Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Arguements Over a Critical Point
Mission for Truth
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 24 (223768)
07-14-2005 2:35 PM


Hello Everyone,
I need a second opinion. I was talking with my good friend the other day about god and faith and naturally the subject of science came up.
Before I continue I should mention that my friend is actually a smart guy, he definitely has a head on his shoulders but unfortunately he's a little stubborn.
So we were talking about science and the subject of carbon/potassium/uranium dating came up. He obviously doesn't believe that this sort of test is viable and it's "plagued" with problems. I had mentioned to him that it had won the Nobel Prize and that they dont just give those awards away, they must be tested and approved first. But, in my mind, if something wins the Nobel Prize then that 'thing' cannot be wrong! My friend, however, isn't phased one bit and still believes the method is faulty. Specifically, he's heard of tests being done on living things and the results (obviously) are way "out of wack" and to him that's enough to negate the entire method altogether. So, I had mentioned to him that carbon dating (specifically) can't work on living things because the carbon in the organism is still being exchanged with the outside world and cannot be accurately measured (nor should it be). I went on to explain why and how carbon dating only works on deceased organisms, but, in my friend's mind if it doesn't work on living things then it can't be trusted to work at all. This is very frustrating to me because I know for a fact my friend is intelligent, but this is just ridiculous. Now, I know he's a christian. He's been raised as a christian all his life, so I have to take the fact into account that he doesn't want to change his whole system of beliefs. But, how, on a matter of pure logic, can he just ingore this fact??
Can anyone give me some insight here? Is it possible for this test to be wrong?? I highly doubt it, but my friend is smart and who knows but maybe I'm missing something here. I appreciate everyone's insight.
Thanks,
-Mission

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Tal, posted 07-14-2005 2:51 PM Mission for Truth has not replied
 Message 5 by Chiroptera, posted 07-14-2005 3:37 PM Mission for Truth has not replied
 Message 7 by JonF, posted 07-14-2005 4:27 PM Mission for Truth has not replied
 Message 8 by Always Curious, posted 03-03-2007 11:29 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Tal
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 1140
From: Fort Bragg, NC
Joined: 12-29-2004


Message 2 of 24 (223775)
07-14-2005 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
07-14-2005 2:35 PM


. I had mentioned to him that it had won the Nobel Prize
So did Yasser Arrafat.

Totally OT. Do not respond to this message.

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-14-2005 01:53 PM

I helped scare an old person-I stopped someone from keeping more of their money-So what if people want to have say in the places they live and the cars that they drive-I gave money to an environmental group that helped keep us dependant on foreign oil-I help the enemies of democracy get stronger by telling them laws don’t matter-What if one day I need an abortion-Sex with an intern, everybody does it-I help teach kids around America that America is always wrong
Do you know what your DNC stands for?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 07-14-2005 2:35 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 07-14-2005 3:37 PM Tal has not replied
 Message 13 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 6:43 AM Tal has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 24 (223780)
07-14-2005 2:55 PM


Not a coffee house topic.
Moving to Dates and Dating.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
Message 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 24 (223781)
07-14-2005 2:55 PM


Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 24 (223789)
07-14-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
07-14-2005 2:35 PM


quote:
Specifically, he's heard of tests being done on living things and the results (obviously) are way "out of wack" and to him that's enough to negate the entire method altogether.
I have heard of old C14 dates associated with the shells of certain living molluscs. Molluscs make their shells out of calciums carbonate, and an important source of carbon for these species of mollusc is limestone, which is very "old carbon" and so depleted of C14. It is not surprising that the C14 dates in this case would be very old.
Should any further PRATTs come up, TalkOrigins has a nice master list of the most common ones.
I think that your basic argument is a good one. Radiometric dating is very expensive, and of course geologists, like other scientists, are interested in getting solid, verifiable results. The idea that geologists would waste so much time and effort on a method that is inherently unreliable is laughable to anyone who has any experience in the sciences. Rather than try to prop up an unreliable method, the method would never have been adopted to begin with.
The American Scientific Affiliation (which, incidently, is an evangelical Christian group) has a good web page explaining the issues of radiometric dating. They explain how it is possible to tell in advance that a sample is not suitable for dating, how many radiometric tests have diagnostic procedures associated with them to tell whether the dates are trustworthy, and how radiometric dating has given extremely reliable and consistent dates.
Unfortunately, I suspect that there will be a counter argument that geologists are biased, and purposely skew their results, that a geolgist's career depends on her following the party line. Again, this is laughable to anyone who knows how science works. Science is done at thousands of universities and research intitutions around the world, each one having its own independent hiring procedures. Research is published in hundreds of journals around the world, each one with its own independent board of editors and peer review procedures. Funding is provided by hundreds of governmental and non-governmental foundations, each one with it own selection criteria. How it could be possible to so thoroughly exclude ideas and research that goes against some "party line" in such an anarchic enterprise as science is beyond me. But it is difficult to change the mind set of those who buy into conspiracy theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 07-14-2005 2:35 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 24 (223790)
07-14-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tal
07-14-2005 2:51 PM


quote:
Totally OT. Do not respond to this message.
Damn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tal, posted 07-14-2005 2:51 PM Tal has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 7 of 24 (223796)
07-14-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
07-14-2005 2:35 PM


Specifically, he's heard of tests being done on living things and the results (obviously) are way "out of wack" and to him that's enough to negate the entire method altogether. So, I had mentioned to him that carbon dating (specifically) can't work on living things because the carbon in the organism is still being exchanged with the outside world and cannot be accurately measured (nor should it be).
Actually, with sufficiently precise instrumentation (which we are unlikely to ever have) very recently living things could be dated using 14C. THe problem to which your friend refers is this; 14C dating relies on the organism having the same 14C/12C ratio as the atmosphere when the organism died; that is, the organism was in equilibrium with the atmoshperic 14C/12C ratio. Marine organisms such as seals and clams and whatever are not in equilibrium with the atmosphere; they get some (if not all) of their carbon from dissolved limestone which is "old carbon" and makes them appear older than they are when measured by the 14C method. Of course, scientists know about this; the creationist claims of error in 14C dating come from the scientific iterature in which such effects are measured in order to see what can and cannot be measured using 14C dating.
And don't let your friend bring up the common creationist claim that the atmospheric ratio of 14C/12C could have been different in the past; we know it was different in the past, and we compensate for that by calibrating the 14C method using samples whose age is known by other means (such as tree rings). The maximum error of uncalibrated 14C dating is around 10%.
But winning the Nobel Prize is no guarantee of truth. All scientific results are tentative and are modified as required if new and contradictory evidence appears.
Radiosiotope dating is not plagued with errors. Dating is done using many isotopes, involving three wildly different types of radioactive decay, and with many different methods. 99% of the time all the results agree, and also agree with non-radiometric methods such as stratigraphy. Occasionally different methods do not agree, and that's when the scientists do the real interesting science and the creationists quote-mine the papers to make dating appear unrealiable. E.g. see Claim CD031: KBS Tuff dating.
There's a good explanation of 14C dating at How does the radiocarbon dating method work? and a good introduction to all dating methods at Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective. Some brief descriptions of creationist objections to 14C dating, with references to more information, at CD011.1. Variable C-14/C-12 ratio invalidates C-14 dating, CD011.2. Vollosovitch and Dima mammoths yielded inconsistent C-14 dates, CD011.3. Living snails were C-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old, CD011.4. A freshly killed seal was C-14 dated at 1,300 years old, CD011.5. Triassic wood from Australia was dated at 33,000 years old, and CD011.6. Ancient coal and oil are C-14 dated as only 50,000 years old.
(fixed error in one URL's title)
This message has been edited by JonF, 07-14-2005 09:25 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 07-14-2005 2:35 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

  
Always Curious
Junior Member (Idle past 6234 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 03-03-2007


Message 8 of 24 (387995)
03-03-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mission for Truth
07-14-2005 2:35 PM


I agree that dating probably will not work on living creatures, but when I was doing research for a paper I had to do I found several sites that explained a situation that I thought put dating to question. Scientist took the carcass of an animal that they knew had been dead for about a month but when they used the dating techniques the result said the carcass was hundreds of years old. Scientist use this dating technique to date things that noone knows the age but when used to date a known age it failed. Granted the science behind the dating techniques may make sense to some but how do they actually prove it? I feel the technique does have holes, but the scientist are unable to accept this because like I said previously they can not prove the technique is always accurate because they do not know the actual age of the object being tested; so how can they compare the result with the actual answer. I was always under the assumption that science was built on proof not assumption.
***Sorry I could not find the site I found most of this information.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mission for Truth, posted 07-14-2005 2:35 PM Mission for Truth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by DrJones*, posted 03-03-2007 11:56 PM Always Curious has not replied
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 03-04-2007 12:18 AM Always Curious has not replied
 Message 11 by Modulous, posted 03-04-2007 5:44 AM Always Curious has not replied
 Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 03-04-2007 9:33 AM Always Curious has not replied
 Message 15 by BeagleBob, posted 11-23-2007 5:53 PM Always Curious has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 9 of 24 (387999)
03-03-2007 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Always Curious
03-03-2007 11:29 PM


I was always under the assumption that science was built on proof not assumption.
Scirnce is built on evidence and theories that explain that evidence, not proof. Science does not proove anything, it just gives the best answer possible given the current evidence. For your dating questions I suggest: Message 1. Read that.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Always Curious, posted 03-03-2007 11:29 PM Always Curious has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 24 (388001)
03-04-2007 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Always Curious
03-03-2007 11:29 PM


Always Curious writes:
Scientist took the carcass of an animal that they knew had been dead for about a month but when they used the dating techniques the result said the carcass was hundreds of years old.
Hint: what's the difference between an animal that's been dead "about a month" and an animal that's still alive? How much carbon-14 would you expect to break down in "about a month"?

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Always Curious, posted 03-03-2007 11:29 PM Always Curious has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 11 of 24 (388009)
03-04-2007 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Always Curious
03-03-2007 11:29 PM


Scientist took the carcass of an animal that they knew had been dead for about a month but when they used the dating techniques the result said the carcass was hundreds of years old.
To help us out here, do you fancy providing us with the necessary evidence? As has been described, this is a known phenomena in marine organisms and is consistent with carbon dating theory.
Scientist use this dating technique to date things that noone knows the age but when used to date a known age it failed.
The dating techniques used are callibrated against a known age, and tested against other known ages, wherein they provide accurate results. This isn't always the case, but before discussion can ensue a specific example needs to be examined. Do you have one, or are you just referring to the carcass again here?
Granted the science behind the dating techniques may make sense to some but how do they actually prove it?
They can demonstrate its accuracy by dating things whose age is known. Either from living memory or from historical records, or corroboration via another dating method (for example dendrochronology).
Sorry I could not find the site I found most of this information.
Indeed. Unfortunately for your case, radiodating was mathematically proven by Euclid's brother, and was empirically demonstrated as factual by Newton's sister and Hooke's cousin. Further, a famous scientist concluded that people with the screen name beginning with 'A' are the least reliable and that those with a screen name beginning with 'M' are the most reliable.
Unfortunately I can't provide any actual evidence of the above because the site I got it from has slipped from my memory. Trust me though (look at my screen name!), it's all true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Always Curious, posted 03-03-2007 11:29 PM Always Curious has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 24 (388028)
03-04-2007 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Always Curious
03-03-2007 11:29 PM


Gee, Curious, did you read any of the previous posts? They pretty much answer your question. Do you think the responses were inadequate?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Always Curious, posted 03-03-2007 11:29 PM Always Curious has not replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 13 of 24 (431972)
11-03-2007 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Tal
07-14-2005 2:51 PM


The value of the Nobels has been further reduced by the UN Inspector getting it - one reason I won't accept one offered to me.
Carbon dating is fine, but its not accurate with small dating margins, particularly it is askew with archeology and 'writings' datings:
Reliability of Carbon Dating
Bristlecone Pine Trees
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...clear/cardat.html#c2
From the dating of ancient bristlecone pine trees from the western U.S., a correction curve for the carbon dating over the range back to 5000 BC has been developed. Trees dated at 4000 BC show the maximum deviation of between 600 and 700 years too young by carbon dating.
Glacier Measurements
Prior to carbon dating methods, the age of sediments deposited by the last ice age was surmised to be about 25000 years. "Radiocarbon dates of a layer of peat beneath the glacial sediments provided an age of only 11,400 years."
These examples are from The Earth Through Time, 2nd Ed. by Harold L. Levin
Krane points out that future carbon dating will not be so reliable because of changes in the carbon isotopic mix. Fossil fuels have no carbon-14 content, and the burning of those fuels over the past 100 years has diluted the carbon-14 content. On the other hand, atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s increased the carbon-14 content of the atmosphere. Krane suggests that this might have doubled the concentration compared to the carbon-14 from cosmic ray production.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Tal, posted 07-14-2005 2:51 PM Tal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 11-03-2007 11:11 AM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 11-23-2007 6:13 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 14 of 24 (431989)
11-03-2007 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by IamJoseph
11-03-2007 6:43 AM


IamJoseph writes:
Carbon dating is fine, but its not accurate with small dating margins, particularly it is askew with archeology and 'writings' datings:
Where in your excerpts from the Hyperphysics site do you find support for this statement?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by IamJoseph, posted 11-03-2007 6:43 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
BeagleBob
Member (Idle past 5677 days)
Posts: 81
Joined: 11-21-2007


Message 15 of 24 (435896)
11-23-2007 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Always Curious
03-03-2007 11:29 PM


Sorry, I know this is a pretty old post but here's a simple way of answering your question:
Radiometric dating, especially C14 dating, has to be performed carefully since there are lots of factors to muck up your results. If performed properly though, you should get good, reliable data.
Here's a couple things you DON'T do with radiometric dating.
1. You don't date aquatic organisms. C14 dating works only on land-based creatures who have land-based diets, since C14 is created in the upper atmosphere and is incorporated into the trophic chain via photosynthesis. Aquatic organisms get a HUGE part of their carbon from dissolved calcium carbonate ("old carbon"), which doesn't contain much C14. This mucks up your results.
2. You don't date recent organisms. Because of the industrial revolution our atmosphere has been contaminated with a huge amount of "old carbon" from the burning of fossil fuels. This mucks up your results.
It should also be noted that there is an error margin in any sort of test, and one should always be sure to take that into account.
Edited by BeagleBob, : Grammatical correction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Always Curious, posted 03-03-2007 11:29 PM Always Curious has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by IamJoseph, posted 11-23-2007 8:29 PM BeagleBob has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024