|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Does radio-carbon dating disprove evolution? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I note that you provide no evidence that anyone claims that Cold Fusion is responsible for the production of C14 within the Earth.
I therefore conclude that your claim is a complete fabrication.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
quote: My take on it is that the Radio carbon dating method is the most unreliable dating method of all the radiometric testing. A brief history: Carbon dating was a theoretcially brilliant tool invented by Willard Libby who earned a Nobel for his efforts. The intended purpose for Carbon dating was to date artifacts of antiquity and not to date fossilized bone. In other words, it was desinged for archeologists not paleontologists. The methodology behind the theory is that the common carbon-12 (C-12) in the atmosphere can synthesize into very unstable carbon-14 (c-14), which is what they are actualy looking for. The specimen must be organic and must be in a relatively good condition in order to establish a date. There are a few problems associated with it. First, Libby himself stated that ascertaining an age estimate could be decieving because the earth's atmosphere had not yet reached equilibrium, not to mention how atomic testing in the mid 20th century could have potentialy compromised the integrity of any given specimen. As well, the most condemning is the calibration method, which uses unempirical testing to ascertain an age estimate. The problem with this is that its a clear cut case of garbage-in, garbage-out, because its readings are completely effected by the preconcieved notions of the experimentor who might already assume an age estimate in his/her mind, thus, showing a case of bias towards a certain epoch. Finally, even when all of this is not an issue, living penguins and snails have been tested into thousands of years. That's obviously not the case because they are living and currently have mass quantities of carbon inside them. As well, its been noted that parts of one sample will be sent to one laboratory to have been aged at, say, 17,000 years, while part of the other specimen would be dated at 31,000 years at a different laboratory. A discrpency as small as 2.0% equates to a huge discrepency in time, equalling thousands of years of difference. Aside from which, it is impossible to date anything past 50,000 years, yet, many evolutionists have tried to employ the C-14 method on saurian fossils, allegedly dating into millions of years. That's impossible. No carbon could exist in an organism past a few thousand years, and even that which does remain still has all the other problems I listed associated with it. Final analysis: Its unreliable unless properly calibrated and only if dates well-preserved carbonaceous material under a few thousand years, i.e. well-preserved papyrus. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit to add “If chance be the father of all flesh then disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear of, state of emergencies, sniper kills ten, youths go looting, bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker” -Steve Turner
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 167 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
{sigh}
The methodology behind the theory is that the common carbon-12 (C-12) in the atmosphere can synthesize into very unstable carbon-14 (c-14) Wrong. 14N is transformed to 14C (mostly byu cosmic rays), which then slowly decays back to 14N.
As well, the most condemning is the calibration method, which uses unempirical testing to ascertain an age estimate. The problem with this is that its a clear cut case of garbage-in, garbage-out, because its readings are completely effected by the preconcieved notions of the experimentor who might already assume an age estimate in his/her mind, thus, showing a case of bias towards a certain epoch. But when multiple independent methods applied by multiple independent researchers produce a curve that is so obviously nearly linear at 45°:
(see Seite nicht gefunden – MONREPOS and click on "CalCurves" and "CALPAL 2004 JAN". The graph covers 50K years. Or click on "CalCurveData" to see individual data sets.) we can deduce that the correction is small, and that there is no evidence of researcher bias.
Finally, even when all of this is not an issue, living penguins and snails have been tested into thousands of years. Penguins I haven't heard, but it's possible. Usually it's seals and snails. It is well-known that organisms which get most of their carbon from marine sources cannot be dated accurately. Your claim no doubt originates at some creationist web site which does not note that the source of the information was scientists investigating what can and cannot be carbon dated, and that the problem is completely explained and easily avoidable. Living snails were carbon-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old, A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old.
As well, its been noted that parts of one sample will be sent to one laboratory to have been aged at, say, 17,000 years, while part of the other specimen would be dated at 31,000 years at a different laboratory. I doubt it, assuming no hanky-panky. Reference, please?
A discrpency as small as 2.0% equates to a huge discrepency in time, equalling thousands of years of difference. Huh? 2% of what?
it is impossible to date anything past 50,000 years, yet, many evolutionists have tried to employ the C-14 method on saurian fossils I bet not. Reference, please?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There are a few problems associated with it. First, Libby himself stated that ascertaining an age estimate could be decieving because the earth's atmosphere had not yet reached equilibrium, not to mention how atomic testing in the mid 20th century could have potentialy compromised the integrity of any given specimen. We have samples of the Earth's atmosphere for every year for the past 600,000 years. That's well, well beyond the effective dating range for radiocarbon dating. What that means is this - we have samples of the atmosphere with which to calibrate the "carbon scale" for every year for which radiocarbon dating can be used.
Aside from which, it is impossible to date anything past 50,000 years, yet, many evolutionists have tried to employ the C-14 method on saurian fossils, allegedly dating into millions of years. No evolutionist has done this. The only people who try to get radiocarbon dates on these materials are creationists who are trying to fraudulently impeach the radiocarbon dating process. I suggest that you improve your understanding of radiocarbon dating processes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Even if radiocarbon dating is faulty, how does that disprove evolution? It would damage claims of an old earth, but all it would do to evolutinon is give it a shortter timespan to work within. And after seeing creationists give out the "hyper-micro-evolution" line of bullshit to explain speciation after the flood it would seem even they wouldn't have a problem with evolution occuring in a short time span.
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22388 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Hi Nemesis,
You're post has already drawn a couple responses, but it contains so many errors that I think a third response is easily justified.
The intended purpose for Carbon dating was to date artifacts of antiquity and not to date fossilized bone. Wrong. It was intended to date anything that incorporated atmospheric carbon into its makeup, in other words, anything organic. This includes anything that was ever living on land, and does not include most archeological artifacts like clay tablets and pots, carved statues, etc.
In other words, it was desinged for archeologists not paleontologists. Wrong. It can be used by any field requiring the dating of organic material not thought older than around 50,000 years. While some paleontologists do focus on the last 50,000 years, most paleontology deals with far more ancient eras and so never uses radiocarbon dating.
The methodology behind the theory is that the common carbon-12 (C-12) in the atmosphere can synthesize into very unstable carbon-14 (c-14), which is what they are actualy looking for. Wrong. 14C is formed when a neutron produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere strikes the nucleus of a nitrogen atom (specifically, 14N) to knock out a proton, thereby creating an atom of 14C.
The specimen must be organic... Now you're contradicting yourself. If you knew the item to be dated has to be organic, why did you earlier claim that radiocarbon dating was primarily the province of archeologists, which while having a fair number of campfires and papyri and mummies to analyze nonetheless deals much more often with inorganic artifacts.
...and must be in a relatively good condition in order to establish a date. Wrong. A completely crushed bone can be dated just as easily as one that is intact.
First, Libby himself stated that ascertaining an age estimate could be decieving because the earth's atmosphere had not yet reached equilibrium... Wrong. Do you realize you're ascribing a creationist position (atmosphere not in equilibrium) to Libby?
...not to mention how atomic testing in the mid 20th century could have potentialy compromised the integrity of any given specimen. Wrong. The increase in atmospheric 14C since atomic testing only affects the dating of organic material originating after 1950. There is no way for an atomic test to affect the 14C content of organic material created before the test (unless it happens to be co-located with the test, but that's not what you're talking about).
As well, the most condemning is the calibration method, which uses unempirical testing to ascertain an age estimate. The problem with this is that its a clear cut case of garbage-in, garbage-out,... Wrong. The calibration method, involving as it does multiple checks with things like tree rings, glacial ice layers and lake varves, is the epitome of empiricism.
...because its readings are completely effected by the preconcieved notions of the experimentor who might already assume an age estimate in his/her mind, thus, showing a case of bias towards a certain epoch. Wrong. This accusation that laboratories assign results based on expectations doesn't deserve to be dignified with any elaboration.
Finally, even when all of this is not an issue, living penguins and snails have been tested into thousands of years. Wrong. You've forgotten that the dating method applies to organic material that takes in atmospheric carbon. It is a well known fact that any organisms that do not use atmospheric carbon, like lake or ocean snails, and anything that has a primarily seafood diet, like a penguin, are not valid for the atmospheric version of radiocarbon dating. There's a different set of calibration methods for dating organic material of oceanic origin.
As well, its been noted that parts of one sample will be sent to one laboratory to have been aged at, say, 17,000 years, while part of the other specimen would be dated at 31,000 years at a different laboratory. Wrong. You're contradicting yourself again. If laboratories are just reporting the result they expected, how could this ever happen. I'm sure that just like all other human endeavors that radiocarbon dating labs make mistakes. But they have nothing like the error rate of your message, which approaches 100% of the sentences being wrong so far.
Aside from which, it is impossible to date anything past 50,000 years, yet, many evolutionists have tried to employ the C-14 method on saurian fossils, allegedly dating into millions of years. Wrong, and just silly, too. Any paleontologist working on eras from millions of years ago wouldn't even know the address of a radiocarbon lab.
Final analysis: Its unreliable unless properly calibrated and only if dates well-preserved carbonaceous material under a few thousand years, i.e. well-preserved papyrus. Wrong, simply because almost every sentence of the arguments justifying this "final analysis" were wrong. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1343 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
is this the month for creationists to forget which arguments were refuted years and years and years ago?
many archaeologists have accepted radiocarbon dating as a good technique to determine the age of fossils no archaeologist or paleontologist would be so stupid -- only creationists. very little original organic material remains in fossils, and it was a very shocking and recent discovery that some even could. for all intents and purposes, dinosaurs are rocks. and you cannot date rocks with organic carbon 14. try potassium/argon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
I note that you provide no evidence that anyone claims that Cold Fusion is responsible for the production of C14 within the Earth. Jazzns claimed message 6: C14 is not JUST produced in the atmosphere. It is also produced by normal radioactive decay of elements in the ground. Johnfolton responded: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
johnfolton writes: 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. Yes we know that you said that. A few questions. What is the atomic number of Nitrogen? What is the atomic number Carbon? What the hell does all that nonsense about cold fusion have to do with anything? Do you even know what fusion is? Do you even know what fission is? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5871 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
One of the geologists will probably catch this, but my understanding is that radiometric dating, including K-Ar, can't be used on fossil-bearing strata directly, as those are generally sedimentary in origin. Nor, IIRC, can it be used directly on fossils. Radiometric dating is used to date igneous rocks or igneous intrusions that bracket the fossiliferous layers. Other than that, of course, you're right on carbon dating being useless in the context of the OP and subsequent discussion.
Of course, I could be wrong - it's been a REALLY long time since I took a geology course, and new techniques may have replaced my somewhat weak understanding of how all that stuff works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 734 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Radiocarbon dating yielded an age of roughly 10000 years. (Science Vol 144, pg 1000) Your source lied, Rand. Libby's paper says "greater than 9000 years" - older, in other words, older than a 1964-model Geiger counter could count. And the dating was done on animal bones found with the Broken Hill skull, not the skull itself. Sloppy reading, or deceptive reporting. Or maybe both.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
johnfolton  Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days) Posts: 2024 Joined: |
N14 needs a neutron to become C14 this is an example of fusion not fission. 1n+14n=14c+1p I agree in advance that their is no such thing as cold fusion within the earth and we all likely also agree 15n is converting to 14c in the upper atmosphere due to a neutron being accepted and the emission of a proton. You don't see a neutron being emitted as in fission.
Nuclear Fission: Basics Nuclear Fission: BasicsWhen a nucleus fissions, it splits into several smaller fragments. These fragments, or fission products, are about equal to half the original mass. Two or three neutrons are also emitted.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3993 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
is this the month for creationists to forget which arguments were refuted years and years and years ago? Yo, it`s Prattime again. What goes around, comes around again, and again, and again---Maybe we should have a sticky on the main board regarding the Big Five: The Exodus Carbon 14 dating The Inerrancy of the Bible Atheists hate God Evolution is a Lie along with a rider---do not attempt these subjects unless you are in possession of NEW arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
N14 needs a neutron to become C14 this is an example of fusion not fission. It's not fusion. Fusion:
quote: One neutron is not a nucleus. Therefore the absorption of a neutron is not fusion. On the other hand, fission:
quote: A single proton is, by definition, a nucleus. (It's the nucleus of a hydrogen atom.) Therefore the process where an atom absorbs a thermal neutron and emits a proton is correctly described as fission, because the nucleus is splitting into two nuclei, one of which is the nucleus of a hydrogen atom (the proton.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Yes, we know all that.
So how is the fact that Cold Fusion experiments have failed related to production of C14 in the ground ? There's no connection between the two that I know of.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024