Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years

Booboo: My post 10, this thread. The link to sciencemag.org. Please read it. Tell me how to get 45,000 layers, of the kind observed to form yearly, in 5000 years. Tell me why 250 14C dates line up smoothly with the dates from counting layers. Tell me why varves in Japan would correlate closely with tree rings in Germany.Read the link. Please.

Hey, BBC, I just checked up on Libby. According to my book 'Before Civilization' by Colin Renfrew, one of the first dates to emerge from Libby's laboratory was for the painted caves in Lascaux, 13500+/-900BC. Where did you get your quote about C14 dating not working with any scientific accuracy beyond 4000 years? Been reading creationist bullshit again?
Libby's check of the soundness of radiocarbon dating used reference dates going back to 2950+/-200BC, nearly 5000 years ago.
Mike.

*claps hands together*
Right, let's look at some of this babble presented by booboocruise. Actually, I'm only going to focus on the 'bad' dates given by radiocarbon dating, since his magnetic fields argument has been debunked.

quote:

---

The vollosovich mammoth was carbon-dated at 29000 years old, and the the SAME mammoth was carbon-dated at 44000 years old!

---

The problem here is that THE DATES CAME FROM DIFFERENT MAMMOTHS! The reference cited by Brown [2001] and cribbed by Hovind [Pewe, 1975] likely refers only to a Fairbanks mammoth which Brown also mentions. The 15,380 and 21,300 BP. dates come from separate mammoths, and it is noted that the 21,300 date is invalid because it comes from a hide soaked in glycerin. It is uncertain what is Brown's source for the 29,500 and 44,000 BP dates.Ukraintseva [1993] reviews the Kirgilyakh mammoth, also known as Dima, and cites three dates obtained for it. All are around 40,000 years BP. Dates for deposits surrounding the mammoth are consistent with dates for the mammoth.http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CD/CD011_2.html

quote:

---

Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago!

---

Too long to explain on the board. Go here: http://home.earthlink.net/~misaak/guide/CD/CD011_4.html

quote:

---

The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago!

---

Similiar to the seal. Every scientist knows that CARBON DATING SHOULD NOT BE USED ON AQUATIC ORGANISMS!You can learn about this at: radiocarbon WEB-infoThe problem with Creationists is that they apply dating methods in such a way so that they are SURE to yield inaccurate results. Every scientists knows that you should never use carbon dating on aquatic organisms. Yet Creationists (since they aren't real scientists) love to abuse and misuse dating methods (and the scientific method in general).

MH, good work but to no avail. Boobootroll hasn't been around for some time and, even if he were, he would manage to conpletely ignore such evidence and simply repeat his assertion based on personal ignorance.

A few additions to what's been posted already ...

quote:

---

The vollosovich mammoth was carbon-dated at 29000 years old, and the the SAME mammoth was carbon-dated at 44000 years old!

---

This is just plain wrong. No single mammoth was ever dated like that. I don't know where the claim originated, but Kent Hovind uses it regularly. When a reference is given, it's to Troy L. Pewe: Quaternary Stratigraphic nomenclature in unglaciated Central Alaska Geological survey professional paper #862 US GOV printing office 1975, pg. 30. In that paper there are three C-14 dates of mammoths: 32,700, 15,380, and 21,300 years BP. There is no indication that the three dates are from the same carcass.More detail at The Same Mammoth Lived 29,500 and 44,000 years ago?

quote:

---

Living Seals were carbon-dated as having died 1400 years ago! The shell of a living clam was carbon-dated as having died thousands of years ago!

---

I don't have the references handy, but those results were obtained by real scientists testing the validity of carbon dating ... and the reason for the anomalous results is known. The ocean contains significant dissolved carbon form linestone, which is old carbon with essentially no C-14, so marine arganisms that derive their carbon from the oceanic carbon reservoir cannot be acurately carbon dated.

quote:

---

The water canopy at the outer layer of the atmosphere--which would account for where the flood-water came from AND explains why tropical plants were found frozen in the Arctic circles--would have kept the radiation out of the atmosphere before the flood.

---

Perhaps. All we can be sure of is that such a canopy would have killed every living thing on Earth with the temperature and pressure required to maintian such a canopy.All right, perhaps a few hardy bacteria would survive ... they're tough little fellas. But we sure wouldn't.

1) More detail about the vapor canopy:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.htmlIn short, if you're wanting to store 9km of water in the air, that means that you need 9km worth of water's mass having an effect on earth's pressure. It would apply the same force as a gas as it does as a liquid - i.e., every 10 meters of water is one atmosphere. Thus, we're talking about 900 atmospheres of pressure here. Plus, for all of this water to exist as a vapor, the temperature of earth would have to be many times higher.Not mentioned: What if the water was ice in an unstable orbit or something of the sort? Several kilometers of water falling down over a period of a few days would create a massive series of turbulent compression waves that would devastate the entire surface of the planet. The turbulence on the atmosphere would rival that of Jupiter's. We're talking about a collision with an immense amount of material; even the most stably decayed orbit filled with the tiniest of crystals still would involve a preposterously massive displacement of Earth's atmosphere (remember - there's a 900/1 mass ratio).Finally, the canopy would have other effects (none of which are observed). Since C14 dating virtually always (in situations where it is anticipated to work) matches up with dendrochronology, thermoluminescence dating, fission track dating, amino-acid dating, and uranium/thorium dating within 20%, something would have to not only throw those methods off, but throw them off in the exact same method by the exact same amount.2) The John Day Fossil Beds.Like all fossil beds, it is perfectly explained by the standard accepted scientific explanation - that the area was being deposited millions of years ago, representing 40 million years of the Cenozoic's 65 million.. However, unlike the flood theorists, science actually explains *why* certain types of fossils are found in certain strata - and *only those strata*.To accept a flood geology account of the fossil bed, you have to be able to explain *why* fossils are perfectly sorted along strata boundaries in this manner. Why, for example, are there nimravids scattered through the strata so that a few specific species live in each strata? If your answer is "size" or "swimming ability" or "buoyancy") (in a worldwide flood???), you'll find the same trend among Felids, unrelated animals, and even plants. In each level, there is a unique ecosystem, containing animals and plants of all different sizes, shapes, and niches. However, each level has a *different* ecosystem, virtually without exception. What on earth kind of sorting mechanism in a flood would account for this miraculous sorting? And why on earth did it have (given our above examples) nimravids which closely resemble each other, but have slight differences in adjacent layers, with the differences steadily progressing (and branching) in higher layers, until you have creatures of completely different sizes and shapes - while at the same time, sorting the quite different felids alongside them, along with the quite different plants, etc. What on earth could account for this? And why is it seen everywhere on Earth?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."[This message has been edited by Rei, 09-04-2003]

quote:

---

Not mentioned: What if the water was ice in an unstable orbit or something of the sort? Several kilometers of water falling down over a period of a few days would create a massive series of turbulent compression waves that would devastate the entire surface of the planet. The turbulence on the atmosphere would rival that of Jupiter's. We're talking about a collision with an immense amount of material; even the most stably decayed orbit filled with the tiniest of crystals still would involve a preposterously massive displacement of Earth's atmosphere (remember - there's a 900/1 mass ratio).

---

Another factor, maybe even more devastating: there's an enormous difference in potential energy between any significant mass of water high enough to be stable there over a reasonable term and the same amount of water at the surface of the Earth. In other words, moving the water from well above the Earth to the surface releases a lot of energy ... which would be manifested as heat ... parboiling every living thing in an instant.Any version of the vapor canopy has an energy problem. The only differnce between models is exactly how and at what point in the process all life is destroyed.

I'm new here. I just want to make some statements.
1.)Im not the best typist-hang in there.
2.)I am a devout Christian and beleive in creation.
3.)Unlike some scientists I look at thiongs objectivly
4.)Evolution is plain wrongok- now that we are through that.
*-my responseI want to set some things straight.Message 2 of 38
JohnWrong again. The rock spreading out from the mid-ocean ridges doesn't show stronger and weaker magnetic fields. It quite blatantly records flipped magnetic poles.*I dont know if you realize this, but less that one percent of the ocean floor has been looked upon. 99 percent of what is on any map has never been seen and is therefore gueswork. As to magnetic reversals, no phenomenon has ever been seen nor has it been recorded. It has however been recorded to be weaker at points. This is because the "reversal" (AKA-weaker polarity) has cracked and been heated. If you stick a hosehold magnet in a household oven and cook at about 1/2 its highest temperature it will lose charge completly. Now put this on a larger scale and it is like the ocean floor. You have been told that on this ridge hot magma comes up and "spreads" apart the plates. Well this hot rock (basalt I beleive)loses its magnetism when it becomes molten. This magma covers/touches the basalt and weakens the polerity of this particular rock. On this suject, i would like to see REAL proof. Any one could write something and put it on the internet, this is just as plausable as aliens creating life(not very).Message 2 of 38
JohnYou are right about one thing. A decay rate the likes of what you suggest could be measured and quite easily. Why hasn't it been measured by anyone not pushing a Biblical agenda? You couldn't miss a field decay rate like you propose.*When most people see/record evidence a chain of events goes off in teir minds. I think it may have gone a little like this. "Hmmmmm, apareltly what I had first thought was wrong. All of the evidence I have taken goes against it. Hmmmmm, maybe I should change my stance." At least thats what I do when I am wrong. Maybe evolutionary scientists have taken the measurements. They just dont want people to know. They let their bias control what they say. If they were to let people know about evidence proving a section of their beleifs wrong, it might make someone come to Christ. They cant stand that so they censor their research. It is as simple as that.Message 2 of 38
JohnYou, in fact are assuming something contrary to the evidence-- that the magnetic field and thus the c-14 has declined at a steady rate. The magnetic field has both increased and decreased over time, and so has c-14 production. But we know about this and can compensate for it, as well as cross check with other methods of dating.*I'll make this short. Do you know for a fact that there were fluctuations, if so, when they occured, how long they lasted and how sharp the contrast was? I'd love to see how you traveled into the past. Also, many factors change c-14 rate, not just magnetic field.Message 2 of 38
JohnSources?Ever hear of contamination? It happens all the time. That is why serious scientists take multiple samples and cross reference them, rather than take one wierd date and chirp that the method doesn't work. Tell me, if you had twenty samples giving dates within 5% of each other and one or two samples giving dates 20% or more off, would you conclude that the 20 dates are wrong or the two wierd dates?*well I do that, take multiple measurements, but when I measure a standard peice of paper I expect to get 8.5 X 11 in, not 20 ft X 10ft on most of them. There are plenty of times that carbon dating has been proven faulty. In fact there are websites directed entirely to it. Yet you will never see that in a text-book.Message 2 of 38
JohnI think you just demonstrated that you don't know what you are talking about. C-14 dating only works up to about 40 or 50 thousand year ages. So the most anyone could claim based on C-14 is that the Earth is at least 40-50k years old, not millions.*Well, if he demonstrated that he dosnt know what he is talking about, how can you sit where you are and type that the earth is millions of years old, and that it is proven by fossils, and then say that carbon dating on those fossils can only go to 40-50k years. Does that not sound stupid. Wouldnt that mean that carbon dates of millions of years are incredibly false. Why are you trying to defend them? Duh!Message 2 of 38
JohnAnd of the tens of thousands of scientists working in relevant fields, only a couple of creationists have noticed? LOL...*Relevant fields. If you want to talk about relevant. Darwin's education was in theology, not biology. How can you take his side if he never went into that field? Couple of creationists, no no no no no. Plenty of creationists as well as many evolutionists that receive the same findings and censor them.

John
Message 9 of 38Meaning it fluctuates a bit? No kidding! Scientists know this and can compensate for it.*Well how can they possibly compensate for it. If they dont know how much there was, how do they know how much to add or subtract. I'll use an example for you. Take a cup of water. Fill it, lets say 3/4 full. Now set it in the sun for lets say, 1 day. Now bring it inside. Some of the water has no doubt evaporated (it has fluctuated). Now go get you best friend and ask his how much water should be added or subtracted (if it rained) to make it 3/4 full again. You would know because you were there and hea wasnt. Now let me ask you a question, were you there hundreds of years ago to measure the c-14 in the atmosphere? I didnt think so. That was a useless argument on your part and easily dispatched. Next.John
Message 9 of 38You are assuming a biblical flood. There is no evidence for such a thing-- none. And as there is no evidence for it, why exactly should anyone worry about c-14 levels before and after it? Why worry about the effect of an event which we have no reason to believe ever happened?*Well in all due respect, there is no evidence for evolution either-- none. There is evidence for the flood. Go look it up. It would take pages upon pages to show you the evidence. Im not wasting everyones time. Next.John
Message 9 of 38Which, again, is assumed and has no evidence to back it up.*True, which is why it is called a THEORY. Yes, like evolution. Neither is observable, repeatable or testable. Yet you say evolution happened, so why not this? Next.John
Message 9 of 38Does it now?1) Where tropical plants found in the artic? Or perhaps just some very distant relatives of tropical plants?2) I'd think that the better explanation would be something for which we have ample evidence-- like continental drift.*Can anyone say a sorry excuse for a rebuttal? Relatives? Not a chance. They have the exact same make and structure. I dont know about you and your cousin, but me and mine do not look the same, nor do we have the same exact body structure.John
Message 9 of 38Does the Bible explain the effects of nine kilmeters of water hanging above the earth?*No, but does darwins book explain how life came from nothing. Didnt think so. However Science tells up what would happen. This is repeatable and testable, and observable.John
Message 9 of 38It doesn't really matter.*Again, a poor excuse of a rebuttal. I think that it would matter. Again, an instance where there are no compensations made to give the truth.

quote:

---

I'm new here. I just want to make some statements.
...
4.)Evolution is plain wrong

---

Hello, jackal, and welcome.I have written a post that shows how the fossil record contains great evidence in favor of evolution. That thread is closed, but would you like to start a thread in order to try to dispute this?By the way, click on the "raw text" button below this message to see how I made the quote. It will make your own posts a bit easier to read.

Welcome to the forum.I'm pretty new here myself. I just want to make some statements.
1.)I'm not the best typist-hang in there.
2.)I am a devout Christian and beleive in Evolution.
3.)Unlike Creationists I look at things objectivly.
4.)Creationism is plain wrong.And yes, you are correct. A year and a light year are not the same thing. A year is a measure of time. A Lightyear is a measure of distance. So if something is a Light Year away, it will take the light from that star or object a year to reach Earth.If you see something that is 100,000 Lightyears away, it took 100,000 years for the light to reach us. Currently, the most distant object we've been able to see is slightly over 13 Billion Light years away. That means that the Universe is at least 13 Billion years old.Now none of this has to do with Carbon Dating which is the subject of this thread so I hope you'll join us in that discussion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Oh. Well then, here you go then!

I am wondering, has the Earth always rotated at the same speed? Could it be possible that if the Earth was formed by a massive explosion, the energy from that would cause a faster rotation and in turn create a sufficient amount of force to hold the water. Then as it began to slow the water would fall to the Earth. Now if the rate of decrease was enough could the water have fallen in a one month period. I have no references for this as far as i know this is just another one of my ignorant ideas.

quote:

---

I am wondering, has the Earth always rotated at the same speed?

---

Our rotation is slowing down due to tidal drag.

quote:

---

Could it be possible that if the Earth was formed by a massive explosion

---

The current models are that the Earth formed through accretion.

quote:

---

the energy from that would cause a faster rotation and in turn create a sufficient amount of force to hold the water.

---

I'm confused. I don't think there's any way to levitate something from rotation, unless it's in an orbit.This message has been edited by gene90, 05-10-2004 02:42 PM