Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationist problems with radiocarbon dating
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 84 of 194 (557294)
04-24-2010 10:21 AM


Bump for Calibrated Thinker
I started this thread just for you. Any thoughts?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by AdminSlev, posted 04-24-2010 3:30 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 86 of 194 (557318)
04-24-2010 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by AdminSlev
04-24-2010 3:30 PM


Re: Bump for Calibrated Thinker
Haven't dared experiment with that feature yet.
(Personally, I think he's hiding under his desk.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by AdminSlev, posted 04-24-2010 3:30 PM AdminSlev has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by AdminSlev, posted 04-24-2010 3:36 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 92 of 194 (642241)
11-26-2011 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Pollux
11-26-2011 10:27 PM


Re: Snelling's experiments
I don't know how they will go with my opponent, who wrote a book about how dinosaurs and man were co-existent a few thousand years ago!
Someone who believes that dinosaurs and man co-existed is not amenable to scientific evidence.
(See signature.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Pollux, posted 11-26-2011 10:27 PM Pollux has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 98 of 194 (671343)
08-24-2012 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by David Carroll
08-24-2012 12:39 PM


Re: Philosophy?? Physics not metaphysics
We can tell that there has been no recent change in a variety of parameters by the simple method of tree rings.
By counting tree rings (using the overlapping method) you can go back over 12,000 years in the US and twice that in Europe.
By then dating those individual tree rings you can determine the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, and create a calibration curve to correct for fluctuations in the atmospheric levels of C14. But that same method also shows that the decay constant has not changed during that time.
And you can also determine that there was no flood during that time using tree rings, and learn a bit about the climate in the past as well.
Face it, the global flood ca. 4,350 years ago and the "fall" are myths, and not supported by evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by David Carroll, posted 08-24-2012 12:39 PM David Carroll has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 102 of 194 (671412)
08-24-2012 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by David Carroll
08-24-2012 9:12 PM


Re: Philosophy?? Physics not metaphysics
As to what specific reason why I suggested a faster c in the past: I offered this because it is my own thought experiment to suggest a mechanism whereby decay rates would have been faster in the past (with a faster c, it's my suggestion that the faster rate of physical causality, which is essentially what c is, would not be limited to the electro-magnetic force, but would effect the weak force and strong force as well. I.e. the precarious tension between the weak, strong, and electro-magnetic forces that holds the particles of a carbon-14 atom together, would "resolve" more quickly if c - the rate or "speed" of physical causality - were faster. Thus, instead of a half-life of 5,700 years, it might have a much shorter half-life if there were a faster c.)
I'll let the others deal with the problems inherent with a faster C.
Regarding the C14 dating method -- we can directly count back into the past using tree-rings, glacial varves, corals, and other annular data.
We can then directly radiocarbon date those rings, varves, etc. from the past and compare the radiocarbon age against the known age. And we can do this for ages past 25,000 years ago.
If there was a change in C (and hence, a lot of other constants) ca. 4,350 years ago with the "flood," this would show up as a drastic change in the radiocarbon dates derived from tree-rings and other annual indicators. We do not see such a change.
Your thought experiment has already been tested and found to be incorrect. The evidence suggests that radiocarbon dating and other forms of radiometric dating do produce quite accurate dates, and that the constants have remained quite constant.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by David Carroll, posted 08-24-2012 9:12 PM David Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by David Carroll, posted 08-24-2012 10:03 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 104 of 194 (671420)
08-24-2012 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by David Carroll
08-24-2012 10:03 PM


Re: Philosophy?? Physics not metaphysics
I don't have any charts available. Which isotope - if any - has a daughter decay isotope of carbon-14? Is it possible that the organisms in question contained this parent element, whatever that is?
The daughter element of C14 is N14. Not much help there.
Here is an excellent essay on radiocarbon dating that might help.
If you have any questions let me know, as I've worked with this technique for nearly 40 years now.
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by David Carroll, posted 08-24-2012 10:03 PM David Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by David Carroll, posted 08-24-2012 10:51 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 106 of 194 (671427)
08-24-2012 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by David Carroll
08-24-2012 10:51 PM


Re: Philosophy?? Physics not metaphysics
Is Dr. Roger C Wiens, perhaps, THOU?
No, alas.
I have written and lectured on radiocarbon dating, but I think Dr. Wiens works at Los Alamos so he's in a whole different league.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by David Carroll, posted 08-24-2012 10:51 PM David Carroll has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 113 of 194 (683872)
12-14-2012 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by morningstar2008
12-14-2012 8:06 AM


Dating
What repeatable, verifiable evidence can you provide that confirms the accuracy of any of the radiometric dating methods currently used today.
RAZD has a couple of threads on the correlations among the various dating techniques. Your question is answered in detail there. Here is a link to one:
EvC Forum: Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1
I feel quite sure that we will have to agree to disagree on the veracity of dating techniques, but if you wish to go through the usual arguments, I can oblige but it is likely going to a repetition of the same debate.
There is no debate. Instead we have creationists denying a branch of science because they choose to believe old tribal myths instead of the evidence all around them.
I live in a coal mining town in Australia and see first hand a massive volume of evidence for a massive flood event on a whole planet scale. Interestingly atop and below each coal seam are leaves sticks and twigs that are still wood, and look very much like leaves and twigs that you find on the forest floor when bush walking. Obviously the temperature was insufficient at the margins to convert this material to anthracite as is the case only centimetres away.
By the way these coal seams are about 150 metres to 200 metres below the surface under a range of sedimentary strata that all have knife edge boundaries in the horizontal plane. My point being that this is typical of rapid deposition. Interestingly enough these are dated by radiometric methods as being late Permian 255 Ma. Amazing that sticks and leaves have lasted that long without deterioration don't you think. The seams are exposed in huge open cut pits.
Coal and all the rest of the ancient-age explanations for the flood are nonsense. Biblical scholars place the flood some 4,350 years ago, during historic times. Attempts to place the flood during the Permian, at the K-T boundary and all sorts of other silly places is a sign of desperation on the part of creationists. What that is really saying is that evidence of a flood couldn't be found where it was supposed to be, 4,350 years ago.
The RD age doesn't fit the logical explanation that the coal and the sticks aren't as old as many would like make out. This is not hearsay, I'm talking about what I see with my own eyes.
It is the interpretation that dictates the result. ...
Science forms an interlocking picture of the world around us. In order to overturn this model, you have to come up with an equally explanatory alternative. You don't get to cherry pick little factoids here and there.
The easiest explanation for your sticks and leaves is that they really are as old as the dates show, whether you want to accept that or not.
By the way, radiocarbon dating--the subject of this thread--only extends back about 50,000 years into the past. You are mistakenly including other forms of radiometric dating in your post.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by morningstar2008, posted 12-14-2012 8:06 AM morningstar2008 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 144 of 194 (684271)
12-16-2012 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by morningstar2008
12-16-2012 9:17 PM


Radiocarbon dating
I will try to keep this simple.
Radiocarbon dating only works for the last 50,000 years. It does not deal with peat or coal.
I have submitted about 600 radiocarbon samples, and know the technique fairly well.
If you think that it is wrong, please state your reasons in clear and simple terms and we can discuss them.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 9:17 PM morningstar2008 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by morningstar2008, posted 12-16-2012 11:21 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 171 of 194 (684560)
12-17-2012 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by morningstar2008
12-17-2012 8:42 PM


Radiocarbon Dating
You need to tell us clearly why you think radiocarbon dating is inaccurate.
Several of us know quite a bit about the subject.
I have submitted about 600 samples, and have lectured and written on the subject. In fact, I just received the results of a sample today.
Keep it simple, and in English.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 8:42 PM morningstar2008 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 9:56 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 175 of 194 (684585)
12-18-2012 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by morningstar2008
12-17-2012 9:56 PM


Re: Radiocarbon Dating
Your answer has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.
Try again with more science and less nonsense.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by morningstar2008, posted 12-17-2012 9:56 PM morningstar2008 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by morningstar2008, posted 12-18-2012 1:07 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 187 of 194 (684835)
12-18-2012 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by morningstar2008
12-18-2012 2:33 PM


Re: Radiocarbon Dating and basics of radioactive decay
Your post has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.
Please limit your posts on this thread to the topic of radiocarbon dating.
Posts on other subjects should be in more appropriate threads.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by morningstar2008, posted 12-18-2012 2:33 PM morningstar2008 has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 193 of 194 (705119)
08-23-2013 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by mindspawn
08-23-2013 7:07 AM


C14 answers
1) Is carbon 14 produced in relatively small quantities (relative to carbon 12) in the atmosphere?
Yes, in very small quantities: about 1 part per trillion.
2) Is its production directly reduced by a stronger magnetic field?
As C14 is produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere, it varies somewhat due to the fluctuations in cosmic rays and these, in turn, vary somewhat due to changes in the earth's magnetic field.
3) Is the magnetic field currently weaker now than in times past?
Wiki says the field is currently decreasing, but "this strength is about average for the last 7 thousand years, and the current rate of change is not unusual."
Fluctuations in the levels of atmospheric C14 would be a problem for C14 dating if there was no correction for this effect. By dating individual tree rings in old wood a correction factor can be established.
It works like this: certain types of trees are know to grow only one ring per year and to be exceptionally long-lived. By dating individual rings back thousands of years a "calibration curve" can be worked out to correct conventional radiocarbon dates for atmospheric fluctuations. If I recall correctly, the change never gets beyond about 10 or 11 percent.
In addition to tree rings, there are a number of other things that produce annular "rings" that can be dated and used to establish a calibration curve. Several of these are illustrated in the following graph:
As you can see, several different materials all produce similar results.
Hope this helps.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by mindspawn, posted 08-23-2013 7:07 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by mindspawn, posted 08-27-2013 10:50 AM Coyote has seen this message but 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