|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: fossils and carbon dating | |||||||||||||||||||
YEC Inactive Member |
quote: From what I hear animals that fed on some of these sea ceatures also exhibit an older "false" age when carbon 14 dated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Indeed this is an anomaly in the data, but it is explainable. In this particular case, Austin knew he was sampling younger lava flows in the Uinkaret rocks that had been contaminated by older crustal material. You may want to read these before celebrating the demise of radiometric dating. Account Suspended A Critique of ICR's Grand Canyon Dating
Project
|
|||||||||||||||||||
YEC Inactive Member |
Tell me why I should believe your creation bashing sites?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: I never asked you to believe anything. You are absolutely free to beleive whatever you want. Tell you what, if you can tell me why I should believe your 'scientific' information and then I'll tell you why you should believe my references. Fair enough?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Cryptic Inactive Member |
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions...But bringing relion into debates is wrongful. Its only fair not to bring religon into a fourum and rebound off that. Clearly we have Evolutionists and Creationists. But bringing religon into these fourums is a bit lousy..seriously..
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
Over on the Literalism thread, we got diverted into talking about snails and C14 dating.
I posted:
quote: I invite Booboo to continue debate of this issue here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1733 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
quote: Indeed, but 'not your own facts.'
quote: Not sure what you mean, but I'd say that it is creationists who bring religion into the discussion. In fact, they are fond of calling evolution a religion!
quote: Again, please amplify. Who is bringing religion into the discussion and how do you avoid the topic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 762 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Recently, A. S. Riggs of the United States Geological Survey has reported an instance where the assumption was not true.
The paper where Riggs reported this is from 1984 - Science, vol 224, pp 58-61. It, in turn, refers to work as early as 1954 which points out this effect. I've seen Riggs' paper used as a footnote on some YEC site - the site author obviously didn't expect his readers to actually look the paper up or anything. Another footnote on the same site was to "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Modern Shells," M L Keith, G M Anderson, Science, 141, 634-637 (1963): the footnote didn't give the title, though - merely quoted the shell's date without explaining that the paper explained why it was fictitious. This "snail shell argument" is so very poor that even the Institute for Creation Research disavowed it, back in 1989!
The shells of live freshwater clams can, and often do, give anomalous radiocarbon results. However, the reason for this is understood and the problem is restricted to only a few special cases, of which freshwater clams are the best-known example. It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid.
(from Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research , question #3)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Karl Inactive Member |
I knew it was poor; didn't have access to full information.
Fact remains that Booboocruise never came back to address it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
quote: One of the better nicknames here. He made a boobob and cruised out of here. (sometimes I'm sooo funny!) (and sometimes not )
|
|||||||||||||||||||
MarkAustin Member (Idle past 3842 days) Posts: 122 From: London., UK Joined: |
YEC
quote: Assumming you are referring to the ICR study, no, it's bad science. The study in question was based on dating various samples at forming an isochron. This is a complex sample, but basically by doing this you can determine the last date the various samples had in common. So, if you take a set of samples of different rocks (or rocks from different positions within the flow), radio date them and plot the sample, the isochron will show the date they were last molten. In order to produce a true date of a lava flow, the samples must be homogenous - from the same lava flow. However, none of the ICR samples were homogenous. Thus a wrong date was returned. However, it is in all probability a valid date - because the various samples were last homogenous when the original rock that later formed the lava flow was laid down.This the ICR has managed to prove the antiquity of the Earth. ------------------For Whigs admit no force but argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4463 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
This is just a little bit extra in the interests of getting the whole story...
Creationists probably give out about radiometric dating being inaccurate because, if you're not careful in your initial studies, it can be. Rb/Sr dates tend not to be used as much these days because it's very easy for geological and environmental effects to distort the ratio; on the island of Mull (Scotland) they dated the volcanic rock using isotopes and the values were literally all over the place - this was due to hydrothermal alteration. Neodynium isotope dating is considered to be more reliable, as well as radioactive isotopes like uranium - but knowing the conditions of the rock you're studying is just as important as the dates you eventually get, because there is a chance that something in the history of the rock messed them up. The Rock Hound ------------------"Science constantly poses questions, where religion can only shout about answers."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ralphperry  Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 5200 days) Posts: 3 Joined: |
My problem with Carbon dating is the slow down in the half life. After5,280 years (+/-) the rate of decline seems to slow down to half speed and this rate seems to be conveniently consistant, with each successive 5,280 year period.
sorry i just do not buy into it and i know this theory of decline cannot be verified through experience. I am betting a revisionneeds to be made in the half life calculations to get this dating system more accurate. My idea is to limit the decline to 2 half lifes, which would make more sense and bring the dating down to a realistic number and be more consistant with the Biblical data. Edited by Admin, : Ambiguate signature. New York Singles
|
|||||||||||||||||||
rockondon Member (Idle past 4952 days) Posts: 40 Joined: |
quote:Your problem seems to involve plagiarism, not radiocarbon dating. I see this same reply was made last year on another site. Home - Associates for Biblical Research 5280 is the number of feet in a mile, it has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating - the halflife of which is 5730yrs and isn't "slowing down." Radiocarbon dating is however always being recalibrated to account for changes in carbon levels in the atmosphere during various eras. Limiting the decline to 2 half lives (ie ignoring evidence that you find unpalatable) would be one way of staying consistent with biblical data. However, you would have to lie to yourself about innumerable other sources of evidence that all point to an old earth as well. You would also want to avoid reading the bible as it is so rife with contradicting its own 'data'. Genesis doesn't agree with evolution but I think it disagrees with itself even more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again rockondon,
Your problem seems to involve plagiarism, not radiocarbon dating. Also with having extra thick high density skull bones, as it appears that he doesn't understand exponential decay: the rate of decay is the same no matter how many half-lives have passed.
Limiting the decline to 2 half lives (ie ignoring evidence that you find unpalatable) would be one way of staying consistent with biblical data. Fortunately, science is not bound by the opinions of the under educated, to limit it in where it can use and what we can know from it. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024