Carbon Dating, please tell me how it is wrong?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
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)


Problem with bracketing is that the earth is dynamic and renews itself (due to many factors) - thus the crusts that were once on top are now in the lower or bottom layer. Depending on the fossil deposition, that is where the fossil got bracketed then the age of the "fossil" will be dependent on the age of the surrounding rocks.

So in reality what bracketing does is actually dating the rocks not the actual fossil that's been long gone. Thus it's not unusual to find statements like "found a 100 million year old fossil" because the rock is 100 million years old.

Then gullible people who have no idea what carbon dating is all about gets bamboozled.

know what I mean?

tc.




posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Your argument would make sense if the fossils could freely move around rock formations...instead of moving as part of specific layers...lucky for us, in reality, they don't



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 






. It divides by HALF its previous amount based at a CONSTANT rate.


...



A team of scientists from Purdue and Stanford universities has found that the decay of radioactive isotopes fluctuates in synch with the rotation of the sun's core.


www.physorg.com...

The forces that determine the rate of decay in isotopes are still unknown. It would be an unfair premise to state that such fluctuations have not differed in the past.and to what extent they have occurred.
edit on 16-3-2012 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


You forgot to post 2 important parts about that study





In general, the fluctuations that Jenkins and Fischbach have found are around a tenth of a percent from what is expected, as they've examined available published data and taken some measurements themselves.

The team has not yet examined isotopes used in medical radiation treatments or for dating of ancient artifacts.


So the variation is only 1/10th of a percent, and only 2 isotopes have been tested...



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Most of the Christian arguments about the inaccuracy of carbon dating go back to the infancy of carbon dating.

You need to calibrate carbon dating and that was not well establish early on.

Now in many area's it has been cross correlated with tree ring dating and it should be acurate back to about 10-15 thousand years.



posted on Mar, 16 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 




So the variation is only 1/10th of a percent , and only 2 isotopes have been tested...


Yes but the force of nature that is causing the change has not been determined. So now one can say with accuracy that this has not fluctuated in the past



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Most of the Christian arguments about the inaccuracy of carbon dating go back to the infancy of carbon dating.

You need to calibrate carbon dating and that was not well establish early on.

Now in many area's it has been cross correlated with tree ring dating and it should be acurate back to about 10-15 thousand years.


I'm quite surprised that you're putting your faith of tree rings to ensure the accuracy of carbon dating Wildbob.

For instance can you guaranty that the growth of tree rings lets say 5000 years ago remained constant when compared to tree rings 10K ago?

Are you really sure that environmental conditions had no effect on the growth of tree rings? That is, will trees growing in temperate or warm climate areas have the same growth rate with trees growing on colder areas?

Do you know if the world climate remained constant in the past or did it fluctuate? What about the ice age? Did it have any effect on tree growth? Did it speed up the growth of tree rings or slowed it down? What about after the ice age? Any effect on tree ring growth? Does the environment have any effect on the thickness of tree rings?

Also what methods do you use for dendrochronology if the specimen came from a temperate area, do you use the same guidelines as those found in colder areas?

Also what do you do if you're not sure of the age of the tree? Do you carbon date it? If so then which one is correct? If the c-14 is correct then why do you need tree rings to calibrate it?

But if your not sure about the accuracy of c-14 how can you guaranty that the age of the tree is correct?

So on and on the question is unending - sadly those who depend on tree rings don't even bother to answer these questions.

How 'bout you Wildbob - can you tell me which one is accurate - tree rings or c-14?

tc.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by edmc^2
 


Your argument would make sense if the fossils could freely move around rock formations...instead of moving as part of specific layers...lucky for us, in reality, they don't


hmmm any idea what this article is saying?


Chapter 12:

Recycling the Earth's Crust Rocks at the surface of the Earth are of many different ages, ranging from over 3 billion years old to less than 1 million years old. Because under ordinary circumstance matter can neither be created or destroyed, the new, younger rocks must have originated from older crustal material - older rocks. Older rocks are destroyed by weathering processes and the remains are recycled into new rocks. This cycle from old rocks to new rocks is called the rock cycle.


Also:


Rocks are heated, metamorphosed, melted, weathered, sediment is transported, deposited and lithified, then it may be metamorphosed again in yet another cycle. This recycling of the material of the Earth's crust has been going on for billions of years, as far back as there is a preserved geologic record (about 4 billion years). The diagram above represents the different processes involved in the rock cycle. Weathering and erosion at the earth's surface can break down rocks into small bits. These can be deposited as sediments that become sedimentary rocks. Burial, with rising pressure and temperature, can alter sedimentary (as well as any other) rocks to form metamorphic rocks. Continued rise in temperature can eventually melt rocks and produce magma. Cooling of magmas leads to igneous rocks, etc.


www.indiana.edu...

So if the earth crust gets recycled do fossils remained the same, not altered at all?

must be a miracle.

tc.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
For instance can you guaranty that the growth of tree rings lets say 5000 years ago remained constant when compared to tree rings 10K ago?

Are you really sure that environmental conditions had no effect on the growth of tree rings? That is, will trees growing in temperate or warm climate areas have the same growth rate with trees growing on colder areas?

Do you know if the world climate remained constant in the past or did it fluctuate? What about the ice age? Did it have any effect on tree growth? Did it speed up the growth of tree rings or slowed it down? What about after the ice age? Any effect on tree ring growth? Does the environment have any effect on the thickness of tree rings?
Tree rings are annual. This means one year aka one revolution of the earth around the sun. The changing climate and going through the seasons is exactly why it happens. Of course the last glacial period affected rings. They were still annual, however, they'd just be presumably smaller because of a colder environment and slower growth, depending on where it was. C-14 dating is not accurate to the year, so the tree rings would be the more accurate tool, but you won't be able to go back as far.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by KKaiser85
 


That site is closed minded and stupid. I choose to read the bible and make up my own mind. If you wish someone else to censor the bible and make it friends for you, that's your own problem. I prefer the word of God. The same word of God that makes it quite clear that the universe is not as young as you would suppose. Unless, of course, you wish to believe that the entire life story of Satan, the war in heaven, and everything else, happened in 7 days.

Read the bible. You will find right off the bat, in Genesis, that the first two chapters are not consistent, and they are not the same perspective. So right from the beginning God is telling you "I do not see the world as you do".



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


It would take some huge magnitude of energy to change them on any significant level. The sun's activities is barely even significant.

Thus if you would suppose some external force is causing it (and it would not be the sun, as it is too weak), you would then have to suppose that either humanity herself has caused it through lost technological achievements, or God is just trolling.

I'd like to think God is pretty truthful with his creative works. I see no reason why anything he has made would be false unless through man made causes.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
For instance can you guaranty that the growth of tree rings lets say 5000 years ago remained constant when compared to tree rings 10K ago?

Are you really sure that environmental conditions had no effect on the growth of tree rings? That is, will trees growing in temperate or warm climate areas have the same growth rate with trees growing on colder areas?

Do you know if the world climate remained constant in the past or did it fluctuate? What about the ice age? Did it have any effect on tree growth? Did it speed up the growth of tree rings or slowed it down? What about after the ice age? Any effect on tree ring growth? Does the environment have any effect on the thickness of tree rings?
Tree rings are annual. This means one year aka one revolution of the earth around the sun. The changing climate and going through the seasons is exactly why it happens. Of course the last glacial period affected rings. They were still annual, however, they'd just be presumably smaller because of a colder environment and slower growth, depending on where it was. C-14 dating is not accurate to the year, so the tree rings would be the more accurate tool, but you won't be able to go back as far.





so the tree rings would be the more accurate tool, but you won't be able to go back as far.


That's just one of the problem using tree rings as calibration tool to calibrate an inaccurate tool. Up to what point can you use a very flimsy tool such as tree rings to calibrate an already limited tool? How far can you go back?

tc.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Radiocarbon dating can be used to estimate the age of organic things from about 500 years to about 6000 years ago.....

en.wikipedia.org...

... that outer limit does not take us back far enough to the dinosaur, and other methods are used for dating in such cases.

It requires something more than just reading a radiation counter - there has to be some consideration of what the object is and how it absorbed carbon when it was last alive. Before all that was worked out, there were some very strange calculations (especially about stuff like shellfish) and the anti-evolution crowd still references those early mistakes.



posted on Mar, 17 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shoonra
Radiocarbon dating can be used to estimate the age of organic things from about 500 years to about 6000 years ago.....

en.wikipedia.org...

... that outer limit does not take us back far enough to the dinosaur, and other methods are used for dating in such cases.

It requires something more than just reading a radiation counter - there has to be some consideration of what the object is and how it absorbed carbon when it was last alive. Before all that was worked out, there were some very strange calculations (especially about stuff like shellfish) and the anti-evolution crowd still references those early mistakes.





... that outer limit does not take us back far enough to the dinosaur, and other methods are used for dating in such cases.


And that's where it becomes muddy.

But don't get me wrong, carbon dating is an excellent tool when it comes to dating ancient artifacts such manuscripts and potteries and many more - as long as it's within its accuracy threshold of 6000 years. Beyond that like you said:




other methods are used for dating in such cases.


And that's exactly what's being done:

Notice this evolution link below:
www.actionbioscience.org...

It states that:


“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.


Notice - Radiometric dating is implemented as opposed to carbon dating for the simple reason that carbon isotopes had been depleted because c14 has a half-life of only "5730 years".

In other words - c14 is long gone.

But by using radiometric dating - the specimen being dated in no longer the "fossil" but metamorphic rocks or other types of rock. The process is called "bracketing".

So again, it's not a big surprise if we read reports of paleontologists finding 100 years old "fossils" because it's the rock that was dated not the "fossil".

Then this gets reported in popular scientific magazines then gets quoted in newspapers then gets reported in the news without any questions, then viola - the public accepts it as truth.

tc.
edit on 17-3-2012 by edmc^2 because: gets



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
That's just one of the problem using tree rings as calibration tool to calibrate an inaccurate tool. Up to what point can you use a very flimsy tool such as tree rings to calibrate an already limited tool? How far can you go back?


I'm going off the top of my head, but I believe c-14 dating can only go back 60,000 years and is usually accurate within a few hundred years, depending on how old it is. I was saying that tree rings would be better to more precisely date something, although different methods are used for older fossils.



posted on Mar, 18 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   
God dwells outside of time not within time… He doesn’t need time to create things because He created time. In other words God can do things that take a lot of time in no time at all.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
That's just one of the problem using tree rings as calibration tool to calibrate an inaccurate tool. Up to what point can you use a very flimsy tool such as tree rings to calibrate an already limited tool? How far can you go back?


I'm going off the top of my head, but I believe c-14 dating can only go back 60,000 years and is usually accurate within a few hundred years, depending on how old it is. I was saying that tree rings would be better to more precisely date something, although different methods are used for older fossils.


Let's just say that c14 can "go back 60,000 years and is usually accurate within a few hundred years" - it still fall short of the supposedly age of dinosaurs.

So here again, is the problem - c14 is no longer a valid tool for dating "dinosaur 'fossil" remains.

Solution, as mentioned in the link you've provided:


“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.


And like I said - since carbon isotopes has a half-life of



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
I think the further you go in time, the more wrong they get.
But I'm no expert but just my gut feeling.

Like for example, since dinosaurs died millions and millions of years ago (according dating), how is it possible they found soft tissue from a T-Rex?
discovermagazine.com...


Once, when she was working with a T. Rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says.

"The guy looked at it and said, 'Do you realize you've got red blood cells in that bone?' " Schweitzer remembers. "My colleague brought it back and showed me, and I just got goose bumps, because everyone knows these things don't last for 65 million years."

If soft tissue can last 65 million years, Horner says, "there may be a lot of things out there that we've missed because of our assumption of how preservation works." James Farlow, a paleontologist at Indiana University–Purdue University at Fort Wayne, adds, "If you can preserve soft tissue under these circumstances, all bets are off."


T-Rex tissue:


edit on 19-3-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Nerdling
 


Actually quite recently a scientist discovered that the decay rate of these elements they always thought was stable varies from one side of the earth to the other due to sunlight . In other words the decay rate can vary on a cloudy day , so when you are dating ancient objects the dates can be way off.




TextWhen researchers found an unusual linkage between solar flares and the inner life of radioactive elements on Earth, it touched off a scientific detective investigation that could end up protecting the lives of space-walking astronauts and maybe rewriting some of the assumptions of physics.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Carbon Dating is used by creationists as a blanket term for ANY form of radio-metric dating, or essentially any dating techniques that they think contradict that story at the beginning of the Bible with the talking snake in it.

Carbon dating can't date anything older than around 60,000 years or so and because of this no dinosaur fossil can be dated with carbon-14 yet I still see creationists all the time saying they can't believe dinosaurs are really that old because of carbon dating.


edit on 19-3-2012 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join