Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 162 (8127 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-01-2014 7:13 AM
76 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), vimesey (3 members, 73 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Colbard
Upcoming Birthdays: Omnivorous
Post Volume:
Total: 735,079 Year: 20,920/28,606 Month: 7/1,410 Week: 25/275 Day: 7/18 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1312 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 1 of 308 (339114)
08-10-2006 11:55 PM


Ok, I know little about radiocarbon dating, but this one site claims:

One of the ways to disprove evolutionary time scales is using radiometry. (Darwin's 'Origin of Species' was published in 1859, a century before radiocarbon dating was discovered) Even though many archaeologists have accepted radiocarbon dating as a good technique to determine the age of fossils, there are still some who do not accept this technique as it gives results that completely contradict their beliefs.
Every book on human evolution still maintain that rhodesian man (homo rhodesiensis) existed about 200000 years ago. Radiocarbon dating yielded an age of roughly 10000 years. (Science Vol 144, pg 1000) This implies that this fossil is the remains of someone who died because of the great flood. In that same article, the authors wrote, "There is no known natural mechanism by which collagen (organic carbon in bone) may be altered to yield a false age." (Science Vol 144, pg 999)

In the summer of 1931, Gustav Riek excavated a newly discovered archaeological site in a small cave in southwestern Germany called Vogelherd. He and his team recovered several hominid bones and remarkable artifacts, such as a carved ivory horse, mammoth and bison, which he dated to the Aurignacian (35000 years ago). These were recently carbon dated to be between 3,900 to 5,000 years old. (Refer Geotimes, 2004 September)

Another example is coal. According to the geologic column, it takes several hundred million years for coal to form. Coal samples yield a radiocarbon age of only several thousand years.

Even today, when you hear someone saying that they have found a dinosaur fossil 100 million years old, it is not because of radiocarbon dating, but simply because the geologic column says that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Radiocarbon dating on dinosaurs have yielded dates more than 10000 years. (Refer http://www.blacksheepbistro.com/dinodatingpage.htm)

If evolutionists are right in maintaining that life started a few billion years ago, 99% of fossils would yield a radiocarbon date of more than 10000 years. But according to radiocarbon databases, more than 90% of fossils have an age less than 10000 years. This is in spite of the fact that we have instruments that can measure ages up to 70000 bp. (Refer http://www.canadianarchaeology.ca/localc14/c14search.htm)

http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/c14/

What's the stock evo answer to this? anyone know?

And any creationists or IDers have an opinion on this?

Here it appears dinosaurs are dated in 4 lab testings of the same material to be at most something like 25K years old.

Bone fragments from the 30 ft. long Acrocanthosaurus dinosaur, excavated by members of CEM of Glen Rose TX and CRSEF of Columbus OH (Carl Baugh, Collector), were subjected to the radiocarbon dating process at three different laboratories. Again this was an attempt to falsify the fossil foot print evidence and the successful radiocarbon dating of carbonized wood from the cretaceous period. Table 3 lists these dates and for those of four other samples from four separate excavations of other dinosaurs; three came from the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh PA. As you will note the dates ranged from about 9,890 to 36,500 radiocarbon years (Beta system) before the present (B.P.).

The expensive accelerated mass spectrometer (AMS) gave the most reproducible dates namely 23,760 +/-270 B.P. at the prestigious University of Arizona National Academy of Science facilities and 25,750 +/-280 at an overseas AMS Lab; the sample at the former was surface scrapings with a carbon content of 3.5% and the latter was a gaseous sample from the crushing of about 180 grams of bone fragments.

Other fragments were dated by a third laboratory using the beta counter; dates of 32,400 and 36,500 were obtained. These along with 39,500 B.P. for dinosaur coprolyte found buried with Acrocanthosaurus were some 7,000 or so years older than the dates obtained with the highly respected AMS. It is important to note that the 32,400 B.P. date was obtained on the same sample that was dated overseas on the more sensitive AMS system which gave a date of 25,750 +/-280 years B.P. A sample of the same carbon dioxide gas was used in both systems with the 7,000 years younger date being obtained on the AMS.
Because the AMS appears to be the choice of radiocarbon dating experts today; and, because the AMS is assigned very low +/-deviations we tend to believe the lower dates as true values for the radiocarbon dating process. But, of course, not the true dates. The carbon dating assumptions are thought to give radiocarbon dates that are still too high based on the discoveries of Dr. Libby (5), and interpretations of Whitelaw (6) and Aardsma (11) and others. The true dates are still elusive. However, reducing the dinosaur age by 1,000 times is no small discovery.

http://www.blacksheepbistro.com/dinodatingpage.htm

Edited by randman, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 08-11-2006 3:20 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2006 3:48 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 5 by RickJB, posted 08-11-2006 4:14 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2006 5:00 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Larni, posted 08-11-2006 7:46 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Clark, posted 08-11-2006 11:08 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-11-2006 11:30 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 20 by DrJones*, posted 08-11-2006 3:44 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 22 by arachnophilia, posted 08-11-2006 6:38 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Coragyps, posted 08-11-2006 10:23 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 205 by Peleg, posted 09-06-2006 1:17 AM randman has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4742
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 308 (339125)
08-11-2006 3:14 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8586
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 3 of 308 (339127)
08-11-2006 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-10-2006 11:55 PM


Uneffing believable!
It is astonishing that you could be here this long and not see the utter ignorance portrayed by the sources you quote.

Radio carbon dating is good for, at the extremes, up to about 50,000 years. Any use of it to date anything suspected to be older will produce a date of about that. It would be stupid to use a measuring tool that is only 50 units long to attempt to measure 100,000 unit long thing.

The physics demands that this be the limit. Up to that limit C14 dating has been well calibrated with various independent approaches.

If one were stupid enough, or dishonest enough, to submit samples of suspected great age for C14 dating one would get back nonsense numbers.

Where have you been for the past months?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 11:55 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by carbonstar, posted 08-12-2006 12:17 PM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 278 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 8:15 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10763
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 4 of 308 (339129)
08-11-2006 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-10-2006 11:55 PM


If we check the non-creationist sources quoted by the article we see the usual misrepresentation

quote:

Every book on human evolution still maintain that rhodesian man (homo rhodesiensis) existed about 200000 years ago. Radiocarbon dating yielded an age of roughly 10000 years. (Science Vol 144, pg 1000). This implies that this fossil is the remains of someone who died because of the great flood.

If we follow the link to check what t he article actually says it states that the bones dated were "animal bones" - and that there is "no clear-cut relation between these bones and the skull of Homo rhodesienus"

A clear case of misrepresentation.

quote:

In the summer of 1931, Gustav Riek excavated a newly discovered archaeological site in a small cave in southwestern Germany called Vogelherd. He and his team recovered several hominid bones and remarkable artifacts, such as a carved ivory horse, mammoth and bison, which he dated to t he Aurignacian (35000 years ago). These
were recently carbon dated to be between 3,900 to 5,000 years old. (Refer Geotimes, 2004 September)

Again following the link we find a clear misrepresentation

quote:

The new dates on the human bones do not call into question the age of the archaeological material (which was previously radiocarbon-dated to the Aurignacian period), Smith says. He, Conard and third author Peter Grootes thus conc luded that Neolithic humans unknowingly buried their dead near the entrances to Vogelherd Cave amidst relics of times long gone, and that is why Riek found the bones stratigraphically located next to older artifacts.


(emphasis mine)

So we find t hat it is only the bones which have been redated - and that carbon dating CONFIRMED the age of the artifacts.

And this is just silly

quote:

If evolutionists are right in maintaining that life started a few billion years ago, 99% of fossils would yield a radiocarbon date of more than 10000 years. But according to radiocarbon databases, more than 90% of fossils have an age less than 10000 years

The carbon dating databases will ONLY include items that have been carbon dated. Most fossils are k nown to be too old to be usefully carbon dated and so the process will simply not be applied to them. Thus the claim must be false since we will not have carbon dates for anything more than a small proportion of fossils - and that biased towards those th ought to be young enough to give a useful date.
u

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 11:55 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 8:47 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 5 of 308 (339130)
08-11-2006 4:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-10-2006 11:55 PM


Here we go again...

Randman, this is a classic PRATT that even you must have stumbled across at some point...

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 11:55 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 325 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 6 of 308 (339134)
08-11-2006 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-10-2006 11:55 PM


I'll chime in on the stuff I know.

Another example is coal. According to the geologic column, it takes several hundred million years for coal to form. Coal samples yield a radiocarbon age of only several thousand years.

C14 is not JUST produced in the atmosphere. It is also produced by normal radioactive decay of elements in the ground. There will be a low level of C14. Coal dates to the extreme limit of the method. It is like trying to measure an 18-wheeler on a home scale, they only go up to about 300 lbs. You are not suggesting that 18-wheelers weight 300 lbs just because we picked a stupid way to measure it do you?

Even today, when you hear someone saying that they have found a dinosaur fossil 100 million years old, it is not because of radiocarbon dating, but simply because the geologic column says that dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. Radiocarbon dating on dinosaurs have yielded dates more than 10000 years.

Radiocarbon dating on fossils is simply stupid. There is no more carbon left in a fossil. The definition of a fossil is organic material that has been REPLACED by minerals in the surrounding rock. Most things that are fossilized are also at the extreme limit of the method. See the comment above about an 18-wheeler. People who radiocarbon date fossils are just trying produce erratic results KNOWING that the method will produce them because it just does not fit. This is complete and utter dishonesty by Creationists. See my signature.

If evolutionists are right in maintaining that life started a few billion years ago, 99% of fossils would yield a radiocarbon date of more than 10000 years. But according to radiocarbon databases, more than 90% of fossils have an age less than 10000 years. This is in spite of the fact that we have instruments that can measure ages up to 70000 bp.

Once again, you are going to get erratic results becuase it is just plain retarded to carbon date fossils. You are just measuring the carbon content of the rock. Radiocarbon dating rocks is futile and dishonest. The rest of the post is more of the same. When Creationists do any radioisotope dating, they usually do it to stuff they KNOW is outide the method or just plan invalid. See Snelling's invalid use of radiocarbon.


Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 11:55 PM randman has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 08-11-2006 8:51 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8586
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 7 of 308 (339136)
08-11-2006 5:27 AM


Thanks Randman
Thank you for such good examples of the total dishonesty of some YEC types.
Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Percy, posted 08-11-2006 10:10 AM NosyNed has not yet responded
 Message 297 by ReformedRob, posted 07-26-2008 10:48 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3743
From: UK
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 8 of 308 (339148)
08-11-2006 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-10-2006 11:55 PM


I think every one else has beaten me to the punch.

I do have a question though:

Now that you opening question has been answered appropriatly,

Randman writes:

What's the stock evo answer to this? anyone know?

is it fare to say that it is reasonable to reject the YEC claims of a young earth based on the evidence you have submitted in this thread?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 11:55 PM randman has not yet responded

    
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 9 of 308 (339153)
08-11-2006 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jazzns
08-11-2006 5:00 AM


C14 is not JUST produced in the atmosphere. It is also produced by normal radioactive decay of elements in the ground.

Saying C14 is produced within the earth is based on faith (belief) not facts by fringe scientists that have the need to believe C14 is being produced within the earth under normal conditions.

C14 has only been proven to be formed in the upper atmosphere. We have reputable scientists (not creationists) of the department of energy who reviewed 15 years of cold fusion experiments and concluded the Coulomb barrier to great to be overcome by cold fusion by the normal conditions within the earth.

The creationists truely are taking the high ground basing C14 on evidence while the evolutionists are taking a faith based belief that under normal conditions the Coulomb barrier can be overcome naturally within the earth.

Faith based evolutionistic science has not yet proven in the natural that the Coulomb barrier can be overcome within the earth say C14.

All scientists see happening within the earth is radioactive decay, no cold or hot fusion those are simply the facts.

If you believe cold fusion is happening within the earth (C14) then would you not need to throw out all the radioactive dates arrived via radioactive decay?

*******resource article

U.S. DoE 2004 Cold Fusion Review - U.S. Department of Energy review of 15 years of cold fusion experiments

Reviewer comments
Here are some significant quotes from the reviewers:

Review 1. "The evidence does not demonstrate that a new phenomenon is occurring."
Review 2. "... there appears to be rather convincing evidence for the production of excess heat and for the production of 4He in metal deuterides. ... There is no convincing evidence for the occurrence of nuclear reactions in condensed matter associated with the reports of excess heat production."
Review 3. "... the evidence strongly suggests a nuclear origin for the excess heat observed in palladium rods highly loaded with deuterium."
Review 4. "This set of articles make a significant case for phenomena in the deuterium/palladium system that is (I) markedly different from that of the hydrogen/palladium system, (ii) supportive of the claim that excess energy is generated in the deuterium/palladium system, and (iii) without a coherent theoretical explanation."
Review 5. "My feeling is that there should be no funds set aside for support of CF research but, if the DOE receives a proposal in this area which suggests some definitive research which settle some of the issues, it should consider it for support as it would any other proposal."
Review 6. "I find nothing in the articles that I've read that convinces me that the new anomalies reported are not experimental artifacts."
Review 7. "I find in summary that, even after all of the work that has been done, the case is spotty for the existence of the cold fusion phenomenon. I am not convinced by the evidence that I have seen ..."
Review 8. "If the bottom line is that experiments in which x > 0.95 in PdDx (at room temperature) give anomalous effects reliably (even if achieving that high x is very difficult and very dependent on the materials science of the Pd), while heat balance is attained for x < 0.9 in PdDx (or when using PdHx at all x), we've got the start of science."
Review 9. "Evidence for excess heat in LENR experiments is compelling and well established. ... The body of work that has resulted from LENR investigations is formidable and worthy of attention of the broader scientific community. It is unfortunate that a few vocal individuals have manage to stigmatize this field and those working in it."
Review 10. "In a general summary of the calorimetric results, the observation of sudden and prolonged temperature excursions ..., has been made a sufficient number of times that, even if not totally reproducible, still have not been explained in terms of conventional chemistry or electrochemistry ... At this stage, I think the evidence suggests the possibility of such events, [but] cannot be considered conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt, for reasons alluded to above."
Review 11. "the care in which the measurements are done for experiments that do show excess heat are convincing evidence of low energy nuclear reactions. ... There is strong evidence of nuclear reactions in palladium, and suggestions of reactions in the titanium foil experiments."
Review 12. "There seem to be increasing evidence for the production of excess heat, even though the reason is totally unknown. ... Yes, it is likely that an unknown process (in materials physics or in nuclear physics) is responsible. However, the link to nuclear reaction is still not strong enough at the present time. ... The current evidence is not sufficiently conclusive to demonstrate that nuclear reactions occur in metal deuterides yet."
Review 13. "... there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that very low energy nuclear reactions can occur in condensed matter at rates that are totally unexpected"
Review 14. "I am not persuaded that such energy has been produced."
Review 15. "As one of the reviewers stated, one can never disprove something and this is my feeling about "cold fusion"."
Review 16. "My opinion is that none of the experimental evidence directly presented to us is conclusive that nuclear reactions are occurring in these environments, but some of the evidence is certainly suggestive that they are."
Review 17. "Most "nuclear" measurements (particle emission) are not convincing in comparison with the state of the art in low energy nuclear physics."
Review 18. "Although experiments have become more sophisticated there is no new convincing or even tantalizing evidence for LENR."

Edited by johnfolton, : edited to clarify that the DOE scientists were not creationists but an unbiased appraisal of 15 years of cold fusion research.

Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jazzns, posted 08-11-2006 5:00 AM Jazzns has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2006 8:56 AM johnfolton has responded
 Message 12 by RickJB, posted 08-11-2006 10:25 AM johnfolton has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 10763
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 10 of 308 (339156)
08-11-2006 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
08-11-2006 8:51 AM


Cold Fusion ?
Please present evidence that the proposed mechanism for generating C14 within the Earth is "Cold Fusion" as the term is used in the reports you cite.

Because quite frankly I think you're engaged in the usual YEC technique of inventing false accusations in order to dismiss the facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 08-11-2006 8:51 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by johnfolton, posted 08-11-2006 10:51 AM PaulK has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 13118
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 308 (339164)
08-11-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by NosyNed
08-11-2006 5:27 AM


Re: Thanks Randman
NosyNed writes:

Thank you for such good examples of the total dishonesty of some YEC types.

In broad terms the information in Randman's opening post is largely wrong, but I'm not sure it's just simple dishonesty. I think dishonesty does play a role with some creationists when they think they're writing solely for their lay members, but a lot of it just seems to be misinformation and/or misinterpretations that are being passed on without question. Creationists like Humphreys and Baumgardener and Austin and Snelling probably cringe when they see such misinformation.

I'm not sure that Randman's persistent and unsupported characterizations of evolution as fraudulent science need to be balanced by equally disparaging characterizations of creationism, since the facts pretty much speak for themselves. It is a great disadvantage that it takes but 3 seconds of someone's attention to absorb a charge of fraud but a good five minutes to rebut it, but perhaps we'll get our reward in heaven! :D

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NosyNed, posted 08-11-2006 5:27 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 12 of 308 (339165)
08-11-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by johnfolton
08-11-2006 8:51 AM


john writes:

We have reputable scientists (not creationists) of the department of energy who reviewed 15 years of cold fusion experiments and concluded the Coulomb barrier to great to be overcome by cold fusion by the normal conditions within the earth.

This is so funny I almost spat my sandwich back onto my desk. What on earth do cold fusion claims have to do with natural C14 decay?

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by johnfolton, posted 08-11-2006 8:51 AM johnfolton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 08-11-2006 11:01 AM RickJB has not yet responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 13 of 308 (339168)
08-11-2006 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by PaulK
08-11-2006 8:56 AM


Re: Cold Fusion ?
Because quite frankly I think you're engaged in the usual YEC technique of inventing false accusations in order to dismiss the facts.

Do you believe the elements that make up the earth fused (fusion) in the big bang or perhaps quazars. If so then the elements radioactive isotope decay rates were set before the earth was formed.

Can you accept this ? or do you have conclusive evidence that the Coloumb barrier can be overcomed naturally within the earth.

You have to prove that its able to power past not only the coloumb nucleur barrier but also the self shielding absorbtive properties of the sediment particle.

The problem is elements are only seen decaying not fusing into more complex states within the earth which is not evidence of an old earth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2006 8:56 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 08-11-2006 11:13 AM johnfolton has responded

  
johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2005 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 14 of 308 (339171)
08-11-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RickJB
08-11-2006 10:25 AM


What on earth do cold fusion claims have to do with natural C14 decay

I agree within the earth C14 decay has no additional C14 fusing from N14 within the earth. ;)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RickJB, posted 08-11-2006 10:25 AM RickJB has not yet responded

  
Clark
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 308 (339174)
08-11-2006 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by randman
08-10-2006 11:55 PM


A Christian Perspective on Radiometric Dating
This article is from a Christian scientist who works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It explains in detail and layman's terms the different radiometric dating methods. He also goes into some theological issues which a Christian I think would appreciate.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

Randman, have you ever read any of Ken Miller, Keith Miller, or Francis Collin's books? Collins has a new out he is promoting now. They are all Christian scientists who accept the TOE.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by randman, posted 08-10-2006 11:55 PM randman has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014