Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years

quote:

---

That is intriguing. A ca. 30 million year period with no reversals.

---

--The Cretaceous superchron (or Cretaceous Long Normal) also oddly corresponds with a period where there was very significant volcanism. But anyways, I don't want to drift too far off topic.

quote:

---

I smell a Nobel Prize for the first accurate theory.

---

--I was able to attend a geophysical lecture by Joe Meert (an EvCforum participant and assistant professor of geology (geophysics) at the University of South Florida) a few months ago on the topic of geomagnetism. If I recall correctly, he smells a nobel prize for the first coherent potentially falsifiable, well substantiated theory explaining how the geodynamo behaves. Probably the only Nobel to be awarded for scientific research in geology/geophysics. He also humorously said that that might be one of those incipient (precocious?) students in the classroom. Then he winked at me . Well, ok, he didn't--but I like to wish! lol.Anyways, I too would like to see booboo comment on some of this. The worst mistake he can make is closing his mind when things get daunting. I should hope that he would endorse the mind-set that he can leave the fact that there is a possibility that we are wrong in the back of his mind if he wants, but acknowledge the fact that he cannot rebuttle this data and the argument with what he knows--or possibly with what he may ever know.--[edit] - If anyone wants to discuss in more depth geomagnetism and associated phenomena, I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread as adminnemooseus has suggested.Cheers,
-Chris GroseThis message has been edited by TrueCreation, 05-13-2004 02:04 PM

1) I think Booboocruise is long gone.2) I think the geomagnetic theme is too good to get lost in this topic. I think I may be up to participating in a geomagnetic theme, but I'm not going to do it here.Moose

quote:

---

1) I think Booboocruise is long gone.

---

--After checking out his posting list, I guess your right.Cheers,
-Chris Grose

am i the only one who thinks that c14 is irrelevant?lets assume the original post is entirely correct, which it is not, just for the sake of argument.1. so c14 measurements are only good for within 4500 years? so what? has c14 ever been used to measure anything older than 4500? older than 10,000, the common accepted limit?2. c14 dates matter that was once alive: organic matter. fossils, contrary to popular belief, are not organic. they are dated using potassium-argon methods, uranium-lead methods, and other methods. these, btw, are incredibly accurate.3. the error margin for c14 makes it useless for most legitimate studies anyways, because almost all of human history fits into it's half-life. it's not so good at determining whether, say, the shroud of turin was made in 200 ad, or 500 ad.4. c14 has nothing to do with biology. really. nothing. the observation of evolution, whether in lab conditions, the wild, or the geologic record (in order, mind you) has little concern with date, just progression.5. the dates on the oldest rocks are still 4.3 billion years old, from other methods, which means they've been here a lot longer than your reading of the bible says they should have been.now, this is assuming the post was CORRECT. which it is not. c14 being totally invalid or off by a bit would mess with archeology, sure. but not geology, paleontology, or biology.sorry.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-22-2004 04:39 AM

Hi, Can I just say that it doesnt even really mess with archaeology because 14c is never solely relied on to date anything in archaeology. It is always used as part of an overall body of evidence. If, for example, a 15th century BCE date was suggested by 14c dating of grain samples found on a particular 'floor', it would have to be supported by other things, such as pottery, jewellery, or even scarabs. The +/- 40 years deviance would also be considered, which many 'biblical archaeologists' are happy to ignore. The material to be dated also has to come from at least 3 different assays to check for reliability.But c14 dating, although extremely useful, would never be taken as 'gospel' on its own by any archaeologist, it would need to fit in with the surrounding evidence.As you know, 14c IS extremely accurate, the techniques has been improved on time and time again, it is only certain people with a religous agenda who 'pray' that it isnt accurate. One thing that always makes me laugh is the c14 dating of grain at Jericho used by Fundy 'scholar' Bryant Wood to challenege Kenyon's 1550 dating of the destruction of Jericho. He totally ignores the +/- 40 years, he also used only one assay, and he doesnt address the fact that the British Museum published (in Radiocarbon Journal) that there had been a calibration error in the dating of a batch of samples that dated these samples 150 years earlier than they should be, and yes Wood's sample was in that batch! But, do the fundies then ignore Wood's dating here, nah. In a nutshell, fundies do think that c14 is reliable, but only when it gives a date that may support something in the Bible.Brian.

eh, yes. i meant to add something to this extent but i suppose i forgot. posting on little sleep, you know. to be completely honest, it has yeilded incorrect results before, but this is usual because of other factors or improper testing. it is for this reason it is never relied upon for sole dating evidence. well, yes. duh. same with anything else. there's quotes by creationists (big named ones too, i just forget who at the moment) to the effect of "only use the facts that justify our position, ignore the ones that invalidate it"problem is, most facts seem to invalidate it. so they spend a lot of time poking holes instead of actually making and testing claims.nice icon, btw. goes well with the name. lol.

Everyone's right; everyone's wrong; how does that get anyone's point across. All we go by is what we read and what people tell us. That's all. So stop arguing and get it right...we all lack in knowledge.

So you are giving up altogether? That seems like a poor way to learn something or resolve a controversy.What specific details (start with just one) do you think is a problem? You might note if you read the dating threads with a bit of care that there isn't an arguement on some important matters. The creationist sites simply don't mention things like the corrolation issue for example. They simply don't have an answer.

It gets me nowhere. The first guy says C-14 is inaccurate (something I believe), and another person gives something else that says it is accurate. All I have to go on are FACTS. I can't rely on opinion. I learned that a long time ago. We can gain all the knowledge in the world, but we lose it all when we die. What happens then? Who will care whether or not evolution is true then?

Your best bet is probably a large dose of peer reviewed papers then. Journals and such. This way unless the evidence is all backed up and passes a board of experts etc etc it doesnt get published, thats as close to fact as you will get. I will warn you tho, some of them are etremely hard to read if you dont have an extremely high profiency in the subject. However abstracts and summaries are generally good enough to tell you whats happening, without being confusing.Unseul

---

Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life....Do unto others before they do unto you.

It's still a man-made theory. If Charles Darwin was in error, why can't we? Intelligence can lead someone in a right or wrong manner, depending on how it is used.

What facts are you going on? This is way off topic, but it sounds like a great start to a philosophical thread if you want to propose a new topic in Proposed New Topics.--Percy

Of course, I don't go on opinions if I don't have to either. I want to see why someone has a particular opinion.There are specific facts about the use of C-14 dating though.Why don't you list the facts that you are aware of and we'll see if you have them all.Here are a few:C-14 decays with a specific measured half life of about 5700 years.C-14 dates obtained my measureing the remaining C-14 can be matched to objects with known dates and the dates match within a few percent based on that half life.The variations in accuracy are accounted for by the expectation that the formation rate of C-14 should vary. These are small, less than 10%.The variations have been handled by cross checking for almost (but not all) of the range of dates for which C-14 is useful (about 50,000 years).The dates obtained match with not one but several completely independent methods of arriving at a date.Do you have any problems with any of this?

I've done that...I made a new topic called "The End of Life." Now, being the free-thinking person you are, you have a choice as to whether or not you would like to post on it. I personally believe that which is most logical in my own eyes. Farewell.

I don't go on opinions unless they are fact, thus canceling out the possibility of it being an just an opinion. What I would like to know is the basis on which these dating methods are based. The dating methods don't determine themselves. It is possible that the incongruous test results could have been thrown out. All we know is what we are given, and I desire more than that.Peace