Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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: 0/1


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 76 of 221 (396178)
04-19-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by ArchArchitect
04-18-2007 11:45 PM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link...NOT!
Check out this link about Carbon Dating.. It's really helpful.
Another great example of AIG lying because they know that Biblical Christians are gullible and easily fooled.
In the previous example I showed you how they cheated misusing radiocarbon dating to measure something older than the limits of measurement for that technique.
This link is an example of them cheating the other direction, misusing K-Ar dating to date something younger than the lower limit for that method.
From the lying link to AIG you provided:
There are many examples where the dating methods give ”dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ”dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ”dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.
Well no shit.
The lower range of today's K-Ar technology is around 200,000 years, some of the very best systems may read down to 100,000 years.
The people at AIG know that. Read the age of something that is 100,000 years old and you will get a reading of about 100,000 years using today's very best methods and equipment.
Test something that is 10,000 years old and you will get a reading of 100,000 years.
Test something that is 1,000 years old and you will get a reading of 100,000 years.
Test something that is 100 years old and you will get a reading of 100,000 years.
They knew that before they did the tests.
They were not looking for truth but rather the answer they wanted.
But this case is an even greater example of them lying.
One thing that happens during volcanic activity is that there are inclusions, pieces of older material broken off and carried in the magma.
Again, if they are scientists or even educated laypersons, they know that. Those inclusions will test older than the surrounding magma because, guess what???? They ARE older.
But AIG does NOT post those facts on their website because their goal is to con Biblical Creationists and they know that Biblical Creationists are so ignorant that they will not spot the flim-flam.
Taking money from the pockets of Biblical Creationists is easy work and relatively safe as con jobs go.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-18-2007 11:45 PM ArchArchitect has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-19-2007 12:16 AM jar has replied
 Message 87 by JonF, posted 04-20-2007 9:06 AM jar has replied

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


Message 77 of 221 (396179)
04-19-2007 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Juraikken
04-19-2007 12:07 AM


You're not making any sense, JJ.
how can you say it doesnt matter at all?
Because it doesn't. And you'd only think that was weird if you didn't know what radioactivity was. Which you clearly don't.
some say at the beginning stages of Earths creation, there were NO atmosphere for a while
Yes. And there was nothing alive at that period in the Earth's history, because it was before the evolution of living things.
There are no fossils from a time when the Earth had no atmosphere, because life could not exist under those circumstances. If that had ever happened in Earth's past after the evolution of life, the Earth would be lifeless, today. (And it's not.)
if you were to fall in a volcano and millions of years later your bones be exposed to people, you think they woudlnt know at all that you were burned?
That's not how fossilization works. If you were to fall into a volcano, there wouldn't be any bones to find.
i thought that the c-14 dating actually has that carbon CLOCK running after the thing dies, so basically it IS amount really.
No, it's proportion. Maybe you should look up how radioactive decay works? It proceeds in a geometric progression, which we measure as a "half-life." (You've heard that term before, right?)
depending on the atmosphere and where he died, he coulda had a c-14 disease in his body that could have depleted the c-14 in his body before he died THUS giving it a LARGER age than its suppose to have...
There's no such thing. Seriously, there isn't.
now lets say this thing died because of that, are you to say WE as scientists wouldnt know this?
No, we'd know. But it wouldn't have any effect on radiometric dating.
decay of isotopes means the amount that is given off?
No, that's not what it means. It means "the proportion of the isotope to its decay product." It's about proportion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Juraikken, posted 04-19-2007 12:07 AM Juraikken has not replied

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


Message 78 of 221 (396180)
04-19-2007 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
04-19-2007 12:13 AM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link...NOT!
Why are you attacking the Creationists?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 04-19-2007 12:13 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by jar, posted 04-19-2007 11:30 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

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


Message 79 of 221 (396181)
04-19-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by ArchArchitect
04-19-2007 12:11 AM


And if I really am wrong, about Carbon Dating, then how is it my fault? wouldn't it be my science teacher's fault?
No it wouldn`t. If you are the one posting here. you are the one reponsible for it. you should double check your sources. Hint: the links you posted are biased.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-19-2007 12:11 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 80 of 221 (396182)
04-19-2007 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Adminnemooseus
04-19-2007 12:06 AM


Short term topic closure now (and the A Moose is feeling pissed)
Closed until some later time.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], [thread=-19,-337], [thread=-14,-1073]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Adminnemooseus, posted 04-19-2007 12:06 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 81 of 221 (396242)
04-19-2007 11:04 AM


Opened but.....
Let's have the old hands help keep things on topic so no admin involvment is needed. Thanks.

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by fallacycop, posted 04-19-2007 11:12 AM AdminNosy has not replied

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


Message 82 of 221 (396246)
04-19-2007 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by AdminNosy
04-19-2007 11:04 AM


Re: Opened but.....
Let's have the old hands help keep things on topic so no admin involvment is needed.
As far as I can tell, this thread was mostly on topic. I really don't understand why it was closed to begin with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by AdminNosy, posted 04-19-2007 11:04 AM AdminNosy has not replied

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


Message 83 of 221 (396250)
04-19-2007 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Juraikken
04-19-2007 12:07 AM


really? i thought that the c-14 dating actually has that carbon CLOCK running after the thing dies, so basically it IS amount really.
It really is proportion. The fact that you insist that it is amount shows that you don't really understand carbon dating well enough to be lecturing scientist about how reliable you think the method is.
are not visualizing it? depending on the atmosphere and where he died, he coulda had a c-14 disease in his body that could have depleted the c-14 in his body before he died THUS giving it a LARGER age than its suppose to have...
What the heck is a c-14 disease?
I'm sure you are not a stupid person, but saying things like that is making you sound like a lunatic. Why don't you try doing your homework and learning a little more about the subject before posting? Most of your claims about how C-14 dating works have been outrageously inacurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Juraikken, posted 04-19-2007 12:07 AM Juraikken has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 84 of 221 (396252)
04-19-2007 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by ArchArchitect
04-19-2007 12:16 AM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link...NOT!
ArchArchitect asks:
Why are you attacking the Creationists?
A very important question.
I am not attacking Creationists, in fact I describe myself as a Creationist as you can see in Message 1.
What I attack is the Christian Cult of Ignorance tactics of dishonesty, misdirection and out right fraud.
The sources you site, groups like AIG and ICR and Discovery Institute get by because they misrepresent scientific facts as I showed you in their examples of using Radiocarbon dating to measure something older than the range possible using that method, or using K-Ar dating to measure something younger than the lower limits of that method, and not pointing out the issue of Inclusions.
Any Scientist and most educated laymen know those limitations. Yet the Biblical Creationist, ID folk continue their tactic of telling folk like yourself only part of the story.
They lie. They cheat. They misrepresent.
Their agenda is not to find out what is true, but to provide a convincing argument that ignorant folk will buy, and thus keep the money rolling in.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-19-2007 12:16 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 85 of 221 (396258)
04-19-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Juraikken
04-19-2007 12:07 AM


The dreaded c-14 virus!
he coulda had a c-14 disease in his body that could have depleted the c-14
This statement leads me to believe that you either don't understand "c-14", "disease" or "deplete".
I'll try to clear this up.
c-14 is a naturally occuring version of the carbon atom in our atmosphere. Therefore, anything interacting with the atmosphere (breathing) or interacting with things which interact with the atmosphere (eatting them) will be exposed to C-14 on a regular and ongoing process.
The carbon which exists in your body got there somehow. It did't just appear. So, within your body right now, a certain percentage of your carbon is c-14 carbon. And, as long as you keep breathing and eating, that percentage is going to stay the same as it appears in the atmosphere.
This is true for all living things.
When you say "disease" I assume you mean one of 3 things - either bacterial infection, viral infection or non-infectious degradation (heart disease, cystic fibrosis).
In all these cases, the "disease" is comprised of living matter, which like "all living things" as stated above, has the same percentage of c-14.
Now, there are conditions which exist which reduce the body's iron for example. But there are no conditions which reduce the bodies carbon. Carbon is the building block, hence the term "carbon-based life".
Even if there was a condition which reduced the amount of carbon in the body, it could not selectively remove the carbon-14 from the molecules to which it is attached. It could only blanket remove carbon.
Since the proportion of C-14 to regular carbon is stable, removing any amount of carbon will have no effect on the proportion of c-14 in the body.
When the living thing stops interacting with the atmosphere (dies), it stops replenishing the C-14 in the body. At this point, the percentage of C-14 starts to decrease.
Eventually, all the c-14 has decreased, causing an end date to this measuring method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Juraikken, posted 04-19-2007 12:07 AM Juraikken has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 86 of 221 (396260)
04-19-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Juraikken
04-19-2007 12:07 AM


Volcanos
if you were to fall in a volcano and millions of years later your bones be exposed to people, you think they woudlnt know at all that you were burned?
Totally screwed up the response here.
1st of all, no living thing leaves behind a trace if it's bathing in magma.
2nd you can burn bones all you want, it won't effect the percentage of c-14
Here's what you SHOULD have talked about -
When volcanos erupt, they spew A LOT of carbon into the local atmosphere. Most, if not all of this carbon contains no C-14. As a result, in and around volcanic eruptions, the percentages of C-14 could be disrupted.
Here's the problem with this statement though:
OF COURSE we're going to notice there was an eruption. It's not like they are carbon dating Pompeii and not realizing that the 20 ft of ash came from someplace.
And, when there is volcanic eruptions, it gives us access to a whole host of other dating methods which allow us to better predict the dates of what we are measuring, even if the c-14 is screwed up at that one spot at that one time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Juraikken, posted 04-19-2007 12:07 AM Juraikken has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 87 of 221 (396471)
04-20-2007 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
04-19-2007 12:13 AM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link...NOT!
example is K-Ar ”dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ”dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.
Well no shit.
The lower range of today's K-Ar technology is around 200,000 years, some of the very best systems may read down to 100,000 years.
The people at AIG know that. Read the age of something that is 100,000 years old and you will get a reading of about 100,000 years using today's very best methods and equipment.
Test something that is 10,000 years old and you will get a reading of 100,000 years.
Test something that is 1,000 years old and you will get a reading of 100,000 years.
Test something that is 100 years old and you will get a reading of 100,000 years.
They knew that before they did the tests.
They were not looking for truth but rather the answer they wanted.
But this case is an even greater example of them lying.
One thing that happens during volcanic activity is that there are inclusions, pieces of older material broken off and carried in the magma.
Again, if they are scientists or even educated laypersons, they know that. Those inclusions will test older than the surrounding magma because, guess what???? They ARE older.
But AIG does NOT post those facts on their website because their goal is to con Biblical Creationists and they know that Biblical Creationists are so ignorant that they will not spot the flim-flam.
Xenoliths (older inclusions) aren't omnipresent and don't always pose a potential problem, but they are omnipresent in Nguaruhoe lava (as acknowledged by Snelling, the author of the "study"). He specifically asked for a "whole rock" analysis, meaning all the constituents ground up together and then tested, which was guaranteed to produce an age older than the eruption of the lava. From ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR POTASSIUM-ARGON "DATING":
quote:
All samples were sent first for sectioning - one thin section from each sample for petrographic analysis. A set of representative pieces from each sample (approximately 100 g) was then despatched to the AMDEL Laboratory in Adelaide, South Australia, for whole-rock major, minor and trace element analyses. A second representative set (50-100 g from each sample) was sent progressively to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge (Boston), Massachusetts, for whole-rock potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating - first a split from one sample from each flow, then a split from the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, the split from the third sample from the June 30, 1954 flow. ...
Steiner [90] stressed that xenoliths are a common constituent of the 1954 Ngauruhoe lava, but also noted that Battey [7] reported the 1949 Ngauruhoe lava was rich in xenoliths. All samples in this study contained xenoliths, including those from the 1975 avalanche material.
Most if not all creationist "studies" of radiometric dating are frauds. This particular one is the most blatant fraud of all of them
Edited by JonF, : Fixed tag

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 04-19-2007 12:13 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 04-20-2007 11:33 AM JonF has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 88 of 221 (396500)
04-20-2007 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by ArchArchitect
04-19-2007 12:04 AM


Re: Helpful Carbon Dating Link
xplain to me how it's been proven wrong.. You know, you're starting to sound like you're making this up as you go along.
It's off topic here, and there's far too much information to cover adequately here, but History of the Collapse of "Flood Geology" and a Young Earth is a good place to start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by ArchArchitect, posted 04-19-2007 12:04 AM ArchArchitect has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 221 (396506)
04-20-2007 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by JonF
04-20-2007 9:06 AM


Yes, AIG and MOST Biblical Creationist sites lie!
The sad thing is that sites like AIG continue to post material that has not only been shown to be incorrect, but to really be just fraud and lies, even after being exposed. As long as they can continue to fool the general Christian public the money just keeps rolling in.
They know what they are doing and as long as the stream of money rolls in they are not concerned about honesty, truth or integrity.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by JonF, posted 04-20-2007 9:06 AM JonF has not replied

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


Message 90 of 221 (396733)
04-21-2007 9:16 PM


Question:
I was wondering.. Is it a scientific, proven fact that temperature does not exist at sub-atomic levels, or is it an assumption. I do not understand how there can be temperature existance at a certain level, but not at a sub-level. Doesn't our level overlap the sub-atomic level? I'm confused, can somebody help?
~Thanks~

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Zhimbo, posted 04-21-2007 9:39 PM ArchArchitect has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024