Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Radioactive carbon dating
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 221 (396142)
04-18-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Cthulhu
04-18-2007 11:26 PM


The Dating Game.
Well many of my dates sank like a stone.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Cthulhu, posted 04-18-2007 11:26 PM Cthulhu has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


(1)
Message 47 of 221 (396143)
04-18-2007 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:08 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
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?
You must be dislexic. I didn`t agree with you. I didn`t disagree either. I asked you if you think physicists are stupid. You didn`t answer my question.
So, do you think that physicists are stupid?

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 49 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:34 PM fallacycop has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 48 of 221 (396144)
04-18-2007 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:19 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
I said that there was a type=o.
I don't see where there was a typo. You said it was a basic fact that heat speeds radioactive decay. "Basic" was your exact word, which you then denied, and then I showed you that's what you had written. You didn't say "process" or "property". (I don't even understand what kind of distinction you're trying to draw, here.)
No typo that I can see. Just your basic problem with honesty. Look, it's ok. We all saw it. You don't even have to admit it.
Alright then, give me the link to that "authorative source" of yours.
It was one of the graduate-level chemistry texts I have around the house, so I can't really link it. But the Wikipedia article on the subject is pretty simple. Can you show me where it suggests that temperature affects decay rates?
Radioactive decay - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:19 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6181 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 49 of 221 (396145)
04-18-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by fallacycop
04-18-2007 11:29 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
ARE YOU THE BLINDEST PERSON ON THIS FORUM?! I even posted it right after that..that I was being sarcastic!! Go read the post right after that one..
AND YOU DIDN'T REPLY TO ME.. I have know Idea who you were replying to, when you asked if he/she thought that physicists were stupid.
And ofcourse I don't think that physicists are stupid. There are very smart ones out there, or the scientific world would not have been where it is today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by fallacycop, posted 04-18-2007 11:29 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by fallacycop, posted 04-18-2007 11:48 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 50 of 221 (396146)
04-18-2007 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:27 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
I am going by what my teacher told me.
Well, he's pretty clearly wrong, isn't he?
Now what is the link to that authorative source?
Easy, killer. It takes time to type these messages, you know. How about you relax a little bit?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:27 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 6189 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 51 of 221 (396147)
04-18-2007 11:35 PM


radioactive dating and carbon dating can only go so far, and when we go to carbon datings LIMITS the number is soo miniscule that it can hardly be counted as dating
plus, when dating these, rocks, bones, etc. scientists ASSUME that this carcass has not been touched by ANY outside force, this can be false. many scenarios may occur that scientists cannot ever know.
The carcass died in a radioactive area
the carcass died at a volcanic area
the carcass died when there was NO atmosphere
the carcass died with less carbon at the time than usually should
the carcass died with a disease
the carcass died during magnetism shift
etc.
there are many factors that can play in the age of this carcass. when we see bones, all we see are....bones, we cannot tell the dates becuase our methods of dating them are so primitive, yes primitive that the range of years comes out to be SO large, how can that even be considered a date?
40 million years difference is a very very long time.
also sinse radioactive dating method required radioactivity in the body, what makes you think that date was not altered due to the industrial era? or even worse, during nuclear warfare in Hiroshima? or anywhere for that matter.
carbon dating like i said can only go so far as 10,000 years and that is not even close to a fraction of the supposed age of the earth

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:39 PM Juraikken has replied
 Message 55 by Cthulhu, posted 04-18-2007 11:41 PM Juraikken has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6181 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 52 of 221 (396148)
04-18-2007 11:37 PM


Crashfrog, I wasn't talking to you when I blew up..I was talking to fallacycop...

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:43 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 53 of 221 (396150)
04-18-2007 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Juraikken
04-18-2007 11:35 PM


also sinse radioactive dating method required radioactivity in the body, what makes you think that date was not altered due to the industrial era? or even worse, during nuclear warfare in Hiroshima? or anywhere for that matter.
Those events are easily controlled for, since we were around to witness them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Juraikken, posted 04-18-2007 11:35 PM Juraikken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Juraikken, posted 04-18-2007 11:40 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 6189 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 54 of 221 (396151)
04-18-2007 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:39 PM


u were around 30 million years ago? or better yet 1 million years ago?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:39 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:46 PM Juraikken has not replied

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


Message 55 of 221 (396152)
04-18-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Juraikken
04-18-2007 11:35 PM


quote:
The carcass died in a radioactive area
Wouldn't matter.
quote:
the carcass died at a volcanic area
Wouldn't matter.
quote:
the carcass died when there was NO atmosphere
The Earth has had atmosphere for more or less its entire existence.
quote:
the carcass died with less carbon at the time than usually should
C-14 dating deals with proportion, not amount, so no matter.
quote:
the carcass died with a disease
How the hell could a disease affect radioactive decay?
quote:
the carcass died during magnetism shift
How the hell would a magnetism affect radioactive decay?
quote:
also sinse radioactive dating method required radioactivity in the body, what makes you think that date was not altered due to the industrial era? or even worse, during nuclear warfare in Hiroshima? or anywhere for that matter.
Ah, you don't know what radiometric dating is. It's not based on the amount of radioactivity. That's not to say that it wouldn't have an effect. It's just that the effect would be very, very obvious.
Edited by Cthulhu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Juraikken, posted 04-18-2007 11:35 PM Juraikken has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Juraikken, posted 04-19-2007 12:07 AM Cthulhu has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 221 (396154)
04-18-2007 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:37 PM


Crashfrog, I wasn't talking to you when I blew up..
The lies just keep on coming with you, don't they?
From your message:
quote:
This message is a reply to:
Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 10:23 PM
I don't understand why you would think so poorly of me that you would tell these obvious falsehoods right to my face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:37 PM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:48 PM crashfrog has replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6181 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 57 of 221 (396156)
04-18-2007 11:45 PM


Helpful Carbon Dating Link
Check out this link about Carbon Dating.. It's really helpful.
Doesn’t Carbon-14 Dating Disprove the Bible? | Answers in Genesis

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:50 PM ArchArchitect has replied
 Message 76 by jar, posted 04-19-2007 12:13 AM ArchArchitect has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 221 (396157)
04-18-2007 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Juraikken
04-18-2007 11:40 PM


u were around 30 million years ago?
Is that when you believe the first atomic device was dropped on Hiroshima? Because that's what I was talking about.
As it happens, though, we have siginificant evidence from both astronomy and geophysics that proves that decay rates have been constant throughout the past 2 billion years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Juraikken, posted 04-18-2007 11:40 PM Juraikken has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 59 of 221 (396158)
04-18-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:34 PM


Re: A Glitch In Carbon Dating
AND YOU DIDN'T REPLY TO ME.. I have know Idea who you were replying to
I was replying to message 19 by ArchArchitect. would that be you?
And ofcourse I don't think that physicists are stupid. There are very smart ones out there, or the scientific world would not have been where it is today.
Good. So what makes you believe you can walk in here and act like you are in a kindergarden telling people how there is this really basic thing about carbon dating that physicists have not been taking into account. Hint: this is bullshit you`ve been forcefed, and you`re not even aware of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:34 PM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
ArchArchitect
Member (Idle past 6181 days)
Posts: 58
From: Pasadena, CA
Joined: 04-16-2007


Message 60 of 221 (396159)
04-18-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by crashfrog
04-18-2007 11:43 PM


Exuse me crashfrog, but did you ask me anything about what I thought about physicists? No....fallacycop did..Why would I tell you what I thought about physicists if you were not the one to ask me?
-So, if you're going to accuse me of something, include the whole truth. DO YOUR RESEARCH ON ALL OF THE COMMENTS.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 04-18-2007 11:56 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