Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8971 total)
173 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, kjsimons, marc9000 (4 members, 169 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,372 Year: 7,120/23,288 Month: 1,026/1,214 Week: 38/303 Day: 38/37 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Research for a book - Survey of various dating methods
Coyote
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 4 of 82 (595702)
12-10-2010 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by damoncasale
12-09-2010 9:55 PM


Radiocarbon dating
One of my specialties is radiocarbon dating (I'm an archaeologist). Here are some good links detailing the method:

ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth Creationists

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.

Tree Ring and C14 Dating

Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.

Radiocarbon -- full text of issues, 1959-2003.

You ask what should be included in the book. An example:

One of the most often heard criticisms of radiocarbon dating is that it "relies on assumptions." The assumption most often pointed out is atmospheric variation caused by changes in cosmic rays or the earth's magnetic field or some such. Actually that problem was identified in 1958, shortly after the radiocarbon method was developed. A calibration curve has been worked out to account for these changes, using tree-ring dating and annular information in such things as corals, spelothems, and glacial varves to mention a few. These diverse methods have been used to create a calibration curve that is remarkably consistent from material to material, and has no more than about a 10% variation at any point.

In other words, radiocarbon dates can be correlated with a wide variety of other annular indicators, which shows that the method is quite accurate.

The important thing to note in your book is that all of the objections, such as atmospheric variation, above, that creationists come up with have long-since been thought of and taken into consideration by the various scientists who deal with this field. We want the most accurate dates we can get! Dates that are wrong are worse than useless.

Take a look at the links I provided and let me know if you have any questions. I am sure that one or another of the posters here can help you out with the answers.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by damoncasale, posted 12-09-2010 9:55 PM damoncasale has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by damoncasale, posted 12-10-2010 12:31 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 7 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-10-2010 1:02 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 54 of 82 (595987)
12-11-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Dr Adequate
12-11-2010 6:52 PM


Re: Radiocarbon dating
This leaves my other question for Coyote --- do archaeologists ever use igneous rocks for dating purposes?

Not in the type of archaeology I do.

My style of archaeology relies mostly on radiocarbon dating because we have plenty of the materials required for that method.

Some of my colleagues in other areas may use igneous rocks, but I would think that is more for paleontology than archaeology.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-11-2010 6:52 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020