|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Carbon Dating DOESN'T work beyond 4500 years | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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:
The problem is, the magnetic field is decaying around the earth. The earth is covered in a magnetic field, which is STEADILY losing its strength by 1/2 every 1400 years. There are no magnetic reversals--there are only areas of stronger and weaker magnetism. So, if there are no reversals, then we know that the magnetic field has been shrinking at a measurably-stable rate. So, by the half-life of the magnetic field, the magnetic field would have been 320% stronger around 4500 years ago. But the thing is, the magnetic field filters out a lot of radiation (radiation is needed to make C-14). So, if the magnetic field was 320% stronger 4500 years ago, then it would've reflected most of the radiation, and therefore there would have been less C-14 in the atmosphere in ancient times--thus the C-14 in the atmosphere was at an un-measurable increase. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Hey TC, nice to see you around again.
quote: Hehe, either knows of it and ignores it or is talking from straight ignorance. Either way, this statement from the opening post might explain things:
quote: Creation Scientist = filtered data set with a dash of ego. Anyway, on the previous page I have a graph that shows mirror images of magnetic measurements (not sure what the technical jargon is for these measurements) on either side of an ocean ridge. Things got pretty silent after that. I was trying to find a better graph of the data, but the graph I listed was the best I could find. Do you have better data handy? I have seen some pretty nifty graphs before, but wasn't able to find them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: I only call them scientists as a curtesy. A new job title came to me the other night: "professional creationist". I think this is a more accurate portrayal of their job.
quote: That is intriguing. A ca. 30 million year period with no reversals. Even though I am poorly trained in the Earth Sciences, I can still see the importance of this data. I smell a Nobel Prize for the first accurate theory. Anyway, thanks for the info. Between Mammuthus, Lithoid-Man, and you, it seems I have tapped into areas that other people have studied in great detail. Kind of fun to get people to talk about what they are really interested in. Well, now that we have solidified geomagnetic reversals, maybe the creationists can try and support the rest of booboo's argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
Mission,
Just for your edification, booboocruise hasn't posted here since March. The post you replied to was from April of last year. IOW, don't expect a reply from the author of the post. However, you are completely right.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024