|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,742 Year: 3,999/9,624 Month: 870/974 Week: 197/286 Day: 4/109 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5052 days) Posts: 18 From: Los Angeles,California,USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Radioactive carbon dating | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4801 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"Carbon dating is not used to date fossils." ANYMORE.
This is very key. Carbon dating was the first and only method of dating for 10 years. The "new" parent-daughter dating methods run into the same problems as carbon dating though they fix the radioactive halflife issue. You cannot date any fossil properly without knowing how much of the parent substance there was to begin with. Any fossil rich in the parent substance (be it argon, or potassium, etc.) would give inaccurate data. You can't know how much time has passed if you don't know how much sand was in the hourglass to begin with. This is pretty basic. Levels of all radioactive parent substances differ worldwide, and even in specific areas at different times change. We do our best to measure changes, then extrapolate this data backwards, but any catastrophic change in conditions will influence levels greatly, and again, give us a false date. Taking a closer look at the fossils themselves, instead of relying on radioactive dating itself can give some insight into the actual dates. Scientists have found fossilized lobster shells from lobsters that are STILL ALIVE. Carbon dating claimed them to be over a thousand years old. But the lobster was still ALIVE. This shows two things. Firstly, that carbon dating is not an exact science, and since the other methods of radiocarbon dating use the same process, it is possible to question their dates as well. The second, that fossilization can occur rapidly. This is also evident with fossils of mammoth graveyards, Mammoths in the middle of giving birth and in the middle of battle. Lizards with their tongue sticking out, etc. These are all examples of fast fossilization. Lets finish with this question. How long does it take to make a fossil? Does a long time seem reasonable? Would the structure of the animal remain intact for millions of years? Just askin. Dennis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4801 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"Secondly, it is the ratio of parent to daughter isotope that is used. For example, if you start with 1 g of uranium after 1 halflife you will have 0.5 g of uranium and 0.5 g of lead. If you start with 5 g of uranium then after one half life you will have 2.5 g of uranium and 2.5 g of lead. It is the RATIO that is important."
Right, but you know what the initial levels of the parent substance are present. You are assuming that niether the parent or daughter substance can seep into surrounding ground, even though fossils occur in sedimentary rock. This is amusing at best. As well, any catastrophic event (ice age, flooding, etc.) would almost certainly effect levels of many substances in the area, or worldwide, depending on the severity of the occurance. "Last I checked an hourglass is a closed system so the amount of sand in the hourglass is how much you started with." Correct. And if an hourglass is half passed, then we can measure the rate at which the sand falls, and find out how long the hourglass has been tipped. But if you left the room, and I took sand out of the top, then you came back, you would guess incorrectly, based on the amount of sand present. "This is what causes the older date. Scientists know all about this effect." And yet do not account for it. Since Carbon-14, as well as many other radioactive parent substances do not decay at a constant rate (decay rates vary depending on temperature, pressure, electron screening, as well as the fluctuation of the Van Allen belt), and the varying levels of carbon worldwide (8.5% margins), it seems almost impossible for an accurate timescale to be drawn based on any form of radioactive decay. As well, any daughter substance buried with the animal, but not occuring through radioactive decay would give false readings, making the fossil appear older.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4801 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
"By far the most widely used method, U-Pb, takes advantage of the fact that significant amounts of lead physically and electrically can't get into minerals such as zircons at solidification"
When Zircons (or other gems, such as monazite) form, they exclude lead, but can have considerable levels of Uranium. As the Uranium decays, lead is produced. Sounds logical. Except you still do not know the levels of Uranium to begin with.
quote:Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D. quote:K.R. Ludwig, Economic Geology, 76 (1981) 89-110
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4801 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
", that has nothing to do with Carbon 14. Try one of RAZD's correlation threads."
I posted this to respond to what I thought I read about U-Pb dating...I can't find it now, but whoever thats for, it's there.
quote:Page not found – Physics World As I said before, carbon levels are NOT constant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dennis780 Member (Idle past 4801 days) Posts: 288 From: Alberta Joined: |
quote:http://www.globalflood.org/papers/2003ICCc14.html Maybe I should just find scientific research, and post that alone, since you refuse to buy what I'm saying.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024