Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years

quote:

---

The production rate of C14 varies so that there is no definite equilibrium point.

---

So?How much does it vary by over time? What difference in the dates does it make? Are some actually older than measured? Did you not read about calibration methods to correct for this?And did you miss reading about the recognition of the problem in the last 150 years? What difference does that make to the argument?

The affect of human activity is, as you noted, a concern for the last century or two. So that isn't going to "prove a young earth".Meanwhile you haven't noted the calibration that has been done against a bunch of different things.Also even if you threw C14 dating out completely that doesn't "prove a young earth" either. So that is a silly statment for R. Milton to be making.Clearly, a "young earth" is no longer an viable idea. There are just too many different ways to prove that it isn't. Casting any doubt on the accuracy of any one doesn't cut it. And any doubts I've seen cast are based on very flimsey logic indeed.

Sorry, I didn't read carefully enough.

If I could just find my darn glasses!

BBC, your message was supposed to be in reply to my comments about the calibration of C14 dating. That is the topic of this thread and you started it.Why don't you finish that one off before charging off on a bunch of other things which belong, and are, in other threads. Then you can start a clam thread, join the grand canyon thread etc.edited to add:
Also you can start -- I haven't seen one, a Pangea thread. But don't until you've finished all the ones you've already started.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-01-2003]

quote:

---

First of all, the Himalaya area around Mt. Everest was NEVER an ocean floor

---

And your source for this is?Since you dropped it are we allowed to presume the open clamshell argument is now null and void?

Warning! This is all heading way off topic. Please don't follow my poor example and carry this on here!You can carry this on in another thread if you'd like Justin. Why would you bring this up? Perhaps only because your earlier suggestions done't work? Maybe?I don't see anyway that it could have formed that way. But you'd have to describe what you think occured. Show all your assumptions, calculations and conssequences. Then it can be considered as a hypothosis. Otherwise it is assigned a different technical term that begins with the letters "B" and "S".If you think the high rotational speed lifted the water you'll have to explain why everything else was tied down/. You will then need to explain why when the earth slowed the water did too as it is, presumably, in orbit.Unfortunately if you just make stuff up Justin you don't actually convince anyone of anything. All you do is make a lot of work for yourself making still more stuff up and (if you really tried to defend it) a huge amount of math for yourself. If you persist in making up things out of purple smoke you will get a reputation as being not very knowledgable about the topics under discussion (which is, of course, perfectly acceptable, we all have a lot to learn). Unfortunately, pretending to know things and demonstrating your ignorance while doing so will only make you look very foolish.Pending the detailed calculations I'd have to say that this suggestion is more likely to make you look foolish than anything else. I'll try to reserve judegment untill you've had a chance to show that you do know something about the physics involved. (but that is very hard to do).This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-10-2004 03:14 PM

So you are giving up altogether? That seems like a poor way to learn something or resolve a controversy.What specific details (start with just one) do you think is a problem? You might note if you read the dating threads with a bit of care that there isn't an arguement on some important matters. The creationist sites simply don't mention things like the corrolation issue for example. They simply don't have an answer.

Of course, I don't go on opinions if I don't have to either. I want to see why someone has a particular opinion.There are specific facts about the use of C-14 dating though.Why don't you list the facts that you are aware of and we'll see if you have them all.Here are a few:C-14 decays with a specific measured half life of about 5700 years.C-14 dates obtained my measureing the remaining C-14 can be matched to objects with known dates and the dates match within a few percent based on that half life.The variations in accuracy are accounted for by the expectation that the formation rate of C-14 should vary. These are small, less than 10%.The variations have been handled by cross checking for almost (but not all) of the range of dates for which C-14 is useful (about 50,000 years).The dates obtained match with not one but several completely independent methods of arriving at a date.Do you have any problems with any of this?

Why don't you start with what you are given? Then pick very, very specific items to see about digging deeper into.I gave you a few specifics. What are your issues with them?There are creationists who claim that decay rates can vary. The only cases they give are dishonest (though the rates do vary). I know something about that area. The cases given also don't explain the correlations.The correlations between one dating method and another simply aren't explained.If you think tests are thrown out simply to make things work then you are accusing many 1,000's of individuals of lying. It seems a bit of an incredible claim when you have no evidence for that.There are of course cases where a date isn't accepted. There is a lot of research about when to accept and not accept a measurement.Even then, if the dates didn't work and the measurements were random you'd have to throw out a majority of the measurements to get the corrolations obtained.Have you read the thread on corrolations yet? If you don't understand that then you don't understand the depth of the issue which the so-called creation scientists simply don't handle.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-01-2004 04:31 PM