|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,817 Year: 4,074/9,624 Month: 945/974 Week: 272/286 Day: 33/46 Hour: 5/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Feedback about reliability of dating | |||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
both (b) and (c) are false readings due to what is known as the resevoir effect.
the concept of 14C is that atmospheric nitrogen (14N) is converted to 14C by cosmic ray bombardment, and then, being radioactive, decays over time. animals that consume products that have absorbed fresh carbon (plants etcetera) will have the same proportion of 14C to 12C (the "normal" isotope of carbon and the most common) as the atmosphere, and when they die the 14C will no longer be consumed and radioactive decay will reduce the proportion of 14C to 12C within the sample in a radioactive decay pattern (half live of some 5730+ years) see How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks in some instances the animals are not consuming fresh carbon or atmospheric carbon, but carbon where radioactive decay has already depleted the proportion of 14C to 12C -- the resevoir of their source for carbon doesn't have the normal proportion of carbon isotopes. This happens a lot in deep sea water, in shellfish and in other fish etc that live in deep sea water, and animals that eat {shellfish\fish\etc} from deep water sources (seals). see CD011.4: C-14 age of a seal for more information on this specific effect and the seals. also read Radiometric Dating for a good overview of radiometric methods and limitations. and http://my.erinet.com/%7Ejwoolf/rad_dat.html for a discussion of some problems with creationist radiometric information. beyond that feel free to read and respond to {age correlations and an old earth} on this forum, which deals with the correlations of various age dating methods and specific ones that rely on actual annual data:EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II. welcome to the fray, and enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
since carbon dating is done by the ratio of parent-to-daughter isotopes, these two are actually completely irrelevant. Not quite. It is the comparison of the relative ratios of 14C to 12C in an organism. 14C decays to 14N. 12C is not radioactive and serves as a base for the number of carbon atoms in an organism. The ratio of 14C to 12C is fixed in the organism during life by the consumption of carbon molecules, which is then dependent on the ratio of 14C to 12C in the food sources of the organism -- commonly the same as in the atmosphere, but not where resevoir effects (shell-fish) are known. Another source of contamination is radioactivity near a fossil that will convert 14N to 14C making a false high proportion in the sample. Known alomalies can be tested for and eliminated by the use of other dating mechanisms as well as by comparison to 13C proportions. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I am skeptical of almost everything I read and hear until I see and understand viable proof. There are a couple of good sources on dating techniques. One that I recommend is Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective, by Dr, Roger C. Wiens It is long, and covers all the different methods used, there pros and their cons, and where they should be used and where they shouldn't. But we can also start out easy with annual systems, such as tree rings and the like, and see what kinds of dates we get from those, compare those to various radiometric dating and other sources of data (climate etcetera) to see how it all correlates. A beginning point to do that is Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray Confidence.
I do not fully understand who is correct on dating, but as a creationist I tend to be biased. The real question is whether you choose to ignore evidence that shows the earth is old. If bias leads to denial, then it will affect your understanding, not the behavior of the natural world.
I hear that radioactive dating usually generates multiple dates, and the correct date is chosen if it agrees with geological dates (does this make sense?). What is usually done is to determine age from a number of different methods to reduce the possiblity of contamination or sample error. When there is a major difference between one and another, then another method will be tried AND reasons for the errors will be sought. These will also be reported.
quotes from
RATE Research ResultsFatal Blow to Billions of Years
| Answers in Genesis
These are seemingly powerful evidence, but until these folks are done their research and evolutionist have been given the chance to confirm this, most of this is debatable. Most of their "work" has already been refuted by scientists. "Evolutionists" don't do the dating - that is geology and physics. See "Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective"Radiometric Dating The problem with the Young Earth Scenario is that there is unrefutable evidence for an old earth. For a discussion of this there is another thread that deals with some of the specific reasons why this is unrefutable - see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), where several annual systems that don't rely on radioactivity are reviewed along with two radiometric systems and the correlations between them. They correlate for age and for climate and for world wide events (like ice ages). Showing that dating methods CAN have errors does not show that the methods ALWAYS have errors. This is like pointing out one or two spelling errors in the bible and then claiming that the whole bible is therefore false. Enjoy. ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quote boxes are easy we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The article/online book you pointed me to is long, and it will be a while for me to read it. But I look forward to see what it has to say. And it is but the tip of the iceberg compared to the amount of knowledge and information that has been accumulated in the science that surrounds dating techniques.
You are talking as if no creationists can be scientists. No, what I said was that the "work" has been refuted by scientists (as opposed to say high school students) -- by people that know the subject and have the evidence to back up their claims. In spite of this refutation, the "RATE" group is proceeding and still soliciting funds from creationists to continue this invalidated "work" -- that makes this "work" a scam and not science, no matter whether they have a degree or not. At best they are looking for anomalies - anomalies that only show that in certain conditions the dating techniques do not work. These anomalies are already known by the scientists (Wiens discusses several) and are tested for when doing scientific age dating -- the "reservoir" effect on 14C dating is a common one that creatortionistas (creationists that intentionally misuse science and information) use. They also know the reason these anomalies occur (the only carbon available is already ancient carbon and so will be depleted in 14C compared to carbon taken from the atmosphere). Polonium "halos" are a similar case. From Wiens:
quote: As I said: already refuted.
And their "work" is of no less value than a scientists with an evolutionary stand. Age dating science has nothing to do with evolution. The people involved are geologists and physicists and chemists. This means several independent means of coming to the same conclusion based on different evidence evaluated without any preconceptions.
Both have the same evidence at hand, but their interpretations differ due to their different presuppositions. Yes, one group has presuppositions - creationists - and the other group does not - scientists (other that they can deduct theory from evidence and then test it to see if it is true, discarding all that are invalidated - but that is not so much a 'presupposition' as it is a general operational concept). There is also the issue of the annual dating mechanisms that no amount of handwaving over radioactivity will refute. This is amply demonstrated on the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) without need to discuss radioactivity. The earth is older than 10,000 years. Learn to live with it, just as you have learned to live with the earth orbiting the sun. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
How this makes sense to you is beyond me. How are science and scams differentiated by funds alone? Not by funding. If someone was seeking funding to pursue cold-fusion research, that too would be a scam. If someone were seeking funding to pursue research into a flat earth, that too would be a scam. What makes is a scam is that the concept is already refuted, invalidated, falsified (show to be false), wrong. Not the funding.
In any case, these guys ARE conducting scientific experiments ... IE - they are putting on an entertaining dog-and-pony show for the gullibles, one that caters to both their ignorance and their preferred beliefs. Anyone can do experiments that appear scientific (especially to gullible people), but the proof is in the pudding: dealing with the evidence that refutes their concept. Without dealing with that evidence it is like trying to play chess while your king is in check but doing nothing about it. Science does explain contradictory evidence or changes the concept (theory). Pseudo-science -- and scams based on pseudo-science -- don't.
Besides this research is an attempt to attack the WHOLE concept of dating, not just a particular case. So, like the Taliban, they will be destroying everything that refutes their "research"? Will they burn the histories of other cultures? Will they burn the trees and rocks and the sun and the earth? Or will you end up with "last thursdayism" -- with an ideology incapable of considering that yesterday was real?
quote: Either the whole world is an illusion or they are ... shall we list the usual suspects? Stupid, Ignorant, Malicious, Insane ... or Deluded? ... want to take a pick? The cosmological evidence is that the universe is very oldThe astronomical evidence is that the solar system is old The geological evidence is that the earth is old The physic\chemistry\radiation evidence is that the earth is old The physical evidence is that the earth is old The biological evidence is that the earth is old The evidence in each science is multi-fold and corroborativeThe evidence between each science is also corroborative That the earth is old is the only logical and rational conclusion. The earth orbits the sun. The earth is old. There is no escaping the evidence for it except through denial.
...and I realize that creationists are not the only scientists who run into these problems but other scientists who deny the big bang or the ones who question that evolutionary processes alone could bring about life as we know it) to show that radioactive decay have changed dramatically in the past. Neither of which have anything to do with how radioactivity behaves, to say nothing of having some mythical magical mystery mechanism change a physical process and that is totally unexplained by ANY theory and for which there is a total LACK of evidence anywhere.
...but other scientists who deny the big bang ... And yet -- strangely --string theory, 'brane theory and ekpyrosis theory that go in different directions from big bang theory are funded for experiments and do get published in scientific journals. Personally I expect a new theory in physics. But I'll make a prediction: it won't come from creationists proposing a young earth.
Now, this is science only if other scientists are able to reproduce the results they come up with. Which they do manage to do in evolution and sciences that deal with dating the age of the earth, the solar system and the universe. Have you made it through Wiens yet? Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
For example, take celestial mechanics. If two different "scientists" take the same orbital evidence and one makes "interpretations" based on a heliocentric solar system and the other based on a geocentric solar system is their "work" of the same value? Just different based on different presuppositions? It's not just a matter of finding evidence in support of a position, but also of being able to deal with the evidence that contradicts that position. Shoot two probes into solar north space, directly towards the north star, free of any orbit around the earth, have one probe programed to keep itself in line with polaris, the earth and octanis, and the other programed to keep itself in line with polaris, the sun and octanis. At the end of one year compare:
One theory will be consistent with the data, the other won't, and no amount of fudging of the data will make it comply with the other - only denial can do that. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray elcano
Vesuvius erupted in both 79ad and 1631ad Surprisingly the result covered much of the same area ... or is it just a coincidence of geography? Somehow the evidence that there was an eruption in 1631ad seems to be taken by some to mean that what occurred in 79ad did NOT occur? This is not the case, there are layers involved here and geologists can and do tell the difference. Likewise there are artifacts that were buried by each that show different types, manufacture, color, construction, etc. with the 79ad ones being consistent with roman work and the 1631ad ones being consistent with a medieval europe. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : wording clarification Edited by RAZD, : subtitle compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Above this city only one layer of the ground from eruption Vesuvius. False: Mount Vesuvius - Wikipedia
quote: either 79 year, or 1631 OR it really did happen several times of which 79ad and 1631ad are only two examples. Given the multiple evidence of recorded eruptions to argue there was only one such in all of history is denial of evidence at it's best. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
again from wikipedia
quote: To Pompeii it has not been found any traces from other eruptions. Ash from other eruptions has fallen on pompeii, just not as much as occurred in 79ad. The last biggish one was 1631. What is your issue with dating vesuvius? I see from your proposed new topic that you have some fantasy about carbon14 dating being invalidated by this argument, but that just is not so either: carbon14 does not rely on vesuvius for calibration or validation. See Carbon-14: A Scientifically Proven Dating Method? and Request for Carbon-14 Dating explanation for a couple (brief) discussions on carbon-14 - if you want to ask some questions or post what you think is a problem for carbon-14 there then we can discuss that as well. If this is your whole raison d'etre for the vesuvius argument you are in for some tough going. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Only such layers and only from eruption 79 years. The biggest during recorded history was 79ad, but not the only one. You've been given evidence that this is so. Repeating your denial or your claim that there was only one does not make it true. What else do you have? If this is the sum of your issue then I am done. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
see Message 61
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
see Message 8
have fun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The valid question has always been "have decay rates really been constant for millions of year?" First of all, to say yes is ONLY an assumption, it is not scientific. It can in no way be proven. Care to test that assertion? Supernova SN1987A, pulsars and the Oklo natural reactors tell us about Constant Constants: Distance to SN1987A Reference 1: The Distance to Supernova 1987a by Don Lindsay, Last modified: 25 June 2006, accessed 24JUN07:
quote: A light-year is a measure of distance, specifically the distance light would travel in one earth year at the current speed of light. This is about 5.88 trillion mi. (9.46 trillion km) , so 168,000 light-years would be about 988,000 trillion (1012) miles or ~9.88 x 1017 miles. How do we know this distance is not affected by a change in the speed of light? Reference 2: Dave Matson: Young Earth: Additional Topics: Supernova, A6. The Distance to Supernova SN1987A and the Speed of Light, Last updated: Wednesday, 30-Nov-2005 17:06:12 CST, accessed 24JUN07
quote: Reference 3: SN1987A and The Antiquity of the Universe, by Todd S. Greene, originally written 3/16/2000, last revised 9/14/2000, accessed 24JUN07.
quote: Note that this is independent of the speed of light, thus it cannot - alone - confirm the speed of light at the time of the nova, but it does confirm the stellar distance involved. The next question is whether we can confirm that the speed of light was relatively constant during the time it took the light to travel from SN1987A to earth. The Speed of Light Back to ref 2:
quote: Such time discrepancy has not been observed in any pulsar. Thus by two different methods we confirm the speed of light is constant within our ability to measure it for the time period covered by the travel of light from SN1987A to earth. This of course ALSO means that the minimum age of the universe was 168,000 years (+/- 3%) in 1987 (when the nova was observed) ... AND it confirms the age of the light coming from the nova is ~168,000 years, so that any observed phenomena that occurred during that nova would have occurred 168,000 years ago. What else can we tell from the evidence? Radioactive decay was observed during the nova, so the question is whether it matches the decay rates today, or whether it was significantly different. We start with it being non-zero decay due to it being observed. Decay Rates 168,000 years ago Reference 4: Evidence about Constants Being the Same in the Distant Past, by Don Lindsay, Last modified: 27 December 1998, accessed 24JUN07.
quote: We've confirmed the distance and the steady speed of light for the duration of travel from SN1987A to earth, and now we have confirmed that decay at today's decay rates for Cobalt 56 occurred 168,000 years ago. Due to the physics involved you cannot have one isotope have the same rate of decay and another be different. In fact there are a lot of inter-related elements of physics, astronomy and geology. Ref 4 again:
quote: Reference 5: Oklo Fossil Reactors - When did these Natural Fossil Reactors start operating? by Curtin University of Technology, Last modified: 25 Oct 2005, accessed 11 Nov 2007:
quote: The interesting thing here is that if decay was different back then so that the radioactive dates were wrong, that then the product of the nuclear reaction would have been different -- those reactions occurred because the decay rates were the same as now.
Secondly, it is completely in line with the scientific spirit to question and test to find out if there is any evidence to suggest that they havent been constant. And it is even more in line with the scientific spirit to provide evidence that invalidates concepts, such as providing evidence that invalidates the concept that decay rates have not changed. So far we have (1) evidence that decay rates have not changed and (2) no evidence that decay rates have changed. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024