Carbon Dating, please tell me how it is wrong?

reply to post by Gorman91

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

Since the relationship between the sun and radioactive decay on earth is not understood it would be incorrect to say it would take a huge magnitude of energy. The forces that cause this are simply unknown. It is a very recent observation and its causes remain unknown.

Its like having a clock on your wall and every so often it looses time. If you do not know how its loosing time. You cannot calibrate it correctly and the clock is no longer an accurate time keeper.....

Originally posted by Plugin
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)

Very informative Plugin.

What got me smiling almost to the point of laughing is this statement:

"there may be a lot of things out there that we've missed because of our assumption of how preservation works."

Did you get that instead of saying "our assumption of how 'radiocarbon dating works", Prof. Jack Horner said "our assumption of how preservation works."

Of course everyone knows how things are preserved especially when it deals with tissues. There' nothing extraordinary about it. in fact they even admit:

because everyone knows these things don't last for 65 million years."

So there's no question about it but what's questionable is the process by which these specimens are dated.

No wonder they "got goose bumps".

Imagine that a "65 million" year dinosaur tissue - must be a miracle (pun).

So if this is really a tissue they found then one of these statements is true:

1) Their dating method is accurate.
2) Their dating method is way way off.
3) Soft tissues can be preserved for over millions of years.

Which one do you think is correct?

tc.

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
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)

Simple question - what is being dated when using radiometric dating?

Rocks or the bones (carbon specimen)?

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2


Thanks. I go for: 2) Their dating method is way way off.

I find it funny that so called experts continue spewing that oil comes from dinosaur bones and other organic decay. You know scientists also thought diamonds came solely from coal for a long time? Then they found a 500 carat rough diamond that carbon dated 4 billion years ago before any organic compounds could have existed.

Science still has no clue how oil is formed. Saying it comes from organic decay is just a wish. it could be true but it could also very easily be wrong. There is ZERO fossil record in oil. My personal belief is oil forms when liquid magma is trapped underground with just the right heat and pressure.

Originally posted by Plugin
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Thanks. I go for: 2) Their dating method is way way off.

You got it - way way off is the correct and logical answer!

But let's explore this further and pretend we're evolutionists, the answer will be 1 and maybe 3.

That is:

1) The dating method is accurate - thus the soft tissue must be 65 million years old.

Problem is, there's no (to use their favorite expression) objective evidence to show that "soft tissue can last 65 million years" - unless it's based on pure conjecture and assumptions.

Besides, we already know that the c14 dating method is accurate only within it's half-life of

reply to post by purplemer


I don't find it unknown. A solar flare is a huge eruption of electrical energy and gravity. One can imagine that, being that all matter in the solar system was once in the sun, it is at least partially entangled (you entangle particles by compressing them together.

Thus, any disruption on the sun, causes disruption to the matter the sun has ejected. IE, us. And since it is highly probable this all came from a supernova before our solar system, it is even more reason to suspect a case of entanglement.

reply to post by edmc^2


Depends. Carbon if it is available. But there are other molecules that decay as well. You can't really date a rock's history unless it has one of these local decay rates. You can probably date the rock itself in terms of billions of years.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Depends. Carbon if it is available. But there are other molecules that decay as well. You can't really date a rock's history unless it has one of these local decay rates. You can probably date the rock itself in terms of billions of years.

edit on 19-3-2012 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)

And that's my point - radiometric dating method is good for geology because of it's ability to gage the age of rocks. Thus a 4 byo earth is quite normal. But to use this method for dating organic materials is like using a ten ton ground excavator to plant a flower. It's the wrong tool as evidenced by the mistakes and errors made.

Of course to evolutionists this is a perfect tool as it gives them the "power" to extend the life of a short-lived (half-life) isotope - inspite of the obvious limitations.

As for the "other molecules that decay", can you please let me know what are these and are they present on carbon-life forms and what'stheir half-life?

tc.

reply to post by edmc^2


No it's quite perfect.

Some molecules decay in billions of years, some millions, and some a few thousand.


Because of this diversity of decay rates, we need only select the right molecule to date something.

Evolution is quite real. Even today we see it. Flies have started waking up earlier to eat our crops, and they have become incompatible with populations that do not. Mosquitos in subways have already begun becoming incompatible with the surface conditions their ancestors came from.

reply to post by Gorman91

No it's quite perfect. Some molecules decay in billions of years, some millions, and some a few thousand. Because of this diversity of decay rates, we need only select the right molecule to date something.

That's why I said good not perfect because it depends on several factors and parameters. If one or any of these parameters is not met the result will be very - very inaccurate.

Evolution is quite real. Even today we see it. Flies have started waking up earlier to eat our crops, and they have become incompatible with populations that do not. Mosquitos in subways have already begun becoming incompatible with the surface conditions their ancestors came from.

Nope - I respectfully disagree. What you've just describe is adaptation not evolution (or to be precise micro-evolution) because the fly is still a fly and the mosquito is still a mosquito. Just like a virus adapting to new vaccines. They are not changing into a totally new species. What's more once they become incompatible for mating they die off. But even if they are able propagate within their own "group" (I believe evolutionist call it clade), a few generations later they are able to intermingle with the other clades (of the same species of flies/mosquitoes).

tc.

Adaptation is micro-evolution. Show me examples of macro-evolution and I'll be more impressed.

Edit: I got beat to it.. I would also like to see a chart that connects the ever so talked about fish that walked on land all the way to the evolution of humans. Still waiting..

reply to post by edmc^2

That's why I said good not perfect because it depends on several factors and parameters. If one or any of these parameters is not met the result will be very - very inaccurate.

We have yet to detect any significant variance, and if you don't know how to select what molecule you're dealing with, you really ought to not be in the field, not speaking about it.



I respectfully disagree to your claim of evolution. All life is dna being constructed into proteins. If the dna of smaller structures can change, the dna of larger ones are just as likely to change over time.

For example, a bird in many ways is still a reptile. The only change was keratin B, and better heat management. Besides that, it's basically still a reptile. You drawing a line to divide the two is just that. You dividing a line.

Life changes.

reply to post by libertytoall


Well if you can't be bothered to look up the species yourself, all happily on wikipedia, why would someone be motivated to show you what you already have declared wrong?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by edmc^2

I respectfully disagree to your claim of evolution. All life is dna being constructed into proteins. If the dna of smaller structures can change, the dna of larger ones are just as likely to change over time.

So this is your opinion. Like I said evolution has yet to prove any link in macro-evolution beyond theory. The teaching that a fish turned into a lizard which turned into a whatever which turned into a whatever etc. eventually into humans is on par with oil deposits being regarded as aged dinosaur bones, or diamonds being formed by coal..

The teachings of fantasy not reality. Let's live in reality based on facts not ideas. Not to say you may not be right but don't go around like it's a fact.

reply to post by Gorman91


not sure if anyone posted this yet, but here is the most scientific reasoning i have seen yet which explains why carbon dating cannot be trusted as totaly accurate


news.discovery.com...
"the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with "constant" decay rates -- these values aren't supposed to change. School textbooks teach us this from an early age."

"Many fields of science depend on measuring constant decay rates. For example, to accurately date ancient artifacts, archaeologists measure the quantity of carbon-14 found inside organic samples at dig sites. This is a technique known as carbon dating."

"But as you can see, carbon dating makes one huge assumption: radioactive decay rates remain constant and always have been constant. If this new finding is proven to be correct, even if the impact is small, it will throw the science community into a spin"

"In another moment of weirdness, Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins noticed an inexplicable drop in the decay rate of manganese-54 when he was testing it one night in 2006. It so happened that this drop occurred just over a day before a large flare erupted on the sun."

news.discovery.com...

reply to post by Gorman91

We have yet to detect any significant variance, and if you don't know how to select what molecule you're dealing with, you really ought to not be in the field, not speaking about it.

The right molecule is c14 for carbon dating or radiocarbon dating theory.

For radiometric dating the isotopes are:

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.

Then there's also the "Amino-Acid Racemization" - not much in used today due to its high error margin.

So what other isotopes do you have in mind?

BTW - like I said, I have nothing against these dating methodologies as they aid us in understanding the past, what I don't agree of is the obvious misused of it in order to advance an agenda for a specific purposes.

I respectfully disagree to your claim of evolution.

That's fine as it's your right.

As for:

All life is dna being constructed into proteins. If the dna of smaller structures can change, the dna of larger ones are just as likely to change over time. For example, a bird in many ways is still a reptile. The only change was keratin B, and better heat management. Besides that, it's basically still a reptile. You drawing a line to divide the two is just that. You dividing a line. Life changes.

Of course "Life changes" but up to a certain point due to the uncrossable / unbridgeable fact - the Genetic Boundary".

Breeders especially biologists and geneticists are very aware of this fact. I hope you are to.

That is, each could multiply in great variety within its own “kind,” but could not cross the boundary separating different kinds. That boundary, as can be clearly observed in living things, is enforced by sterility. And the distinction between kinds is protected by each one’s unique genetic code.

So a cat can't mate with a dog vice-versa, a horse can't mate with cow vise-versa, etc, etc.

But within their "kind" they are able to mate and produce offspring. Some become hybrid especially in dog breeding but again up to a certain point or until the sterility point is met.

To say otherwise is plane wrong.

Note:

I use "kind" instead of "species" because the term (species) is a confusing one that even evolutionists are not sure what it really means.

tc.

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
reply to post by Gorman91

 

not sure if anyone posted this yet, but here is the most scientific reasoning i have seen yet which explains why carbon dating cannot be trusted as totaly accurate


news.discovery.com...
"the decay rates of radioactive elements are changing. This is especially mysterious as we are talking about elements with "constant" decay rates -- these values aren't supposed to change. School textbooks teach us this from an early age."

"Many fields of science depend on measuring constant decay rates. For example, to accurately date ancient artifacts, archaeologists measure the quantity of carbon-14 found inside organic samples at dig sites. This is a technique known as carbon dating."

"But as you can see, carbon dating makes one huge assumption: radioactive decay rates remain constant and always have been constant. If this new finding is proven to be correct, even if the impact is small, it will throw the science community into a spin"

"In another moment of weirdness, Purdue nuclear engineer Jere Jenkins noticed an inexplicable drop in the decay rate of manganese-54 when he was testing it one night in 2006. It so happened that this drop occurred just over a day before a large flare erupted on the sun."

news.discovery.com...

edit on 3/19/12 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)

Yes their findings are correct and been confirmed so many time already. In fact what they are talking about here is the The Simultaneity Principle.

That is, that at any time in the past, the radiocarbon level was the same all over the world, so that all samples that originated at the same time had the same activity.

Of course evolutionists will hang unto this principle as long as they can because as the report in your link says:

it will throw the science community into a spin"

Unfortunately/fortunately, the clock is ticking and time is running out.

tc.

reply to post by Gorman91


Ok theres alot of assumptions going on here.First let me say this Radio carbon dating is accurate from about 2000 years to 50000 some labs believe they have a better calibration curve. However there is always some degree of uncertainty and often dates are given as +or- so many years from a number. For older samples the more a "calibration correction curve " is normally used. The farther back the date the more uncertainty in the date.

Now plants can retain more c14 as in the case of wheat for example copper deficient plants can contain alot more c14 the a healthy plant.When you here radio carbon dating of millions of years well its BS.Carbon 14 has a half life of 5,730 ± 40 years so once the sample hits 50000 there isnt much carbon left to measure.However theres a kicker here when we look at dinosaur fossils millions of years old they still get c14.Now at this point you have to ask why? There is obvious problems with carbon dating but frankly its the best method we have.

Now the generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years this is determined my meteorites dating them using uranium and thorium isotopes.uranium-238 has a half life of 4.46 billion years.So how do we know how much uranium we started with you ask? Easy we see how much thorium we have When uranium breaks down its next stage is radium then thorium. So we get a good idea how much we started with. So obviously the earth is older then 6000 years,So arguing that radio carbon dating is wrong to prove the earth is only 6000 years old is pointless.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


Please view my earlier reply.

The sun's actions could be a case of entanglement.

Furthermore, its alterations are nearly insignificant.