Carbon Dating

[painted wolf]

As a biology student who will be moving on to a Paleontology based Graduate career, I can tell you that C-14 is never used to date Dinosaurs! The very idea is so flawed that I can't help but laugh at its hilarity.

And seriously... do you know what lava does to living things? There wouldn't be anything left to test! Unless you can find me a lava covered organic remnant?

wa:do

 

[Valjean]

OK itwillend. I thought you might be having us on at first, but it appears you're actually serious about this.
First off, your "source" is not legitimate. It is religious propaganda masquerading as a scientific analysis. It's conclusions, I assure you, preceeded the analysis.
You have a computer. Why don't you just google "scientific dating methods" or some such topic?

The fact that you would give any credence at all to a source so mind-bogglingly biased, illogical and just plain wrong leads me to suspect you've never really had any education in basic science, scientific method or critical thinking. Am I on the right track here?

I hope you don't take offense. If this is, in fact, the case, it's probably more the fault of your schooling than any personal defect. :namaste

 

[Just_me_Mike]

As a biology student who will be moving on to a Paleontology based Graduate career, I can tell you that C-14 is never used to date Dinosaurs! The very idea is so flawed that I can't help but laugh at its hilarity.

And seriously... do you know what lava does to living things? There wouldn't be anything left to test! Unless you can find me a lava covered organic remnant?

wa:do

"In volcano eruptions, a considerable amount of gas is released with the lava. This gas undoubtedly contains a significant amount of argon 40. Volcanos typically have magma chambers under them, from which the eruptions occur. It seems reasonable that gas would collect at the top of these chambers, causing artificially high K-Ar radiometric ages there. In addition, with each successive eruption, some gas would escape, reducing the pressure of the gas and reducing the apparent K-Ar radiometric age. Thus the decreasing K-Ar ages would represent the passage of time, but not necessarily related to their absolute radiometric ages. As a result, lava found in deeper layers, having erupted earlier, would generally appear much older and lava found in higher layers, having erupted later, would appear much younger."
Source: The Radiometric Dating Game

Are you saying this isn't possible? I suppose I don't understand the method then? Please explain why we can't radio carbon volcanic areas, because this seems to imply we can. This is from UNC of Chapel Hill I would trust that over you who have yet to finish school.

Thanks for your reply in advance.

 

[fantome profane]

"In volcano eruptions, a considerable amount of gas is released with the lava. This gas undoubtedly contains a significant amount of argon 40. Volcanos typically have magma chambers under them, from which the eruptions occur. It seems reasonable that gas would collect at the top of these chambers, causing artificially high K-Ar radiometric ages there. In addition, with each successive eruption, some gas would escape, reducing the pressure of the gas and reducing the apparent K-Ar radiometric age. Thus the decreasing K-Ar ages would represent the passage of time, but not necessarily related to their absolute radiometric ages. As a result, lava found in deeper layers, having erupted earlier, would generally appear much older and lava found in higher layers, having erupted later, would appear much younger."
Source: The Radiometric Dating Game

Are you saying this isn't possible? I suppose I don't understand the method then? Please explain why we can't radio carbon volcanic areas, because this seems to imply we can. This is from UNC of Chapel Hill I would trust that over you who have yet to finish school.

Thanks for your reply in advance.

Read that paragraph again. Do you see the word “carbon” anywhere in there? Because I don’t. The paragraph you posted is not about carbon dating, it is about argon dating.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I am always willing to admit when I am wrong, or just not understanding something. Hopefully this won't be a case where everyone nails me to a cross now, no pun intended.

 

[painted wolf]

This is from UNC of Chapel Hill I would trust that over you who have yet to finish school.

Your willingness to admit you didn't read the statement correctly is great... the personal attack is a bit low.

While you may trust him more... you should at least bother to consider the views of others.
I may not yet have my Phd but I'm not totally uneducated in the field either.

wa:do

 

[darkendless]

I love people who claim Carbon dating is a sham. My guess is they've never seen anything dated, and they're too rediculous to admit that anything is older than 13,000 years. Well we don't need carbon dating to prove YEC's wrong, they usually do it all by themselves.
Geologically we can date rocks within a range of about 100000 years, over 380 million years old. Now how the hell do you think Geologists and Geotechs do that? The peninsula i live in was dated at 380 million years old.
Carbon Dating is the new black when it comes to religious propoganda slandering science they dont understand.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I am always willing to admit when I am wrong, or just not understanding something. Hopefully this won't be a case where everyone nails me to a cross now, no pun intended.

Amazing that you attempt to refute the age of the earth when you know nothing of the science involved. :slap:

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I love people who claim Carbon dating is a sham. My guess is they've never seen anything dated, and they're too rediculous to admit that anything is older than 13,000 years. Well we don't need carbon dating to prove YEC's wrong, they usually do it all by themselves.
Geologically we can date rocks within a range of about 100000 years, over 380 million years old. Now how the hell do you think Geologists and Geotechs do that? The peninsula i live in was dated at 380 million years old.
Carbon Dating is the new black when it comes to religious propoganda slandering science they dont understand.

How was your peninsula dated?

 

[rojse]

This is about religion because, my point is that dinosaurs were around in the flood. And that type of world wide event could very easily packed dinosaurs into the earth and changed the very fabric of hour sediment make up. Once we have a better understanding of this we can see how accurate the bible is. Trying to look at something scientifically helps a lot.

Yes! We have found another Investocracy.

 

[rojse]

So, for those saying I have no substance to back my "creationsit" ideas up, please take the gruelling time to read through this. I have a lot more information if you want more.
I am open to any new things though!
thanks for reading...

You want us to read a document decrying carbon dating when the opening paragraph contains the phrase: "we have seen that the oceans potentially offer great help in tying together the secular and sacred records"?

 

[darkendless]

How was your peninsula dated?

We date rock formations. Certain colours and densities of soil give us different clues to the time they were formed. Also we rely on the rock and the soil formation cycles to tell us. Then their's volcanic clues, many variables and factors. I can get as detailed as you want to hear.
Anything else you want to know?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

We date rock formations. Certain colours and densities of soil give us different clues to the time they were formed. Also we rely on the rock and the soil formation cycles to tell us. Then their's volcanic clues, many variables and factors. I can get as detailed as you want to hear.
Anything else you want to know?

Well sure, this is a debate forum. In particular I am sure there are two sides to your studies, I would like to know more about both sides. As you say there are clues, which is fine by me, but I am sure there are scientist that say clues are not good enough. I don't know either way, so I would like a link to some reading on both vies of the dating you are referring too. Is that fair enough?

 

[darkendless]

Well sure, this is a debate forum. In particular I am sure there are two sides to your studies, I would like to know more about both sides. As you say there are clues, which is fine by me, but I am sure there are scientist that say clues are not good enough. I don't know either way, so I would like a link to some reading on both vies of the dating you are referring too. Is that fair enough?

Google geotechnical engineering/geological dating. If you're interested you'll find it. Im sorry but im not allowed to give out links to my university courses, they get $2000 a semester to teach me this stuff I understand you wanting proof, but internet sites can probably explain it more coherently than i can right now.

 

[Im an Atheist]

It is only reliable up 50,000 years.

Just because it may not be reliable over 50,000 years, doesn't make it a sham....

 

[Valjean]

Well sure, this is a debate forum. In particular I am sure there are two sides to your studies, I would like to know more about both sides. As you say there are clues, which is fine by me, but I am sure there are scientist that say clues are not good enough. I don't know either way, so I would like a link to some reading on both vies of the dating you are referring too. Is that fair enough?

Why do you say there are two sides, itwillend? There is no controversy about he great age of the Earth or the validity of the dating methods used by science. The only people expressing any doubt are religious fundamentalists who clearly do not understand the science involved. Their doubts are based religious mythology.

There is also an actual Flat Earth Society which believes the Earth is, well, flat. Do you lend credence to this view as well? The Bible seems to support it.

I recall a time when belief that the Earth was not the center of the solar system; that the Earth actually moved, was considered heresy as well. And priests would quote chapter and verse supporting this doctrine. Is this your position? If not, why not?

 

[Tristesse]

Why do you say there are two sides, itwillend? There is no controversy about he great age of the Earth or the validity of the dating methods used by science. The only people expressing any doubt are religious fundamentalists who clearly do not understand the science involved. Their doubts are based religious mythology.

There is also an actual Flat Earth Society which believes the Earth is, well, flat. Do you lend credence to this view as well? The Bible seems to support it.

I recall a time when belief that the Earth was not the center of the solar system; that the Earth actually moved, was considered heresy as well. And priests would quote chapter and verse supporting this doctrine. Is this your position? If not, why not?

Right, the only arguments about it that take place are between people, not scientists. Scientists overwhelmingly agree. I can't find any scientist saying the earth is between 10-12,000 years old. The youngest I've seen the prediction of the earth, is about 3.8 billion years, but the majority fall in the 4.55 billion year category. So, creationists are off by a number of magnitude.

 

[tumbleweed41]

"Adam and Eve were put in a garden where everything was lovely and there were no weeds to hoe down. They were allowed to stay there on one condition, and that is that they didn't eat of the tree of knowledge. That has been the condition of the Christian church from then until now. They haven't eaten as yet, as a rule they do not."

Clarence Darrow, Absurdities of the Bible

 

[painted wolf]

I find it amusing that atomic theory is good enough for bombs but not for clocks.

Oh wait.. it is used in clocks.

wa:do

 

[Imagist]

Well sure, this is a debate forum. In particular I am sure there are two sides to your studies, I would like to know more about both sides. As you say there are clues, which is fine by me, but I am sure there are scientist that say clues are not good enough. I don't know either way, so I would like a link to some reading on both vies of the dating you are referring too. Is that fair enough?

There are only two sides to this issue in the sense that there is a right side and a wrong side. Radiometric dating is highly accurate and well-verified.

Carbon-14 dating is only accurate for around 60,000 years, but carbon-14 isn't the only isotope used for dating. Take a look at this page and you will see some other dating methods that allow much longer periods.