Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-24-2017 8:12 AM
430 online now:
CRR, frako, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat (AdminPhat) (5 members, 425 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,916 Year: 6,522/21,208 Month: 2,283/2,634 Week: 471/572 Day: 18/70 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
15NextFF
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
sailorstide
Junior Member (Idle past 2375 days)
Posts: 18
From: Los Angeles,California,USA
Joined: 04-30-2006


(1)
Message 1 of 221 (308129)
05-01-2006 12:12 AM


Is it or is it not true that dating fossils using carbon dating is not an exact science?
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 05-01-2006 12:29 AM sailorstide has responded
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2006 4:41 PM sailorstide has not yet responded
 Message 19 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-17-2007 1:24 AM sailorstide has not yet responded
 Message 155 by sikosikik5, posted 12-22-2007 11:50 PM sailorstide has not yet responded
 Message 195 by sailorstide, posted 01-02-2010 7:59 AM sailorstide has not yet responded
 Message 220 by simple, posted 06-24-2010 11:42 PM sailorstide has not yet responded

    
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 221 (308130)
05-01-2006 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sailorstide
05-01-2006 12:12 AM


tentatively rejected.
There is a big difference between raidometric dating and carbon dating, and before considering this as a topic I suggest you read the existing threads in the Dates and Dating forum. You might want to begin with this one and then look at this one.

If, after you've read through them you still have questions post a reply here And I'll consider setting you up with someone who can walk you through dating issues.


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

    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, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by sailorstide, posted 05-01-2006 12:12 AM sailorstide has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 3 by sailorstide, posted 05-01-2006 12:08 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

      
    sailorstide
    Junior Member (Idle past 2375 days)
    Posts: 18
    From: Los Angeles,California,USA
    Joined: 04-30-2006


    Message 3 of 221 (308213)
    05-01-2006 12:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 2 by AdminJar
    05-01-2006 12:29 AM


    Past Seasons Unknown
    Science can only measure radioactivity by general measurement yearly. Whos to say that during the last several millions of years past back to and before the extinction of the dinosaurs as to the year by year, decade to decade, century to century, radioactivity that has transpired that there is any way to accurately date any fossil from previous ages? Is it all not a general science as to the radioactive amounts received from age to age? I am confused and bewildered. Does not also plant life and it's foilage also play a part in radioactivity dating? Do not weather climates and such things matter?
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 2 by AdminJar, posted 05-01-2006 12:29 AM AdminJar has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 05-01-2006 12:46 PM sailorstide has responded
     Message 11 by JonF, posted 05-07-2006 4:50 PM sailorstide has not yet responded

        
    AdminNosy
    Administrator
    Posts: 4751
    From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Joined: 11-11-2003


    Message 4 of 221 (308223)
    05-01-2006 12:46 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by sailorstide
    05-01-2006 12:08 PM


    Dating Issues
    I think you should go to the threads that have discussed a lot of dating issues. When you have read them all then you may have more well-formed questions.

    This one is the third continuation of an extensive topic on dating. It was bumped to bring it to your attention. It links back to the previous topics. If you honestly want to learn something I think the time spent reviewing all the posts will help you.

    Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

    These are the first two parts:

    www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=77&m=1>Part I (297 posts)
    and
    www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=3&t=92&m=1>Part II


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by sailorstide, posted 05-01-2006 12:08 PM sailorstide has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 5 by sailorstide, posted 05-07-2006 4:09 PM AdminNosy has responded

      
    sailorstide
    Junior Member (Idle past 2375 days)
    Posts: 18
    From: Los Angeles,California,USA
    Joined: 04-30-2006


    Message 5 of 221 (310026)
    05-07-2006 4:09 PM
    Reply to: Message 4 by AdminNosy
    05-01-2006 12:46 PM


    Re: Dating Issues
    What one such as myself would need to know concerning other than old trees just how carbon dating works and if there are any scientists who disagree that carbon dating is an accurate means for dating fossils.
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 4 by AdminNosy, posted 05-01-2006 12:46 PM AdminNosy has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 6 by AdminNosy, posted 05-07-2006 4:27 PM sailorstide has not yet responded

        
    AdminNosy
    Administrator
    Posts: 4751
    From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Joined: 11-11-2003


    Message 6 of 221 (310031)
    05-07-2006 4:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 5 by sailorstide
    05-07-2006 4:09 PM


    topic definition
    Ok, we can go over this again.

    Let's keep the topic to Carbon dating only ok?

    Did you read the other threads. Much was explained there.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 5 by sailorstide, posted 05-07-2006 4:09 PM sailorstide has not yet responded

      
    AdminNosy
    Administrator
    Posts: 4751
    From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Joined: 11-11-2003


    Message 7 of 221 (310032)
    05-07-2006 4:29 PM


    Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
      
    Chiroptera
    Member (Idle past 1927 days)
    Posts: 6202
    From: Oklahoma
    Joined: 09-28-2003


    Message 8 of 221 (310037)
    05-07-2006 4:41 PM
    Reply to: Message 1 by sailorstide
    05-01-2006 12:12 AM


    quote:
    Is it or is it not true that dating fossils using carbon dating is not an exact science?

    Carbon dating is not used to date fossils.


    "Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
    -- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 1 by sailorstide, posted 05-01-2006 12:12 AM sailorstide has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 9 by jar, posted 05-07-2006 4:43 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
     Message 198 by dennis780, posted 05-12-2010 12:55 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 28427
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 9 of 221 (310038)
    05-07-2006 4:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 8 by Chiroptera
    05-07-2006 4:41 PM


    Carbon dating is not used to date fossils.

    What about dating really young fossils?


    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 05-07-2006 4:41 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 44 by Cthulhu, posted 04-18-2007 11:26 PM jar has responded

      
    JonF
    Member
    Posts: 3483
    Joined: 06-23-2003
    Member Rating: 2.8


    Message 10 of 221 (310039)
    05-07-2006 4:47 PM


    Fossils are not dated using carbon dating. Carbon dating is applicable only to organic remains, which describes very very few fossils, and applicable only to things less than 40,000 to 50,000 years old, which again describes very few fossils. (Older things will still have a little radioactive carbon in them, but the amount does not indicate the age). There's a very good description of the carbon dating method, by a creationist, at How does the radiocarbon dating method work?. Carbon dating is tremendously well validated by comparison with other methods, some involving other radioactive methods and some not involving radioactivity. THer's a nice discussion at Lake Varves.

    Fossils are dated by using other radioactive methods. The most commonly used methods are U-Pb concordia-discordia methods, followed by Ar-Ar methods, followed by various isochron methods. Usually the fossils themselves cannot be dated, and usually the rocks (typically sedimentary) in which the fossils are encased cannot be dated. Mostly we date igneous or metamorphic rock above and/or below the fossil-bearing formation. Luckily there are lots of such circumstances, enough to put together a pretty comprehensive and cross-checked picture. There's a very good explanation of how radiometric dating methods weork at Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.

    But you seem to be asking why we think that the decay rate of radioactive material is constant. There are many reasons, both theoretical and experimental. See Re: summing up, & one more question for a brief list of the major lines of evidence. See Claim CF210 for a more detailed discussion with several references.

    Sorry, Ned, I can't see how to restrict this to just carbon dating and still address his major question.


    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by anglagard, posted 05-07-2006 6:15 PM JonF has not yet responded
     Message 13 by Molecular Machine, posted 05-21-2006 7:37 PM JonF has responded

      
    JonF
    Member
    Posts: 3483
    Joined: 06-23-2003
    Member Rating: 2.8


    Message 11 of 221 (310041)
    05-07-2006 4:50 PM
    Reply to: Message 3 by sailorstide
    05-01-2006 12:08 PM


    Re: Past Seasons Unknown
    Do not weather climates and such things matter?

    No, they do not matter. There's been lots of investigation and experiments. As Bill Murray said:

    quote:

    It just doesn't matter!

    It just doesn't matter!

    It just doesn't matter!

    It just doesn't matter!

    It just doesn't matter!


    This message has been edited by JonF, 05-07-2006 04:51 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by sailorstide, posted 05-01-2006 12:08 PM sailorstide has not yet responded

      
    anglagard
    Member (Idle past 48 days)
    Posts: 2157
    From: Big Spring, TX, USA
    Joined: 03-18-2006


    Message 12 of 221 (310069)
    05-07-2006 6:15 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by JonF
    05-07-2006 4:47 PM


    There's a very good explanation of how radiometric dating methods weork at Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective.

    Personally, I think very good is an understatement in this case. Thanks for the link.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by JonF, posted 05-07-2006 4:47 PM JonF has not yet responded

        
    Molecular Machine
    Inactive Member


    Message 13 of 221 (314205)
    05-21-2006 7:37 PM
    Reply to: Message 10 by JonF
    05-07-2006 4:47 PM


    Thanks for these links, they were helpful for me to get started!

    Have you read much of the research carried out by the RATE Project, in particular the investigation into C14 in diamonds?

    I've just completed the section of the RATE Volume 2, by John Baumgardener and would be interested in any views held.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by JonF, posted 05-07-2006 4:47 PM JonF has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 14 by jar, posted 05-21-2006 7:44 PM Molecular Machine has not yet responded
     Message 15 by JonF, posted 05-21-2006 8:08 PM Molecular Machine has responded

      
    jar
    Member
    Posts: 28427
    From: Texas!!
    Joined: 04-20-2004
    Member Rating: 2.6


    Message 14 of 221 (314207)
    05-21-2006 7:44 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Molecular Machine
    05-21-2006 7:37 PM


    RATE Project
    if you do a search here on RATE Project you will find a dozen or so threads where it's discussed.


    Aslan is not a Tame Lion
    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Molecular Machine, posted 05-21-2006 7:37 PM Molecular Machine has not yet responded

      
    JonF
    Member
    Posts: 3483
    Joined: 06-23-2003
    Member Rating: 2.8


    Message 15 of 221 (314214)
    05-21-2006 8:08 PM
    Reply to: Message 13 by Molecular Machine
    05-21-2006 7:37 PM


    Have you read much of the research carried out by the RATE Project, in particular the investigation into C14 in diamonds?

    Yes. They are either ignorant or deliberately misleading, and I think it's unlikely that they are ignorant.

    14C is produced by high-energy particles ineracting with 14N. Most of it is produced in the upper atmosphere; the high-energy particles are cosmic rays. But it's also known that decay of uranium produces some appropriate particles. So, wherever there is 14N (and we know there's 14N in diamond) and uranium (which might well have been near or in the diamonds; we don't know for sure, but it's quite possible) there is going to be a little 14C.

    Their claim that diamonds cannot be contaminated with modern carbon (" ...a diamond has remarkably powerful lattice bonds, so there is no way that subsequent biological contamination can be expected to find its way into the interior.") is not supported or reasonable; natural diamonds have flaws and cracks into which groundwater can intrude, no matter how powerful the atomic bonds.

    The RATE group made no rational scientific estimate of how much 14C should be present in diamonds. I doubt that we have enough data on their history to do so, but I could be wrong. But the RATE guys assumed, without explicitly stating so, that the only source of 14C is the atmosphere; and we know that's not true. So their "study" is worthless, being based on an obviously faulty assumption that they didn't state.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 13 by Molecular Machine, posted 05-21-2006 7:37 PM Molecular Machine has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 16 by Molecular Machine, posted 05-22-2006 2:42 PM JonF has not yet responded
     Message 17 by Kid Oh No, posted 07-10-2006 2:08 PM JonF has not yet responded

      
    1
    23456
    ...
    15NextFF
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017