|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The "equilibrium problem" comes from websites like AnswersinGenesis:
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible?
| Answers in Genesis
Because their religious belief tells them that radiocarbon dating is in error, they look for any possible facts or quotes to misrepresent or misunderstand in order to confirm that belief. This web article is a very good example. As is often the case with creationist websites, it makes junk science seem downright respectable. As is generally the case with creationist "science" this article is inaccurate. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
On another thread Dpeele posts:
quote:There are several problems here. 1) When you say "radiocarbon dating" you probably mean "radiometric dating." Radiocarbon dating is one of the most familiar forms of radiometric dating, but it extends back in time only about 50,000 or 60,000 years. And, it works only on those things which contain carbon. But since you asked about radiocarbon dating, and that is something I have worked with a lot over nearly 40 years as an archaeologist, I will address that one method. 2) You probably read that radiocarbon dating was based on several assumptions, and the creationist source you read implied that those assumptions were faulty. Actually, none have been shown to be faulty by creation "science" or even real science. Radiocarbon dating relies on the assumptions that a) the decay constant has remained constant over the 50,000 or 60,000 years that the method addresses, and that b) the initial amounts of radiocarbon are known. a) There is currently no evidence that the decay constant varies by any significant amount. This is established by physicists and other scientists, not by "evolutionists" who are out to "prop up" Darwin's theory. But a few years ago creation "scientists" gathered over a million dollars of creationist money and set out to "prove" the decay constant wasn't. The R.A.T.E. Project, as it was known, failed. They found that scientists were right all along, but they refused to believe their own data. Creationists can't accept scientific data because they have chosen to accept scripture as the highest form of knowledge, so they had to reject the data they themselves generated! Creation "science" as usual, eh? Source: Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac b) Creationists make a big deal out of the fact that atmospheric levels of carbon 14 vary because of variations in cosmic rays and other factors. They use this to cast doubt on the accuracy of the method. But don't you think scientists have noticed this variation and dealt with it? De Vries, in 1958, published on this problem and proposed solutions. Since then, a calibration curve has been established for North America using dated tree rings from the standing dead bristlecone pines of the White Mountains of southern California. That curve differs by only a bit over 10% at its greatest from the measured radiocarbon ages. But just in case that calibration curve is not representative, other curves have been worked out. They have used oaks in Europe and even coral growth and glacial varves in lakes, and the answers all come out pretty much the same. So in answer to your question, radiocarbon dating is not based on several faulty assumptions. The assumptions are as accurate as science can make them. What is faulty is creationists' efforts to discredit particular sciences because their religious belief requires it. For the most part they know little about science, but think they can overturn entire fields based on their faulty understanding and a few "gotcha" points that are repeated over and over. Those points have also been refuted over and over, and are thus called PRATTs (points refuted a thousand times). This is what you have most likely read. And check earlier posts on this thread. If I remember correctly there will be a lot of good information for you. If you have any specific questions, let us know. There are several folks here who are quite knowledgeable in this field. Edited by Coyote, : Boo-boo Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
You claim to have a PHD in evolutionary sciences and works in radiocarbon dating. But for some reason these credentials & works you wont reveal in public, so we just 'have to take your word for it'. I work with radiocarbon dating.
You get away with making many claims assertions and accusations without ever backing them up with the same standards you hold others to. On the internet you are what you post. You wouldn't believe any credentials I claimed anyway, so just rely on what I post for any assessment of my knowledge in this field. This is the correct thread if you want to dispute the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, so go ahead. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Bump.
Here's your big chance! You challenged radiocarbon dating, so show us where its wrong. Bump. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
On another thread tedrick79 writes:
You cannot be seriously using carbon dating still. All radiometric dating insists the tester assumes initial C14 content. When an assumption is made it allows in presuppositions as to the actual date. Therefore radiometric dating is useless unless you were told exactly how much of the isotope existed when the sample was formed or died or was sealed into place. Unfortunately, the thread you posted to was on another topic, so I am moving your post here where it fits within the topic. Below are some good links where you can learn about the different methods of radiometric dating, of which radiocarbon dating (C14 or carbon 14 dating) is only one of many that are used. Your post shows you know little about radiometric dating. If you would peruse the links below, and let us know of any questions you may have we would be happy to help you understand what is really happening with the different methods of radiometric dating. I do a lot of radiocarbon dating in my work (archaeology), so I can handle that method. Others here are more familiar with the other methods of radiometric dating. And it would be best if you did not just take what the creationist websites tell you uncritically. When it comes to science, they are not the best sources of information.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Let me ask a simple question that I assuming is assumed.
Good question! How do testers find the initial content of carbon 14? That carbon which was tied up in the object when it was sealed up X number of years ago? Everything living has the same ratio of C12 to C14. That is based on the fact that everything living is just loaded with carbon, and the ratio of C12 to C14 that all living things have is the ratio of the atmosphere. When an organism dies it stops interacting with the atmosphere and the C14 can then begin to drop to sub-atmospheric levels. That should being up the question "How do you know the levels of C14 in the atmosphere in the past?" Another good question! By counting back into the past using things with annular patterns (glacial varves, tree rings, etc.) you can obtain a radiocarbon date on something of known age and establish a correction curve to account for fluctuations of C14 in the atmosphere. The need to account for these atmospheric variations was noted by de Vries over 50 years ago, shortly after radiocarbon dating was invented. Thus, we can use radiocarbon dating without the need for unsupported assumptions about initial levels--we can check on those levels directly. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
So if you have the template (such as tree rings) you can carbon date things that are at least as young as the oldest tree?
The trees that they use have been well researched and don't produce two rings a year with any appreciable frequency. They use the standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California. They have that sequence back past 12,500 years by matching overlapping ring patterns on the various standing dead trees. I might can accept that - of course it doesnt help you much past around 3500 years. I hear that some years trees produce a couple rings as well? In Europe they have a particular oak that they use for their sequence, but I am not as familiar with that particular one. Not surprisingly, the two sequences match extremely closely. As additional verification, events such as volcanoes, which erupted at known dates, can be found and identified in the tree ring sequences based on the changes they made in the climate, hence in the growth patterns.
Glaciars have annual patterns? As reliable as tree rings? I know they have layers that indicate snowfall and melt. I know also that they found World War 2 fighter planes under several hundreds of these layers. So several of them may form in the springs and falls of a year as it snows at night only to melt off during the day?
The claim concerning the World War II planes is dealt with at the following link: CD410: Airplanes Buried in Ice Basically, the conditions where those planes landed are significantly different than at the locations where the ice cores are taken. So far all of your objections to radiocarbon dating have been common talking points found on creationist websites. Take a look at the links I provided in a previous post and a lot of your questions can be easily answered. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sorry, you are just spouting standard creationist nonsense--at a Gish gallop pace--that has long since been refuted.
But I expected no less. Your cut-and-paste creationist nonsense is not even worth the time it would take to refute (again), and you would probably neither read my refutation nor understand it--and you certainly wouldn't accept it. So why bother. But if you can narrow your post down to one argument maybe I'll explain it to you in detail. But leave out the nonsense of the many million year old fossil human skulls. That is beneath even your standard level of nonsense. And when discussing radiocarbon dating don't bother with any samples that are within the margin of error. They are meaningless, and certainly don't prove the creationist case. Edit to add: And you might read the previous posts on this thread. You might just learn something. Edited by Coyote, : No reason given. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Since you are fond of Baumgardner and the RATE project here is a review of that work:
Assessing the RATE Project: Essay Review by Randy Isaac: Assessing the RATE Project Key points from the article:
quote: quote: quote: This is an example of Baumgardner's research. What the RATE project did is confirm what scientists have been saying all along, but Baumgardner et al. wouldn't even accept that when it was shown by their own evidence! And in addition to showing that radiocarbon dating is accurate they also showed the global flood couldn't have happened as written. Of course they wouldn't believe that either, even though that is a logical conclusion from the RATE project's research. And you want to use Baumgardner as a credible source? What a joke! If you want to cast some doubt on radiocarbon dating you will have to try again. And stick to one point--the Gish gallop might play well before a creationist audience but here it just makes you look desperate. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
The effects are pretty small in nature with, say, carbon 12 and 13, but they're measurable.
Correct. This is called fractionation. There is a good essay on this as applied to radiocarbon dating at this site: Isotopic Fractionation One tidbit: Some processes, such as photosynthesis for instance, favour one isotope over another, so after photosynthesis, the isotope C13 is depleted by 1.8% in comparison to its natural ratios in the atmosphere (Harkness, 1979). Conversly the inorganic carbon dissolved in the oceans is generally 0.7% enriched in 13C relative to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The extent of isotopic fractionation on the 14C/12C ratio which radiocarbon daters are seeking to measure accurately, is approximately double that for the measured 13C/12C ratio. If isotopic fractionation occurs in natural processes, a correction can be made by measuring the ratio of the isotope 13C to the isotope 12C in the sample being dated. The ratio is measured using an ordinary mass spectrometer. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Since Carbon-14, as well as many other radioactive parent substances do not decay at a constant rate (decay rates vary depending on temperature, pressure, electron screening, as well as the fluctuation of the Van Allen belt), and the varying levels of carbon worldwide (8.5% margins), it seems almost impossible for an accurate timescale to be drawn based on any form of radioactive decay. False. The decay rates do not vary wildly as you seem to be suggesting. The RATE Project set out to show that they do, using over a million dollars of creationist money, and they had to conclude that the decay rates have been constant for millions of years. Carbon 14 dates are calibrated for atmospheric fluctuations. Tree rings, corals, glacial varves and other annular items are used to provide these calibration rates. The 8.5% figure you cite is before the calibrations, so even at its greatest error you have only 8.5% variation.
As well, any daughter substance buried with the animal, but not occuring through radioactive decay would give false readings, making the fossil appear older. This does not apply to Carbon 14 dating. You are mixing different radiometric dating techniques. Carbon 14 is not typically used on fossils, but on wood, bone, shell, charcoal, etc. Face it: you don't really know anything about Carbon 14 dating do you? You have to google up a few creationist websites and see what they say, and unfortunately they are lying to you. Because you haven't studied the techniques you don't know where the lies are. Those of us who have studied these techniques can spot the lies you are passing on in an instant. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I've posted these before, but here are some good links. (They will only help if you actually read them.)
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sorry, that has nothing to do with Carbon 14. Try one of RAZD's correlation threads.
There really are vast differences between the various methods of radiometric dating. Please stop mixing them. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Regardless, it appears that in the paper dennis cited, the creationists were specifically looking at carbon-dating of inorganic substances and then complaining that they weren't getting accurate readings. If they were doing better "science" than that, I again stand corrected.
They weren't. They were misapplying the method. Those of us who use Carbon 14 dating know it is useless at the far end of the range as the quantities of C14 are impossibly small. You can breath on a sample and throw the readings way off. And machine error and contamination start to be significant factors. When your signal starts to disappear into the background it is not of much use. But creationists, knowing this, misapply the method and claim results that are inappropriate, then use those results to support their a priori beliefs in a young earth. Creation "science" at it's finest. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024