Radioactive carbon dating

They're not taking that into account because that doesn't happen. What you're talking about violates fundamental principles of physics (like Conservation of Matter.) You're describing something that is physically impossible. They're not. I don't know what on Earth you think you're talking about.

Why would it?I can't find any indication that radioactive decay rates are affected by temperature. Do you have a legitimate source for that? Like a physics textbook? (Something unconnected to the EvC debate would be most suitable.) If that's true, why wouldn't they take it into account? If it's so "basic", surely they should know about it? Again, why? Things don't get hot for no reason. Surely extreme heat on the order of vulcanism would leave its mark on the surrounding fossil matrix. Barring that there should be evidence of whatever produced the extreme heat in the first place - lava flows, magma plumes, etc. Your contention of "invisible heat" is one I don't find credible. In fact it sounds like you're making this stuff up as you go along.

No, it's not. These are just things you made up. These aren't facts. What? No, this is you, not ten minutes ago:

quote:

---

A basic property of Carbon14 is that under extreme heat, it decays even faster, making the object appear to be older than it actually is.

---

I don't understand how we're going to have a civil, intelligent debate if you won't even tell the truth about what you said. If you're not going to be honest, how can we debate? According to you. The problem is, you appear to be wrong in nearly every regard, and dishonest to boot.

Man, the dishonesty just never ends with you, does it? I looked in authoritative sources on radioactive decay. For instance, the equations that describe radioactive decay rate:have no term for temperature. Isn't that significant? Wouldn't the physicists who developed these models based on decay experiments rather quickly discern that temperature was a factor, and include that in the model? Since they didn't, what evidence do you have that the rates do vary?How is it that you could possibly think you're privy to some kind of "well-known fact" that they're teaching in high school but Ph.D. physicists don't even know? That should have been your first clue that you had been fed a line of bullshit.But, look. Radioactive decay happens at the subatomic level, the level of the atomic nucleus - and there's no such thing as temperature at that level. So how could temperature have an effect? (If you don't understand what I'm talking about then you need to learn about the Kinetic Theory of Gases, which really is basic.)

Your high school, maybe. I was never taught that radioactive decay rates were variable with temperature.It's time for you to find this information in a legitimate scientific source, or acknowledge that you're wrong. That you maybe remember your science teacher telling you isn't such a source. Either he was wrong, or you don't remember correctly. (Or it never happened and you have some problems with being truthful.)

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. 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

Well, he's pretty clearly wrong, isn't he? Easy, killer. It takes time to type these messages, you know. How about you relax a little bit?

Those events are easily controlled for, since we were around to witness them.

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.

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.

It's also wrong.Look, the only reason they reject carbon dating is because it leads to conclusions that undermine their interpretation of the Bible. That's not a scientific reason. Furthermore they base their assumptions on a Biblical flood, which it is known did not happen.I don't see your link as being all that helpful, because it's scientifically inaccurate. It's bad information.

You didn't, that I can see. The word "physicists" doesn't appear in that post to me, and none of the statements have anything to do with physics.The posts are numbered, here, if you hadn't noticed. You really need to keep better track of what you're saying to whom. Go back and read what you've written, if necessary. You're really starting to not make any sense at all. Excuse yourself. Look, the posts say who they're in reply to. This post will show you which post of yours I'm replying to. Didn't you notice all that stuff that the board software puts in, automatically?

It already has been proven. Scientists haven't believed in the Biblical Flood for 200 years. Hell, it was creationists who originally rejected the flood story. It's a different flood. It does flood in China, you know. Makes sense that they might have written about it.The flood isn't on-topic here, though.

In a completely different message than we were talking about.This is getting surreal. Yeah, you. The text you quoted doesn't appear in the message we were talking about. Here it is, in it's entirety:

quote:

---

Only a lowlife would make something up on this forum. I am going by what my teacher told me. Now what is the link to that authorative source?

---

See? It doesn't say anything about physicists.

Like I said, the Flood isn't the topic of this thread.Is this your admission, then, that your assertions about carbon dating were completely wrong?