Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years

Warning! This is all heading way off topic. Please don't follow my poor example and carry this on here!You can carry this on in another thread if you'd like Justin. Why would you bring this up? Perhaps only because your earlier suggestions done't work? Maybe?I don't see anyway that it could have formed that way. But you'd have to describe what you think occured. Show all your assumptions, calculations and conssequences. Then it can be considered as a hypothosis. Otherwise it is assigned a different technical term that begins with the letters "B" and "S".If you think the high rotational speed lifted the water you'll have to explain why everything else was tied down/. You will then need to explain why when the earth slowed the water did too as it is, presumably, in orbit.Unfortunately if you just make stuff up Justin you don't actually convince anyone of anything. All you do is make a lot of work for yourself making still more stuff up and (if you really tried to defend it) a huge amount of math for yourself. If you persist in making up things out of purple smoke you will get a reputation as being not very knowledgable about the topics under discussion (which is, of course, perfectly acceptable, we all have a lot to learn). Unfortunately, pretending to know things and demonstrating your ignorance while doing so will only make you look very foolish.Pending the detailed calculations I'd have to say that this suggestion is more likely to make you look foolish than anything else. I'll try to reserve judegment untill you've had a chance to show that you do know something about the physics involved. (but that is very hard to do).This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-10-2004 03:14 PM

How would i go on about doing that because i would very much like to have a chance to explain what i meant. Thank You

quote:

---

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.

---

This is off topic, but I thought I might help you out Before you try and start another thread on this subject. Respiring human beings are less dense than water, hence we float when we swim. Therefore, if the rotation was fast enough to keep water afloat, it would keep humans afloat above the water. That is, unless we had 50 lb iron shoes to keep us on the ground. Any further discussion should probably be in another thread.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wrong, the magnet loses its manufactured, strong magnetism. However, as the magnet resolidifies it will realign itself with the north and south pole. While this magnetism is not as strong as before the melt, it is still measureable. The same for the rocks on the ocean floor. As they solidify, the molecules in the rock align themselves with the north and south pole, and the power of the earth's magnetic field is recorded by the magentic strength in the solidified rock. Your argument fell apart when you failed to realize that the magnetism endowed by the earth's magentic field is much weaker (but measurable) than those found in magnets with artificially created magentic fields.

quote:

---

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.

---

You might want to check your own camp for this type of dishonest activity. Many creation scientist organinization make their scientists take an oath that they will disregard data that conflicts with a literal translation of Genesis. Real scientists look at and report all of the data, creation scientists don't.

quote:

---

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.

---

How about the graph of the data: Notice how the graph is a mirror image on either side of the ridge? This is because the sea floor is slowly spreading, and the slow changes of the earth's magnetic field are recorded as the rocks solidify at the ridge, and eventually split and spread out to their current position.

quote:

---

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.

---

Exactly, because dating done with the wrong sort of samples (eg dating aquatic samples with c14) is thrown out and never used to support any theory or hypothesis. Aquatic organisms absorb their carbon from the water, in the form of carbonate. Carbonate is made up of old carbon. Only terrestrial organisms that derive their carbon from the atmosphere (terrestrial plants) are dated with C14.

quote:

---

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.

---

Fossils aren't dated with by C14, but by other methods. Overtime, the material in fossils is replaced by minerals in the surrounding sedimentary rock. When this happens, the igneous rock above and below the fossil are dated using isotopes with longer half lives, such as potassium/argon dating. This is off topic, but meteorites thought to have been formed at the start of the solar system have been dated to 4.5 billion years old by numerous isotopes (not C14).

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, accusing scientists of lying. Please show the data that they are withholding or withdraw your accusation.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 05-10-2004 04:34 PM

Just to add a little to the information Loudmouth provided, here's a diagram from the book Building Planet Earth by Peter Cattermole. It appears on page 68 and illustrates the magnetic striping that occurs to magma as it cools to form sea floor and moves away from the ridge: --Percy

Since c-14 is not used to date the ocean floor stripping could you explain to me how this is on topic.Continued violations of good conduct on the forum can result in suspention of posting priveledges. Please try harder to stay on topic! (but it is a pretty picture )This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 05-10-2004 06:32 PM

While ¹⁴C dating isn't used to date the ocean floor itself, it can be used to date the ocean floor's clothing once it has finished stripping. Yes, I'm setting a bad example. I will make a greater effort in the future to stay on topic. --Percy

Ok, I got what I deserve. When making fun one shouldn't leave such a huge opening for a retort. (mmm, perhaps that is off topic too and belongs in the Urey expermiment thread )

quote:

---

Since c-14 is not used to date the ocean floor stripping could you explain to me how this is on topic.

---

In the opening post, Booboo seemed to indicate that there was a greater magnetic force in the past that could have influenced C14 atmospheric concentrations. The sear floor striping gives us a record of the earth's magnetic field, showing that the increased levels asserted by booboo are in fact wrong. Although dangerously close to going off topic, this is a side issue that refutes one of the assertions in the OP.Added in edit:This is a quote from the OP: Therefore, a firm record of magnetic strength lower than that claimed by booboo is relevant and on-topic, at least as far as I am concerned.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 05-11-2004 12:13 PM

Thanks for going back to the first post and digging that out.It looks like we've provided only half the data to refute the original assertion. We've provided the data showing that magnetic reversals actually take place, and now we need data to show what the magnetic variations have been over the past 10,000 years or so, since the most recent reversal was around 700,000 years ago. It shouldn't be too hard to find information indicating that it wasn't "320% stronger 4500 years ago."I think the most puzzling thing about many YECs is their antogonistic attitude toward science. If scientists are developing faster computers or better TVs then they're okay, but when it comes to fields like biology, cosmology and geology they're just making it up. Pretty weird attitude.--Percy

Oh, the ignominy of it all. My criticism was wrong in both content and spelling.(and that is probably spelled wrong too )

Anyone so limited as to be able to spell a word only one way is severely handicapped.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I once took a course in OS design from a man who had written the FORTRAN compiler for the IBM 7094 (it was a few years ago). He couldn't speell well, so he programmed it to (e.g.) accept seven different spllings of DIMENSION.

And as an old Unix hacker it took me years to learn that creat had an e on the end.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I heard the same story, right down to it being the word "DIMENSION", from a computer science professor named Donovan back in the early 70s. And he liked to talk about how he'd personally met the King of Norway. Same guy?I'd be surprised (and gratified) if it was, but to be honest, while I believed the story at the time, after a while it's resemblance to stardard-fare urban myth became apparent.--Percy