. What you should see, you don't. Isn't the mind's filling in of the background color into a void of color on the piece of paper a "hallucination" of sorts? Perhaps that's a dramatic word and there's a more appropriate one?


You don't see it. That's the point. It would be like if you lost an eye. If you simply close it, you see black. In time, you would not see that lost eye at all. Although you see less, your mind would no longer see even the darkness of the lost eye. Because no data would be sent.
edit on 8-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   


The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the “half-life.” So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

www.christiananswers.net...

I for one believe that Carbon dating is a big fat hoax. Why? Because we need something believable to make sense out of something we cannot comprehend. This is why I believe Carbon dating was created. So we could understand the past and how old things were.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:13 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.








PROBLEM: Decay is not constant and is variable. They just didn't know it at the time.

Humans hate to admit it but we have no idea. We can always guess on things that we observe to be fact at this time and space. We have no idea how the universe impacts our physical world.

Strange emissions by sun are mutating matter
www.projectworldawareness.com...

The Rate of Decay of Carbon-14 is speeding up. Now depending how fast this is speeding up and how long it has been speeding up, and if the speeding up is constant or not, you can make an assumption that very old things could be much older than they appear to be. Also, does it speed up and slow down? How much is this variation over time?



The “impossible” has been proven to be true. Laboratories around the globe have confirmed that the rate of radioactive decay—once thought to be a constant and a bedrock of science—is no longer a constant.


www.popsci.com...



This phenomenon might explain changing rates of radioactive decay scientists observed at two separate labs. But it does not explain why the decay-change happens. That violates the laws of physics as we know them.





our understanding of nuclear physics in general -- is a lot weaker than we thought.

edit on 8-1-2012 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 





PROBLEM: Decay is not constant and is variable. They just didn't know it at the time. Humans hate to admit it but we have no idea. We can always guess on things that we observe to be fact at this time and space. We have no idea how the universe impacts our physical world.


Please do tell. By what rate do they fluctuate? Do they produce eons-off results? Because I'll save you the time. They do not.

edit on 8-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by infolurker
 





PROBLEM: Decay is not constant and is variable. They just didn't know it at the time. Humans hate to admit it but we have no idea. We can always guess on things that we observe to be fact at this time and space. We have no idea how the universe impacts our physical world.


Please do tell. By what rate do they fluctuate? Do they produce eons-off results? Because I'll save you the time. They do not.

edit on 8-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



Really? And how do you know that? Today the half-life of 5730 years.

What was it 500 years ago?

What was it 5,000 years ago?

How has the rates of carbon absorption changed over the eons?


You have no idea. I know you hate to admit it but nobody knows for sure.

That is the problem with 'literal" religion and science. Preconceived notions based on beliefs and perceptions and the inability to admit that you beliefs could be wrong.

The longer we investigate the more we find that "constants" become "variables".
edit on 8-1-2012 by infolurker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by infolurker
 





Really? And how do you know that? Today the half-life of 5730 years. What was it 500 years ago? What was it 5,000 years ago? How has the rates of carbon absorption changed over the eons?


Sigh.

That is neither how half life works, nor what the article you, yourself, posted.




You have no idea. I know you hate to admit it but nobody knows for sure.


In fact we do know for sure.




That is the problem with 'literal" religion and science. Preconceived notions based on beliefs and perceptions and the inability to admit that you beliefs could be wrong. The longer we investigate the more we find that "constants" become "variables".



Here's how it is then.

Half life never changes.

Some things, however, accelerate it. The constant itself never changes. The environment does


If you put a Carbon 14 on Jupiter, it would be changed just a little bit because of the pressure change.

The rate is always the same. The environment can speed, or slow, this process.


HOWEVER. These changes are ever so gradual for huge scale changes. Dumping carbon 14 into the sun will also change the rate. But not by a whole lot.



That's the point. It doesn't change under any significant level. And if they did change by any significant level, I would ponder a question of where the supernova-scale event that caused that went.
edit on 8-1-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Clearly, radiometric dating is wrong because if it were right, you'd be completely insane to claim the earth is only 10,000 years old. And of course those people aren't insane, right? RIGHT?


The margin of error is so small, claiming the earth is 10,000 years old, or that humans are only on earth for that long is lunatic!!



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Nerdling
 


Because other species have things like computers, space travel, ect.


I don't think many Christians hold the idea that the Earth is 6000 years old thankfully.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lightstorm
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...



I was gonna create a similar thread but since this thread was resurrected – I'll post my 2 cents.

Part of the problem imho why this issue will always come up is the confusion of what C14 (aka Radiocarbon Dating) is all about and what it is for and what Radiometric Dating is all about and what it is for.

Here's a quick summary:


Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years.


en.wikipedia.org...


Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating) is a technique used to date materials such as rocks, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.


en.wikipedia.org...

See the confusion?

C14 is also considered as part of or a continuation the whole radiometric dating process.

Which should not be the case imho.

Why?

For a stated fact that C14 or Radiocarbon Dating is primarily used for dating (once living now dead and buried) CARBON LIFE FORMS. Where the C14 Isotopes have a “half life of 5,730 years” (great tool for archaeologist).

While Radiometric Dating is used for dating ROCKS – igneous, metamorphic and other types of ROCKS. Where the Isotopes Series have very long “half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion year” (great tool for geologist).

Here's how it's explained:


“the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.


www.actionbioscience.org...

Notice the span of accuracy - “5730 years” - at this range C14 is deemed accurate – beyond this point, the accuracy level goes down. In fact as stated “the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years”.

So what's the solution?


“Scientists can use different chemicals for absolute dating: ·

Radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years. Subtle differences in the relative proportions of the two isotopes can give good dates for rocks of any age.


www.actionbioscience.org...


It is when (the other) Radiometric Dating methods (i.e. rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead) are used to extend the “life” of a "dead" carbon material that errors occur.

Why?

Because as already stated - “the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years,” - which means carbon has been depleted. The older the “specimen” the less likelihood that C14 is present.

So at this stage – what's being “carbon dated” is not the “once living” carbon material but the ROCKS of which the carbon life form was buried in.

Thus it's not surprising at all to read or hear news of a “100 million old fossil” - because the “fossil” itself is not the “actual” fossil but a resemblance or an “IMPRINT” of the once alive life form.

The Radiometric dating method "picked up / counted" not the C14 but any of the other isotopes – having a “very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years”.

because “fossils” are formed this way:


”Slowly the weight of the sediment compacts the underlying areas, pressing the grains together, driving excess water out, and depositing minerals in the pores, and ultimately turning the soft sediment to hard rock - a process known as lithification.”


Courtesy of Astyanax: www.discoveringfossils.co.uk...

But if a bone is carbon dated then it's approximate age can be calculated. In fact many of the errors made in the past due to the incorrect dating methodology were corrected when the process was changed.

Notice just a sample of many such corrections:


(continued...)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:38 AM
link   
...

A 1986 Science News, under the title “New Dates for ‘Early’ Tools,” reported:


“Four bone artifacts thought to provide evidence for are, at most, only about 3,000 years old, report archaeologist D. Earl Nelson of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia and his colleagues in the May 9 SCIENCE. . . .

“The difference in age estimates between the two types of carbon samples from the same bone is, to say the least, significant. For example, a ‘flesher’ used to remove flesh from animal skins was first given a radiocarbon age of 27,000 years old. That age has now been revised to about 1,350 years old.”—May 10, 1986.

Notice the correction made on the famous Del Mar and Sunnyvale bones:

“Uranium series analyses of human bone samples from the Del Mar and Sunnyvale sites indicate ages of 11,000 and 8,300 years, respectively. The dates are supported by internal concordancy between thorium-230 and protactinium-231 decay systems. These ages are significantly younger than the estimates of 48,000 and 70,000 years based on amino acid racemization, and indicate that the individuals could derive from the population waves that came across the Bering Strait during the last sea-level low.”

The error was due to heat.

Also as already explained by other posters – the accuracy of the various dating methods greatly depends on the amount of radioactive materials in the “specimen” as well as in the atmosphere.

Since no one knows how much radiation / decay was present in the past thousands years let alone millions of years, then the calculations are very subjective.

Then there's also the “close system” criteria. No one knows for sure if the “specimen” being measured is a “close system”. That is, all of the radioactive isotopes remained intact. Nothing removed – nothing added. That the environment have zero effect. No contamination.

If it's an “open system” specimen – then all bet's off since no one can be sure if the isotopes present in the specimen was recently replenished or not.

We can also add the accuracy of the dating instruments/apparatus themselves – do they affect the results? If yes at what rate? Will it give different results?

Factor in also human error and most of all the intent of the measurement.

If the intent is to prove Evolution correct then we can expect that ONLY favorable results will be presented to the “uneducated” public.

Like the following report:


”Discovery of a 160-Million-Year-Old Fossil Represents a New Milestone in Early Mammal Evolution.”


www.sciencedaily.com...

Even though in all honesty – it wasn't the “actual bone” that was dated but imprints on the rock – a 160 million year old rock to be precise.

Now like I said - C14 is a great tool for archaeologist because it can be used to confirm the age of an artifact within the half-life of carbon. And since it coincides with the Biblical age of man we can use it verify and confirm Biblical artifacts.

As for the other Radiometric Dating methods – like I said great tool for geology as it can be used to date the earth's geologic strata. In fact this is the method in which the age of the earth was calculated.

My 2 cents – correct me if I'm wrong (if ur still around).



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Well, you are wrong about radiometric dating. While Carbon-14 has a short half life, it's not necessary to date the actual fossil if you can date the immediate rocks/soil surrounding it. For example, if a dinosaur fossil is enclosed in a layer of rocks, it has the same age.

It's called bracketing.

In short, the margin of error of dating fossils is really really small given the timescales involved.




Since no one knows how much radiation / decay was present in the past thousands years let alone millions of years, then the calculations are very subjective.


Given that radioactive decay is hardly influenced by outside influences, it's only logical to assume it hasn't changed. Either way, crazy stuff like a 10k year old earth is obvious nonsense and beyond laughable
edit on 10-1-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
The Suns emissions are not constant.

That's why Carbon dating is not 100% correct.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

www.christiananswers.net...

This is a great site for answers to your question. It scientifically goes over the process and the problems that arise.

I can tell you in general, it doesn't take millions of years to get fossils, only pressure.. for example, flash flooding. It is suggested, by some, that flash flooding is actually required to get fossils at all... and if you believe in Biblical account, at one point the world flooded. That is to suggest that dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time and they are finding things proving that as well such as fossils and the Ica stones. Finding different stones depicting different dinosaurs... implying that the people must have seen them... also implying that the dinosaurs were not around millions of years ago. Thats Taboo to any Darwinist, but hey.. facts are facts. Seems ignorant to me that they wouldnt acknowledge that as enough evidence to rethink their dating process.



posted on Mar, 15 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
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.

I'd like to see the scientific study on that one. I wasn't aware of this discovery. I was under the impression that alternate dimensions, and theories like String/M are pure mathematics, not based on tangible evidence. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

All in all a good topic, and I agree for the most part. A creator could have used evolution, and things like that as tools. What is more awe inspiring? Thinking the world is 6000 years old, and everything was created exactly as is or realizing the earth is billions of years old, and to go from single cell to human took 3+ billion years, and we are the pinnacle of this process currently. That's pretty amazing if you think about it. If anything those things should strengthen people's faiths, not turn them against science.

The issues with carbon dating are silly. There are several methods of dating, many of which verify one another. Most young earthers ignore this. If c-14 dating was all that existed, I could see where the beef comes from, but several different types of measurement say the same thing. The breakdown rate of these isotopes is a stone cold fact and is observable today. For the rates of each one of those to change suddenly, simultaneously, and drastically would be unrealistic, plus there's no evidence to suggest the rates do change. Why would a creator intentionally make the earth and universe appear to be old if it wasn't?
edit on 15-3-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)





 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join