|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5027 days) Posts: 18 From: Los Angeles,California,USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Radioactive carbon dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Molecular Machine Inactive Member |
Thanks for this post and information. It gives me more lines of enquiry to work on withour simply accepting some of the research.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kid Oh No Inactive Member |
Your having trouble because the rocks and humans will never co-align.Your trying to convince people who bury people in those age old rocks. The people you find may not be that old. Carbon dating is good for bones but fossil creation may not. Sedimentary formations of rock aren't really the time of the person or animal found there. What I really like to say is goodbye to all, the rocks say that it's time to leave the American Socialist Party's attempt to spy on jews. F.B.I. 101. Your not having a good time with this because if the science is proven there's no reason to hate the jews. These forums which include evolution are ways to trick jewish people into relating things about themselves . The battle against religion by evolution the hook. Start quoting book's and authors.Degrees. These people are tough to crack as far as unproven science. And no religious facts unless they believe the jew should be believing that. Ta Ta and no, don't tell them anything at all. Edited by AdminJar, : Totally off topic nonsense post hidden
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
You continue to post absolutely nonsensical off topic posts. Any more of that and you too will be suspended.
Do not reply to this here but in the proper thread. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ArchArchitect Member (Idle past 6181 days) Posts: 58 From: Pasadena, CA Joined: |
Carbon dating is false. The scientists are not taking into account that heat speeds up the amount of Carbon which would obviously alter it's age according to the scientists. (I'm assuming that the people who read this would know what Carbon Dating is).
You want proof? Why do you think that the fossils in volcanic areas are much, much older than those fossils that are found in cooler areas like oasises? The scientists are not including that into the equation, which inevitably makes Carbon dating false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ArchArchitect Member (Idle past 6181 days) Posts: 58 From: Pasadena, CA Joined: |
I meant the amount of Carbon which escapes the object...sorry about that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The scientists are not taking into account that heat speeds up the amount of Carbon which would obviously alter it's age according to the scientists. They're not taking that into account because that doesn't happen. What you're talking about violates fundamental principles of physics (like Conservation of Matter.) You're describing something that is physically impossible.
Why do you think that the fossils in volcanic areas are much, much older than those fossils that are found in cooler areas like oasises? They're not. I don't know what on Earth you think you're talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2493 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
(I'm assuming that the people who read this would know what Carbon Dating is). We are, unfortunately the same can't be said about the person writing it. Radio-carbon dating is about isotope decay not amount of carbon. If you have a two ton block of carbon that's 10,000 years old and a two ouch piece of carbon that's 10,000 years old, the rate of isotope decay is the same. The amount of carbon and the heat in and around the carbon has no effect on the radioactivity. If heat did "speed up" radioactive decay, nuclear plants would run outta fuel at incredible rates.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
along with what the others have said i add: C14 dating is not used on fossils. C14 is used on organic materials, fossils have their organics replaced by inorganic minerals.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
AA writes: Why do you think that the fossils in volcanic areas are much, much older than those fossils that are found in cooler areas like oasises? The scientists are not including that into the equation, which inevitably makes Carbon dating false. And your source for this most startling piece of information is....? Edited by anglagard, : forgot ellipses
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray ArchArchitect.
The scientists are not taking into account that heat speeds up the amount of Carbon (which escapes the object) which would obviously alter it's age according to the scientists. Presumably you mean carbon lost as CO2 in combustion, however this is not a problem for carbon 14 dating because the dating is based on the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 (the "normal" isotope). This ratio is the same no matter what the size of the sample is. The ratio changes with the age of the sample due to the radioactive decay of the carbon 14 atoms. For a good introduction to the way carbon 14 dating actually works see:How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks Also seehttp://razd.evcforum.net/carbon14.html and Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), which discusses the age of the earth evidence from a number of differen sources and the correlations between the different kinds of data.
Why do you think that the fossils in volcanic areas are much, much older than those fossils that are found in cooler areas like oasises? You really should study - or at least google - this before posting such an assertion: it is false. Fossils are found in a mix of volcanic and non-volcanic strata, and their age does not correlate with whether volcanism was involved or not. Ignorance can be cured ... Enjoy. ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy You can also edit your previous post to correct it rather than post a correction. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Carbon dating is false. The scientists are not taking into account that heat speeds up the amount of Carbon which would obviously alter it's age according to the scientists So you believe that physicists are all stupid and failed to take something really simple into account? (Might as well adopt nator`s style)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ArchArchitect Member (Idle past 6181 days) Posts: 58 From: Pasadena, CA Joined: |
I am assuming that everyone here knows what Carbon Dating is. A basic property of Carbon14 is that under extreme heat, it decays even faster, making the object appear to be older than it actually is. (That is why fossils that are found near volcanic areas tend to be much older than the fossils that are found in canyons).
Unfortunately, scientists fail to take that under consideration and as a result, fail to plug it in into thier equations. Therefore, they screw up the apparent age of the fossils - or whatever object, who's age they are attempting to determine. However, even if they did plug in something into the equation regarding this, it would still be near if not impossible to determine the actual thermal conditions which the fossil/object underwent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ArchArchitect Member (Idle past 6181 days) Posts: 58 From: Pasadena, CA Joined: |
Hey, that's awesome fallacycop = I didn't see that b4. I'm glad to see that someone is on the same page as me.
God Bless
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ArchArchitect Member (Idle past 6181 days) Posts: 58 From: Pasadena, CA Joined: |
*sarcasm*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why would it?
I can't find any indication that radioactive decay rates are affected by temperature. Do you have a legitimate source for that? Like a physics textbook? (Something unconnected to the EvC debate would be most suitable.)
Unfortunately, scientists fail to take that under consideration and as a result, fail to plug it in into thier equations. If that's true, why wouldn't they take it into account? If it's so "basic", surely they should know about it?
However, even if they did plug in something into the equation regarding this, it would still be near if not impossible to determine the actual thermal conditions which the fossil/object underwent. Again, why? Things don't get hot for no reason. Surely extreme heat on the order of vulcanism would leave its mark on the surrounding fossil matrix. Barring that there should be evidence of whatever produced the extreme heat in the first place - lava flows, magma plumes, etc. Your contention of "invisible heat" is one I don't find credible. In fact it sounds like you're making this stuff up as you go along.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024