Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 31 of 221 (396118)
04-18-2007 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 10:43 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
It is a fact that fossils near volcanic areas are older than the fossils that are found in canyons.
It is a fact that heat would speed up the decay of Carbon14.
I never said that there were no lava marks on the fossils.
I also never said that it was basic.
And how should I know why the scientists don't plug them in? Oh...maybe it's because it would make no use of it. You even quoted me on it. "It would be near impossible to determine the thermal conditions...."
~The point is that Carbon Dating is not a reliable source for determing the age of a fossil/object.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 10:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:04 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 32 of 221 (396122)
04-18-2007 11:02 PM


A Helpful Link
This is a very useful link regarding Carbon Dating. Check it out..
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? | Answers in Genesis
I have not read it all yet and I don't think it talks about the thermal property of Carbon14 - or at least not yet, as far as I have gotten. And my old science teacher taught us about the thermal property of Carbon14.

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 221 (396123)
04-18-2007 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 10:56 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
It is a fact that fossils near volcanic areas are older than the fossils that are found in canyons.
It is a fact that heat would speed up the decay of Carbon14.
No, it's not. These are just things you made up. These aren't facts.
I also never said that it was basic.
What? No, this is you, not ten minutes ago:
quote:
A basic property of Carbon14 is that under extreme heat, it decays even faster, making the object appear to be older than it actually is.
I don't understand how we're going to have a civil, intelligent debate if you won't even tell the truth about what you said. If you're not going to be honest, how can we debate?
~The point is that Carbon Dating is not a reliable source for determing the age of a fossil/object.
According to you. The problem is, you appear to be wrong in nearly every regard, and dishonest to boot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 10:56 PM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:08 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 34 of 221 (396126)
04-18-2007 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 10:35 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
A basic property of Carbon14 is that under extreme heat, it decays even faster,
Absolutely unsupported bullshit. And nonsense. High-school physics stuff, at that - if not 8th-grade General Science.
Chemical reactions vary their rates with heat.
Nuclear reactions don't, at least in the range of temperatures available on a planet. Heat rhenium up enough to strip all its electrons, and yeah, beta decay gets faster. But that's interior-of-stars stuff, with no relevance at all to carbon dating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 10:35 PM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:10 PM Coragyps has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 35 of 221 (396127)
04-18-2007 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:04 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
I said that the PROPERTY is basic. Not that the process is basic. How can the property be basic?! You even know that.
What makes you think that I made these things up. If the guy on this same page said the same thing, wo which Fallacycop replied to?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:13 PM ArchArchitect has not replied
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:17 PM ArchArchitect has replied
 Message 47 by fallacycop, posted 04-18-2007 11:29 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 36 of 221 (396129)
04-18-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Coragyps
04-18-2007 11:06 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
Sir, are you suggesting that they are teaching us 'bullshit' is our high schools?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2007 11:06 PM Coragyps has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2007 11:11 PM ArchArchitect has replied
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:23 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 734 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


(1)
Message 37 of 221 (396131)
04-18-2007 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:10 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
Not suggesting, asserting. If you were taught that, you were fed bullshit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:10 PM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:15 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 38 of 221 (396132)
04-18-2007 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:08 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
sorry crashfrog..I had a type-o in my previous message. I meant, "how can the process be basic" not property.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:08 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 39 of 221 (396134)
04-18-2007 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Coragyps
04-18-2007 11:11 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
THEN ENLIGHTEN ME

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Coragyps, posted 04-18-2007 11:11 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 40 of 221 (396135)
04-18-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:08 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
I said that the PROPERTY is basic. Not that the process is basic. How can the property be basic?! You even know that.
Man, the dishonesty just never ends with you, does it?
What makes you think that I made these things up.
I looked in authoritative sources on radioactive decay. For instance, the equations that describe radioactive decay rate:
have no term for temperature. Isn't that significant? Wouldn't the physicists who developed these models based on decay experiments rather quickly discern that temperature was a factor, and include that in the model? Since they didn't, what evidence do you have that the rates do vary?
How is it that you could possibly think you're privy to some kind of "well-known fact" that they're teaching in high school but Ph.D. physicists don't even know? That should have been your first clue that you had been fed a line of bullshit.
But, look. Radioactive decay happens at the subatomic level, the level of the atomic nucleus - and there's no such thing as temperature at that level. So how could temperature have an effect? (If you don't understand what I'm talking about then you need to learn about the Kinetic Theory of Gases, which really is basic.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:08 PM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:19 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 42 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:23 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 41 of 221 (396136)
04-18-2007 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:17 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
Didn't you read the message after that? I said that there was a type=o. I said that I meant to type,
"I said that the PROPERTY is basic. Not that the process is basic. How can the PROCESS be basic?! You even know that."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:31 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 42 of 221 (396138)
04-18-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:17 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
Alright then, give me the link to that "authorative source" of yours. I'll go check it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 43 of 221 (396139)
04-18-2007 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:10 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
Sir, are you suggesting that they are teaching us 'bullshit' is our high schools? Sir, are you suggesting that they are teaching us 'bullshit' is our high schools?
Your high school, maybe. I was never taught that radioactive decay rates were variable with temperature.
It's time for you to find this information in a legitimate scientific source, or acknowledge that you're wrong. That you maybe remember your science teacher telling you isn't such a source. Either he was wrong, or you don't remember correctly. (Or it never happened and you have some problems with being truthful.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:10 PM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5852 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 44 of 221 (396140)
04-18-2007 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by jar
05-07-2006 4:43 PM


No. On account of fossils being made of rock, which is not Carbon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by jar, posted 05-07-2006 4:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 04-18-2007 11:29 PM Cthulhu has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6180 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 45 of 221 (396141)
04-18-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:23 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
Only a lowlife would make something up on this forum. I am going by what my teacher told me. Now what is the link to that authorative source?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:23 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:35 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024