Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
Molecular Machine
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 221 (314388)
05-22-2006 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JonF
05-21-2006 8:08 PM


Thanks for this post and information. It gives me more lines of enquiry to work on withour simply accepting some of the research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 05-21-2006 8:08 PM JonF has not replied

  
Kid Oh No
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 221 (330427)
07-10-2006 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by JonF
05-21-2006 8:08 PM


wrong subject
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by JonF, posted 05-21-2006 8:08 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by AdminJar, posted 07-10-2006 2:27 PM Kid Oh No has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 221 (330441)
07-10-2006 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Kid Oh No
07-10-2006 2:08 PM


Kid Oh No
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:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], and [thread=-17,-45]


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 17 by Kid Oh No, posted 07-10-2006 2:08 PM Kid Oh No has not replied

      
    ArchArchitect
    Member (Idle past 6181 days)
    Posts: 58
    From: Pasadena, CA
    Joined: 04-16-2007


    Message 19 of 221 (395595)
    04-17-2007 1:24 AM
    Reply to: Message 1 by sailorstide
    05-01-2006 12:12 AM


    Carbon Dating is False because...
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by sailorstide, posted 05-01-2006 12:12 AM sailorstide has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 04-17-2007 1:32 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
     Message 22 by Nuggin, posted 04-17-2007 1:33 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
     Message 23 by DrJones*, posted 04-17-2007 1:41 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
     Message 24 by anglagard, posted 04-17-2007 1:42 AM ArchArchitect has not replied
     Message 25 by RAZD, posted 04-17-2007 10:54 PM ArchArchitect has not replied
     Message 26 by fallacycop, posted 04-17-2007 11:24 PM ArchArchitect has replied

      
    ArchArchitect
    Member (Idle past 6181 days)
    Posts: 58
    From: Pasadena, CA
    Joined: 04-16-2007


    Message 20 of 221 (395598)
    04-17-2007 1:31 AM


    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: 03-20-2003


    Message 21 of 221 (395599)
    04-17-2007 1:32 AM
    Reply to: Message 19 by ArchArchitect
    04-17-2007 1:24 AM


    Re: Carbon Dating is False because...
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-17-2007 1:24 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 2493 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 22 of 221 (395600)
    04-17-2007 1:33 AM
    Reply to: Message 19 by ArchArchitect
    04-17-2007 1:24 AM


    Re: Carbon Dating is False because...
    (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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-17-2007 1:24 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

      
    DrJones*
    Member
    Posts: 2284
    From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    Joined: 08-19-2004
    Member Rating: 6.8


    Message 23 of 221 (395602)
    04-17-2007 1:41 AM
    Reply to: Message 19 by ArchArchitect
    04-17-2007 1:24 AM


    Re: Carbon Dating is False because...
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-17-2007 1:24 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

      
    anglagard
    Member (Idle past 837 days)
    Posts: 2339
    From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
    Joined: 03-18-2006


    Message 24 of 221 (395603)
    04-17-2007 1:42 AM
    Reply to: Message 19 by ArchArchitect
    04-17-2007 1:24 AM


    Re: Carbon Dating is False because...
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-17-2007 1:24 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

      
    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 25 of 221 (395803)
    04-17-2007 10:54 PM
    Reply to: Message 19 by ArchArchitect
    04-17-2007 1:24 AM


    Re: Carbon Dating is False because... another PRATT?
    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 see
    http://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.

    Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-17-2007 1:24 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

      
    fallacycop
    Member (Idle past 5521 days)
    Posts: 692
    From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
    Joined: 02-18-2006


    Message 26 of 221 (395807)
    04-17-2007 11:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 19 by ArchArchitect
    04-17-2007 1:24 AM


    Re: Carbon Dating is False because...
    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)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 19 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-17-2007 1:24 AM ArchArchitect has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 28 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 10:37 PM fallacycop has not replied

      
    ArchArchitect
    Member (Idle past 6181 days)
    Posts: 58
    From: Pasadena, CA
    Joined: 04-16-2007


    Message 27 of 221 (396106)
    04-18-2007 10:35 PM


    A Glitch In Carbon Dating
    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.

    Replies to this message:
     Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 10:43 PM ArchArchitect has replied
     Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2007 11:06 PM ArchArchitect has replied

      
    ArchArchitect
    Member (Idle past 6181 days)
    Posts: 58
    From: Pasadena, CA
    Joined: 04-16-2007


    Message 28 of 221 (396109)
    04-18-2007 10:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 26 by fallacycop
    04-17-2007 11:24 PM


    Re: Carbon Dating is False because...
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by fallacycop, posted 04-17-2007 11:24 PM fallacycop has not replied

      
    ArchArchitect
    Member (Idle past 6181 days)
    Posts: 58
    From: Pasadena, CA
    Joined: 04-16-2007


    Message 29 of 221 (396111)
    04-18-2007 10:40 PM


    *sarcasm*

      
    crashfrog
    Member (Idle past 1467 days)
    Posts: 19762
    From: Silver Spring, MD
    Joined: 03-20-2003


    Message 30 of 221 (396113)
    04-18-2007 10:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 27 by ArchArchitect
    04-18-2007 10:35 PM


    Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 27 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 10:35 PM ArchArchitect has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 31 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 10:56 PM crashfrog has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024