|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dating from the Adams and Eves Threads | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5592 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
How do you know its inner parts were not being mineralized, via humics. Really this is getting old, without a complete mineral analysis testing for humics, cellose, clays, leachates complete mineral profiles its all circular.
A substantial fraction of the mass of the humic acids is in carboxylicacid functional groups, which endow these molecules with the ability to chelate positively charged multivalent ions (Mg++, Ca++, Fe++, most other "trace elements" of value to plants, as well as other ions that have no positive biological role, such as Cd++ and Pb++.) Humic Acids P.S. Later, etc...! This message has been edited by The Golfer, 12-28-2005 01:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
What is carbon dating used for? How far back can you date things using this method? Radiodating methods that are used to date inorganics (rocks and minerals) start the clock when the material solidifies. 14C dating is different. It can only be used for organic, formerly-living matter. 14C is being produced all the time, mostly in the atmosphere by 14N being hit by cosmic rays. 14C is radioactive and decays back to 14N with a half-life of 573040 years. At any time there is some ratio between radioactive 14C and stable 12C in the atmosphere (and it turns out it doesn't change much). Living things such as terrestrial plants that take in their carbon from the atmosphere have the same 14C/12C ratio as the atmosphere. Living things that eat these plants also have the same ratio. Living things that eat the formerly living things that ate those plants also have the same ratio. And so on. As soon as a plant or animal dies, it stops taking in or excreting carbon. The 14C continues to decay, but the 12C doesn't. Over time the ratio of 14C to 12C (in the remains) decreases. We can measure how long it is since the organism died by measuring the 14C/12C ratio and comparing it to the 14C /12C ratio in the organism when it died. Oops, we don't know the 14C/12C ratio in the organism when it died. In the early years of 14C dating, people assumed that the 14C/12C ratio never changed, and produced dates expressed in "radiocarbon years". They knew radiocarbon years weren't exactly calendar years, but it was better than nothing. But, for some time now, we've been producing calibration curves that relate radiocarbon years to calendar years. These could be used to figure out the 14C/12C ratio in the past atmosphere, but nobody bothers; it's calendar years that we are looking for. These curves are produced by dating something which can be dated by both 14C/12C and some other absolute method. Tree ring chronologies (actually many different ones from all over the world), lake varves, and thorium-dated corals are used for this. The correction is on the order of 10% or less (see CALPAL 2004 January, which would have a slope of exactly 45° if radiocarbon years equaled calendar years), so radiocarbon years are off but not all that far off. How far back we can date things is determined by the sensitivity of our instruments and the point at which the "background noise" overwhelms the "signal". Right now we can get pretty solid dates back to 30,000-40,000 years, and we can obtain dates in the 50,000-60,000 year range which are less solid. It seems unlikely we will get much farther back than that unless somebody comes up with something really new and ingenious. Marine organisms like seals and clams get a lot of their carbon from dissolved limestone, which is older than the carbon in the atmosphere and has a lower 14C/12C ratio, so such organisms can't be dated by 14C. Limitations such as this are well known and understood among real scientists. See How does the radiocarbon dating method work? (by a creationist) and Radiocarbon web-info (more detailed and somewahat more technical). For tree-ring dating, Ultimate Tree-Ring Web Pages. Plenty of references on lake varves already in this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
What makes you think we care that much about religion that we would spend our entire lives trying to discredit it? That's simply delusional.
Sorry Golfer, you think much too highly of yourself and your theism. Religion is just not that important to me, especially as a non-theist. I can't think of anything more boring or Hellish than spending my entire professional life pondering religious issues. You and others of your ilk are the only ones with an agenda.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5834 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
quote: You are making a fundamental mistake. Science has nothing to do with belief or religion. Your computer will work whether you believe in quantum mechanics or not. Antibiotics will work for you whether you believe in evolution or not. Science is NOT atheist, it is non-theist. Science has no opinion on god. The existence or non-existence of god is completely irrelevant to science. If scientists discovered any evidence of a higher power it would probably be hailed as the greatest scientific discovery in the history of mankind. However, science is not looking to credit or dis-credit god. Science is simply an attempt to find the best explanation possible for factual evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. You are ascribing motives to science that do not exist. Science has no motives, science is a process. Do certain scientists have motives? Certainly. In fact, many scientists throughout history have been theists. I'm sure there are many christian, muslim, jewish, etc. Evolutionary biologists, geologists, etc. working in the field today. They don't seem to have an axe to grind with their faith. If you TRULY believe in god what greater pursuit can there be than investigating his creation? (I hope that wasn't too off topic, and I apologize if it was). As I understand it dating has just as much to do with math (statistical correlation) as it does science in any case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
First of all, humus is not a mineral.
Second, humification results in the destruction of the primary organic material, therefore, recognition of something like bug wings in the Lake Suigetsu sediments would be difficult if not impossible. Third, how do you know all those tests weren't done? Why don't you try emailing the primary author of the paper and ask him what has been done to the sediments? edited to add 'tentativeness' This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-28-2005 04:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Right now we can get pretty solid dates back to 30,000-40,000 years, and we can obtain dates in the 50,000-60,000 year range which are less solid. It seems unlikely we will get much farther back than that unless somebody comes up with something really new and ingenious. Thanks, I think I picked up the principle. I suppose there's no doubt about those tree rings and so forth, right? Am I correct in thinking that for the really old stuff they use something called "radiometric" dating?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Science may not can have an anti-religious agenda, but scientists can.
You seem to equate "science" with "scientists." Let me put it this way, you guys say creationist scientists have a religious agenda. Can we say they do not because, after all, science does not a theistic or anti-theistic agenda? Morever, science consists of people and groups of people can and do have agendas all the time. The idea that science follows a pure ideology is probably naive. There are too many examples of scientific biases in the past that were proven wrong to think the same is not true today, and by things proven wrong, I don't mean that the evidence supported mainstream opinion, but that the evidence never supported mainstream opinion, but that groups of people acted out of biasness for various reasons. Although not related to religion at all, I think of Tesla's discoveries of over-the-horizon radar about 100 years ago, and scientists deriding him, despite their level of understanding being vastly inferiour to his, and claiming it was not possible, until we rediscovered in the 50s. Tesla at the time could demonstrate it, and there was absolutely no reason to reject his claims at all, but people did nonetheless, just out of scientific bigotry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
I suppose there's no doubt about those tree rings and so forth, right? Am I correct in thinking that for the really old stuff they use something called "radiometric" dating?
Very little doubt about tree rings or ice core layers either one - both types of measurement have been repeated too many times all over the Earth. Radiometric dating includes C14 dating, but also refers to six or eight other types of radioactive elements. Most are used for dating things much older than C14 can go.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
Since Jon isn't online right now, I'll attempt to get in a reply ahead of the other upcoming replies.
Carbon 14 dating is but one of the radiometric dating methods. The situation of how and why it works is pretty much unique, relative to that of the other isotopic methods. C14 dating relates to dating using an atmosphericly created isotope. That is not the case for the other isotopic methods. Yes, items formed from carbon not derived or not directly derived from the atmosphere can be C14 dated, and you may be able to come up with an age number. That number may well have meaning, but it will not be the date of when the plant (or indirectly the animal) was ingesting atmospheric carbon. A situation where C14 yields a valid "false date" is where the animal is ingesting "old carbon", which has been long out of contact with the atmosphere. This is how you get such things as 10,000 year dates on living clams. Sources of truly false dates can occur when the C14 was not produced in the atmosphere. This covers the coal examples. Other truly false dates can result from contaminations (natural or manmade, in nature or in the lab), poor sample selection (which may include natural contaminations such as zenoliths in igneous rocks), or flat-out blotches in methodology. Above, I am primarily talking C14 dating. In other isotopic datings, one can also get valid "false dates". You may be getting a valid date for an event, just not the event you think your dating. The prime example of such, is the dating of metamorphic events superimposed on a perexisting rock. The rock may have originally crystalized out at 3 billion years, but a 1.6 billion year metamorphism date may be what you get. Different methods of a rock specimen, using the same or different isotopes, may yield substantially different age determinations. They all may be valid datings of something, the question is what. Moose
{Edit - Fix typo. Second edit - Tweeked paragraph 4 a bit. Not a content change, but worded better.} This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 12-28-2005 05:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Of course creation scientists have a religious agenda, randman, don't be ridiculous by asserting otherwise. All we have to do is point to the various statements of faith each creation scientist must adhere to.
Show me one statement of faith that mainstream scientists must adhere to. Sorry. That was off topic. This message has been edited by roxrkool, 12-28-2005 04:33 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Randman -
The non-admin mode gave Mini Ditka a POTM nomination for that message, and there noted that it was probably off-topic. You are taking it further off-topic. Stop. Yes, as a creo here, you have a heavy load on you. But dare I suggest another "Great Debate"? That is our only reasonably sure way of avoiding topic chaos. If you wish to respond to this message, do it either in the "General..." topic, link below, or perhaps at the Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics topic. Adminnemooseus This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-28-2005 04:41 PM New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Not much for me to add ...
I suppose there's no doubt about those tree rings and so forth, right? No evidence-based doubt whatsoever. Obviously there's some emotionally-based doubt by some parties, or this thread wouldn't be here. But note that amount of evidence presented by Golfer for his viewpoint ... Creationists love to point to an occasional double ring and claim that this invalidates the entire method, but such double rings are detectable. Dendrochronologists use some pretty sophisticated statistical techniques to match up rings between different trees. That dendrochronology site I linked to is pretty interesting.
Am I correct in thinking that for the really old stuff they use something called "radiometric" dating? "Radioemtric" just means "measurement of radioactivity" so 14C dating is a radiometric method. As has already been pointed out, 14C dating is quite different from other radiometric methods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
No evidence-based doubt whatsoever I was just wondering how they figured out about the tree rings in the first place. You would have to know how old the tree was beforehand. I suppose they grew one for a while and then looked at the rings?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Your gave a response for something that I did not ask.
Golfer please. Give us an example of any mainstream, non YEC, geologist or palentologist ever carbon dating a fossil expecting to get a relevant age. All you need is 1 example. Surly you can find it with the supposed plethora of C14 dating of fossils. This is much more basic then all the rest of the discussion you are having with anyone else. Just show us 1 example of someone with the above critera carbon dating any fossil. Thanks, No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3912 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
Rox just checking. Were those things fossilized or is the term fossil just being thrown around here. It my understanding that when something is fossilized that it no longer organic and thus cannot be carbon dated.
Thanks, No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024