|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Dating artifacts (Young earth vs old earth) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gman Inactive Member |
- This is based off of the topic nipok tried to submit, because I like the idea but I agree that it was much to vague. So if you accept this topic could you please let nipok know about it? Thanks. -
The Venus of Willendorf is said to be the oldest known piece of art. It is said to be around 30,000 years old. If this is true then it is evidence against young earth age. So the question is, what are the methods used to determine the age of artifacts like this, and how reliable are those methods?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
This Venus is in stone. I think they used some bones in the same sedimentary layer to date it. With the 14carbon method, you'll have a good precision for dead things not older than 50.000 years.
It don't work on old wood or ashes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Googling around on this particular artifact indicates that she's from about 23,000 BC, based on stratigraphic position in the artifact-rich area where she was found. I can't find anything that says for sure how that date was arrived at, but it almost has to be tied to carbon-14 dates. It's too old for tree rings, and I doubt that there are any clay hearths in the area to measure remnant magnetism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gman Inactive Member |
"With the 14carbon method, you'll have a good precision for dead things not older than 50.000 years."
- Do you know of any experiments where they have tested the 14carbon method? Maybe dating things from recent recorded history (such as classical greek artifacts) I'd like to see how close the average results are. Something observable to use as evidance for the reliability or lack of reliablilty of the dating meathod.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Do you know of any experiments where they have tested the 14carbon method? Here's one that gets thrown around a lot, courtesy of RAZD:
quote: Here's a graph corellating the radiocarbon dates of the material of the varve layers with their annual position in the layers: As you can see, the correllation is quite profound. The dating is slightly off; this is due to cimatological effects on how carbon has been accumulated in living things. Also, you'll see a few outliers representing procedural error in the laboratory. But the vast, vast majority of dates, as you can see, correllate very well. Radiocarbon dating is a valid dating method.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Do you know of any experiments where they have tested the 14carbon method? Maybe dating things from recent recorded history (such as classical greek artifacts)
Some of the very earliest carbon 14 work ever done - early 1950's or maybe even the 40's - was on Egyptian artifacts of known age. They came out quite close, even with the very crude methods available back then. I don't remember where I read this, though. Much more recently, argon-argon dating was used on ash from Pompeii and came up with 1925 +/- 94 years for an age that history said was 1918 years. Close, yes? That one is Renne, et al. Science, vol 277 pp 1279-1280 (1997) - it's online at Science | AAAS if you register and then hunt it down in their index.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RoseBudd Inactive Member |
Well, I don't think that a lot of dating methods are correct. Many people think that diamonds take millions of years to grow, because that is what scientists have believed for a long time, but just recently, a scientist grew a diamond in his lab in less than a few hours. And don't doubt that it was exactly the same as one you would find in the store, in wasn't artificial!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Welcome rosebudd, glad you're here.
And don't doubt that it was exactly the same as one you would find in the store, in wasn't artificial!! Well, if was made in a lab then it was artificial.
Well, I don't think that a lot of dating methods are correct. Okay, then how about telling us what you know about date methods? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
Well, I don't think that a lot of dating methods are correct. Many people think that diamonds take millions of years to grow, because that is what scientists have believed for a long time, but just recently, a scientist grew a diamond in his lab in less than a few hours Interesting. It never occured to me to wonder about how long the geologists would say it took to form diamonds. I've never seen any information on that. But thinking it through suggests that your millons of years number is wrong. Diamonds do not participate out like some minerals do. They are formed, as I understand it, in nature as in the lab. Under high temperature and pressure. They are formed in the pipes of volcanoes. Since the lava in such a pipe will cool over a period of very much less than millions of years (years or tens of years) it seems to me that they couldn't take millions to form. Do you have a source for your number? You may be confused because all the diamond pipes that I know about were formed millions of years ago. Don't confuse the age with how long they took to form in the first place. BTW, Welcome to EvC. We do love to discuss this kind of thing. You will, however, not find it easy going here. If you wish to defend a point of view you will have to work at getting your information correct and you logic tight. Before you make statments about how correct dating methods are or are not you may have to learn about them. There are several thread in the "Dates and Dating" forum that may help. I suggest:
Age Correlations and an Old Earth This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-07-2004 10:26 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Since naturally occurring diamonds are not artifacts I think that this is the wrong thread. But just one thing for you to consider - the matter of size. Producing small diamonds in the laboratory is relatively easy. But how about the really big diamonds that have been discovered ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 989 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
Errr... a scientist 'grew' a diamond and yet it isn't artificial???
As far as I know, scientists don't really know for sure how long it takes for diamonds to form. What they do know are the temperatures and pressures required for their formation, as well as how old they are. Additionally, sythetic diamonds aren't all that new. The first synthetic diamond was created in the middle part of the last century and today they are quite common and used often for industrial purposes - although from what I've heard, they are not as strong as the real thing. This message has been edited by roxrkool, 11-09-2004 10:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
RoseBud,
And don't doubt that it was exactly the same as one you would find in the store, in wasn't artificial!! I think I know what you meant. You'd be surprised at how precise jargon in a field can be. Just FYI, man-made diamonds are not EXACTLY the same as those produced in nature. The main difference is that there are no inclusions (impurities) in the lab-grown diamonds. However, as far as crystalline structure, I think, that they are the same (although, if it is true that they are not as strong, then maybe there is even some difference in that). My dad IS a GIA certified gemologist (not a geologist). I'm a biscuit cook. My dad knows a lot about gem stones...I know a lot about flour dust and the phrase "how long!?!." . You probably meant, that it was not a material that only LOOKS like diamond. The correct term (I think)is SYNTHETIC (meaning man-made, not fake). But there is some overlap, of course. Words can have different meanings depending upon the field people are in and even more of a difference when among laypeople (like you and me), and this is a source of confusion. "Synthetic" and "artificial" can also simply mean "fake," which is how you take the word and how you used it. To be safe, use the word "lab-grown" for these diamonds and say they are not "fake" or "simulated." BTW, Jewelery stores DO sell fake diamonds ~ Zirconium (I think) and Moissanite (or something like that) are two examples of simulated diamond materials ~ they are also lab-grown crystals. Roxrkool (rocks are cool?) is a geologist, I think. So, Roxrkool, how old are diamonds and how do geologists arrive at this age? If you don't mind my asking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
A quick google gives:
Original-Diamonds | Page not found Diamonds are dated, according to this site, as between just under 1 Gyr and just over 3 Gyrs. They date the inclusions in the diamond even though they are about 1 micron in size. This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-01-2004 07:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
I was dying to use this in one of Rhhain`s threads but missed the boat. While we can`t date stone artifacts like statues, the original ones sold so well that the sculptors made CARBON copies.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024