|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5047 days) Posts: 18 From: Los Angeles,California,USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Radioactive carbon dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4797 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote:http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html Maybe I should just find scientific research, and post that alone, since you refuse to buy what I'm saying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again dennis780
Maybe I should just find scientific research, and post that alone, since you refuse to buy what I'm saying. That would be a good idea, so why don't you start?
That is not scientific research. It's bogus. You can put 14N (Nitrogen) and 13C next to uranium and generate 14C, so all Snelling does is look for samples that are contaminated by uranium radiation and voila: bogus 14C readings. Professional scientists rule out these possibilities or account for them in the data they present.
Measurable 14C was obtained in all cases. You will note this is a PRATT (one of many that involve 14C - see the PRATT List for more). CD011.5: C14 date of Triassic wood
quote: This is typical of creationists attempts to misuse 14C dating, which they know how to do because they know how it is supposed to be used to get accurate results. They know they can fool gullible people with their falsehoods: are you one? Try this: if 14C is so unreliable how come there are correlations like this:
Where the 14C age is correlated with tree ring counts showing actual annual growth from multiple dendrochronologies. This shows the effect of changes in 14C production in the atmosphere at different times in the past, which you can see means that ages are actually older than what is measured by 14C without correction. This is how 14C is calibrated to improve the accuracy of the dates derived by this method. Curiously a lot of scientific effort has gone into producing accurate calibration curves. This is another sample:
Where the 14C age is correlated with the annual diatom & clay varve deposition in Lake Suigetsu in Japan (blue circles), and with the above tree ring correlation (in green). Note that (1) there is other data than tree rings and lake varves, (2) that this other data also lies along the same general curve, and (3) that this covers the time period where 14C dating is valid, showing that this method is accurate for that whole period. Then there is this correlation curve of C-14 dates with actual dates known from a number of sources, some of them from marine samples that have been corrected for the marine resevoir effect (more on this later):
Notice how the other correlations have the same pattern at ~30kyr as the lake varves. Notice that there is no line drawn between data points here -- instead what appears to be a line is the sheer number of known data points available for making this calibration. Notice that there are variations about the mean for this curve, and that this is the amount of uncertainty that is involved with C-14 dating. Finally, see if you can explain this correlation:
Here you see the correlation of 14C with the annual varves in Lake Suigetsu AND with the changes in deposition rate of sediments. Note that these are from scientific research published in scientific journals and peer reviewed by scientists. For more see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. The earth is old. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : added another graphic of the 14C calibration data we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4531 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
dennis780 writes: quote: Even with my limited knowledge, I feel that I'm qualified to say this: If something has been FOSSILIZED then you're not going to be able to get any usable C-14 readings from it, because if it's FOSSILIZED, then it's a FUCKING ROCK. I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.-Steven Dutch
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
If something has been FOSSILIZED then you're not going to be able to get any usable C-14 readings from it, because if it's FOSSILIZED, then it's a FUCKING ROCK. I think "fossil" is loosely defined as a remanant of life found in the dirt. This can include fossils that are still almost entirely organic. I am pretty sure that charcoal from ancient human settlements found in the ground are considered fossils, and they are used to date the settlement. However, the use of "fossilized wood" does tend to indicate permineralization where the organic material has been replaced by dissolved minerals from the surrounding water table.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 188 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
When Zircons (or other gems, such as monazite) form, they exclude lead, but can have considerable levels of Uranium. As the Uranium decays, lead is produced. Sounds logical. Except you still do not know the levels of Uranium to begin with.
And the initial level of uranium is not part of the equation. I.e., it's irrelevant. Pb-Pb and U-Pb isochrons aren't used all that often. The majority of all dates performed in the last decade or so, and probably before that, are concordia-discordia dates. Address the consilience between different dating methods, proving their reliability, at Age Correlations and An Old Earth (ver 2 no 1).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ZenMonkey Member (Idle past 4531 days) Posts: 428 From: Portland, OR USA Joined: |
Taz writes: I think "fossil" is loosely defined as a remanant of life found in the dirt. This can include fossils that are still almost entirely organic. I am pretty sure that charcoal from ancient human settlements found in the ground are considered fossils, and they are used to date the settlement. I was under the impression that the term "fossil," properly applied, referrs only to permineralized, inorganic impressions. If it's legitimate to use it to indicate any preserved material, then I stand corrected. 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. I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die. -John Lydon What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.-Steven Dutch
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ZenMonkey,
I was under the impression that the term "fossil," properly applied, referrs only to permineralized, inorganic impressions. If it's legitimate to use it to indicate any preserved material, then I stand corrected. I would say that this is the common layman's understanding of fossil is that the bones etc are replaced by minerals. Fossil - Wikipedia
quote: So if it's a fossil, then it already is older than your common YEC earth claim ... and the time scale was worked out by geoologists (many of whom were clergy) well before Darwin.
quote: There's obviously some overlap in the various types, so there are a spectrum of objects that are called fossils in science. Some take longer to form than others. The footprints at Laetoli are trace fossils. I have some replacement/cast fossils of Brachiopods from a beach in Oregon. Any time you have some mineral deposition or replacement going on, there is the possibility of water carrying recent carbon into such fossils. Coyote can correct me, but it is my understanding that fossils per se are not dated, rather artifacts that are of known organic materials are dated with 14C (if not too old) and otherwise rocks above and below the fossils are dated to provide a window for the age of the fossil. When it comes to 14C dating, there are a number of well known (by scientists) factors that can affect the results, and these are usually published along with the effect in question. A good resource for this is: Corrections to radiocarbon dates.
quote: Of course, when this information is published, unscrupulous creationists then (mis)use this information without telling their gullible readers the reasons for these dates. An example of this creationist fraud is a seals from the antarctic area
quote: There is also another common creationist claim regarding a freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound: Radio Carbon Dating - Archaeology Expert(Notice that they claim to be experts, but there are no names provided, no information of the basis for their "expertise"... can you say hoax? fraud? deceit?) quote: See Message 13 of Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes for the data that shows that the expected uncorrected 14C age of seals from this reservoir effect area would be from 1215 BP to 1476 BP. The correction dates for different areas of the ocean are published: 14CHRONO Marine Reservoir Database So all an unscrupulous creationist need do the find uncorrected dates that appear to be erroneous, is look up locations where there is a large reservoir effect and go there and take samples, ... but don't tell anyone that the dates are uncorrected ... Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10033 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I was under the impression that the term "fossil," properly applied, referrs only to permineralized, inorganic impressions. Can you get DNA from rock? "Nonetheless, recently developed DNA capture methods, already applied to Neanderthal and fossil human mitochondrial DNA, may soon make large-scale genome-wide analysis of ancient human diversity a reality, providing a fresh look at human population history."-- Analysis of ancient human genomes: using next generation sequencing, 20-fold coverage of the genome of a 4,000-year-old human from Greenland has been obtained - PubMed The term fossil is used to denote organic remains in the peer reviewed lit, but then again this is more of a biology paper than a paleontology or geology paper. The wiki page references the Latin root which is fossus meaning "having been dug up".
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. Completely agree. Even in common venacular there is an obvious difference between buried organic wood and fossilized wood. We all know the difference, and the difference is permineralization.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
simple  Inactive Member |
Of course it is not exact. Unless you are talking about quite recently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1425 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi simple1, and welcome to the fray.
Of course it is not exact. Unless you are talking about quite recently. And what you mean by exact. It is accurate enough for practical purposes. See Message 212. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. by our ability to understand R ebel A merican Z en D eist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024