|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5057 days) Posts: 18 From: Los Angeles,California,USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Radioactive carbon dating | ||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray ArchArchitect.
The scientists are not taking into account that heat speeds up the amount of Carbon (which escapes the object) which would obviously alter it's age according to the scientists. Presumably you mean carbon lost as CO2 in combustion, however this is not a problem for carbon 14 dating because the dating is based on the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 (the "normal" isotope). This ratio is the same no matter what the size of the sample is. The ratio changes with the age of the sample due to the radioactive decay of the carbon 14 atoms. For a good introduction to the way carbon 14 dating actually works see:How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks Also seehttp://razd.evcforum.net/carbon14.html and Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), which discusses the age of the earth evidence from a number of differen sources and the correlations between the different kinds of data.
Why do you think that the fossils in volcanic areas are much, much older than those fossils that are found in cooler areas like oasises? You really should study - or at least google - this before posting such an assertion: it is false. Fossils are found in a mix of volcanic and non-volcanic strata, and their age does not correlate with whether volcanism was involved or not. Ignorance can be cured ... Enjoy. ps type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quote boxes are easy You can also edit your previous post to correct it rather than post a correction. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
From Message 229, SophistiCat says:
You may want to take this rare opportunity to engage one of the leading YECs (and rip him a new one). I read his reply, and the responses, but John has said little new after that.
TheologyWeb Campus
quote: No it doesn't, this is hyperbole. There are several existing explanations for this problem. One must always remember that radiocarbon dating is based on the C12 and C14 coming from atmospheric carbon, where the C14 is due to solar activity converting N14 to C14. There are other sources of carbon and other ways to make C14 (C13 can be converted during nuclear reactions, as can "expired" C14 having again become N14 in the samples). These would necessarily be rare events in buried samples, and thus produce only low levels of new C14, such as those found in coal and diamonds in the RATE paper. Thus when anything is dated - particularly samples over 50,000 years - by this method it is imperative to eliminate other sources for carbon and for production of new C14. A background level of radiation will produce a background level of C14 with the level depending on the level of radioactivity involved. This is well known by Baumgardner et al, and thus it is no surprise that they make use of this fact. It is relatively easy to search out radioactive sites and intentionally find samples that appear to throw dating into question. The problem for these people is that even if such "contamination" of samples is common in the world of archaeological samples that do come from sources that obtained their C12 and C14 from atmospheric carbon, that the level of error produced is still within the margin of error for the dating methods, and radioactivity can be eliminated in most cases relatively easily. Take the Lake Suigetsu clay\diatom varves, with some 35,000 annual layers and samples of organic debris found in the layers: because of the manner of formation of the varves there is no source of radioactivity that could change the age of those samples, and the varve layer age would still correlate with the radiocarbon date properly. Even if the level of C14 in very old samples is due to cosmic radiation penetrating the earth, the level produced is necessarily small as there is limited material to convert to C14 (C13 and N14 being is very small quantities). The end result either way is that the system cannot be used to date things much older than 50,000 years with the accuracy that samples younger than 50,000 years have. That is not a hardship. It does not show that coal or diamonds are young, nor that radiocarbon dating is filled with massive errors. Enjoy, Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : not nothing compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
One thing I got from reading the thread was an excellent reference:
http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/radiocarbon/ On-line access to radiocarbon issues from 1959 to 2004. And three additional articles on Lake Suigetsu, and a couple on the Cariaco Basin that provide another correlation, this one provided by John: USGS URL Resolution Error Page
But Baumgardner sounds no different from any of the rank and file nutcakes that we get here on a regular basis. Yep, but then when you are trying to defend a false position it is hard to use real evidence. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Welcome to the fray sikosikik5
to use carbon dating, you would have to make the two assumptions that: 1. the earths atmosphere has reached equilibrium 2. and c14 has always burned at a constant rate Nope. (1) we know that the production of 14C varies from year to year due to the solar sunspot cycle, and thus the amount will always vary about an average, and never reach an "equilibrium. We can, hoverver, assume that we can use average over the 11 year cycle applies with sufficient accuracy for dating purposes. Then we can check radiocarbon dating based on this assumption against items where we know the dates from other methods and see if the assumption holds up. This has been done, resulting in a correlation curve. See IntCal04 (ToC) and related articles through Radiocarbon archives for details. You can also look at IntCal98 for similar calibration work. (2) Carbon-14, 14C, does not "burn" - it is radioactive and decays along an exponential curve based on its half-life (5730 years). We have found no reason to believe that radioactive rates have changed in the past, no evidence for it, even though this has been considered. If someone tells you different, the likelihood is either (1) they are ignorant themselves, (2) they are lying to deceive you, (3) they are deluded about reality. Enjoy. ps - as you are new: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In Message 346 Daniel4140 states:
I never said that 14C never correlates to stratum. But the intrpertation of large ages is invalid since the 14C was not in equilibrium and still, to this very day, has not reached equilibrium. The non-equilibrium condition means that the spread of past dates 0 to 60,0000 B.P. collapses to only 4400 years. This thread is now closed due to length, however this choice piece of typical creationist misrepresentation of carbon-14 dating problems should be addressed. There never will be an "equilibrium" level of C-14 in the atmosphere. The reasons are simple, but the failure (ignorance, misunderstanding, intentional misrepresentation, whatever) to come to terms with this simple fact betrays a lack of learning the simple basics of the method and the reasons for the variations. The Carbon-14 Environment Carbon-14 is a radioactive isotope of carbon. carbon | Infoplease (1)
quote: The method (8)
quote: How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks (5)
quote: This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 by beta- decay: Glossary Term - Beta Decay (7)
quote: Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of C-12 and C-14 existing in the atmosphere at the time. The level of Carbon-14 has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate change. Because the level of cosmic ray radiation level is always changing, based on several independent cycles (one is 19 years long), there will never be a point where the level of 14C is in equilibrium. Instead the level of 14C will rise and fall, lagging behind but in response to the rise and fall of cosmic ray radiation levels. It will never reach a steady level. Anyone who tells you it should be in equilibrium is either lying or doesn't understand how 14C is produced and how equilibrium is reached. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey kbertsche,
This is partly true, but the facts are being twisted. Yes, Libby assumed equilibrium. An equilibrium assumption works surprisingly well (maximum error less than 15% over the last 45,000 years) due to our large atmospheric and terrestrial carbon reservoirs which dilute the effects of non-equilibrium production rates. One also needs to consider the history of carbon-14 dating: http://home.tiac.net/~cri/1999/c14hist.html
quote: Creationists using old information when science has developed significantly since then? Shocking. What this shows is that (A) the assumption of a constant level was reasonable at the beginning, and (B) it still works due to the variation in 14C production being cyclical around an average value. The method
quote:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Doubletime,
This is one thread where you can discuss what you think are problems with dating methods, specifically what you think is wrong with 14C dating. In Message 1 you say:
About the daiting i believe it is strange that the oldest scriptures are 5000s years. Scientist says the first farmers began 5000-12000 years ago. We believe the modern civilization started 5000-7000 years ago. While the Co14 method says that humans were atleast 40 000 years old... Something is not right here. I wonder what ^^ You can believe what you like, unfortunately (for your) it has no effect on reality. The earliest agricultural evidence is circa 10K years ago: Neolithic Revolution - Wikipedia
quote: That makes the evidence of agriculture older than your YEC world. It is not the only thing older than your YEC world (see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 for a number of things that make your YEC concept invalid).
While the Co14 method says that humans were atleast 40 000 years old... Something is not right here. I wonder what ^^ Seeing as 14C (not Co14 -- there is no 14Cobalt isotope, Cobalt - Co - has 27 protons) is vastly validated as a method of determining dates, including correlations with annual layer systems that extend to 35K+ years, and 45k to 50k years is the practical limit for using 14C dating. Modern humans are closer to 200,000 years old on this planet. http://www.berkeley.edu/.../releases/2003/06/11_idaltu.shtml
quote: And that doesn't even begin to touch the age of ancestor species of hominids. Note that 14C was not used, but two independent methods, one radiometric and one chemical, and the dates of the two methods agreed. This is the common approach to any find - using different methods and comparing results. What this means is that you need to explain how both methods can be exactly wrong by precisely the same amount. Now, perhaps, you would like to present us with the information that you think makes 14C dating invalid. Provide sources and quotes, not just assertions, as this is a science thread and you have been challenged to provide scientific evidence. Good luck. Enjoy. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Taq,
ABE: A member here, RAZD, has a really great website explaining these correlations. You can find it here Thanks for making the link to the article on that website, however I've also posted the same information here at
Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 This is formatted in a manner that let's doubters discuss various different points if they want to. The problem they usually run into is that all the usual ad hoc (denial) explanations fail to explain the correlations. In over a thousand posts on the four versions of this thread, not one creationist has been able to explain one correlation, meanwhile several additional correlations have been added. 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again dennis780
Maybe I should just find scientific research, and post that alone, since you refuse to buy what I'm saying. That would be a good idea, so why don't you start?
That is not scientific research. It's bogus. You can put 14N (Nitrogen) and 13C next to uranium and generate 14C, so all Snelling does is look for samples that are contaminated by uranium radiation and voila: bogus 14C readings. Professional scientists rule out these possibilities or account for them in the data they present.
Measurable 14C was obtained in all cases. You will note this is a PRATT (one of many that involve 14C - see the PRATT List for more). CD011.5: C14 date of Triassic wood
quote: This is typical of creationists attempts to misuse 14C dating, which they know how to do because they know how it is supposed to be used to get accurate results. They know they can fool gullible people with their falsehoods: are you one? Try this: if 14C is so unreliable how come there are correlations like this:
Where the 14C age is correlated with tree ring counts showing actual annual growth from multiple dendrochronologies. This shows the effect of changes in 14C production in the atmosphere at different times in the past, which you can see means that ages are actually older than what is measured by 14C without correction. This is how 14C is calibrated to improve the accuracy of the dates derived by this method. Curiously a lot of scientific effort has gone into producing accurate calibration curves. This is another sample:
Where the 14C age is correlated with the annual diatom & clay varve deposition in Lake Suigetsu in Japan (blue circles), and with the above tree ring correlation (in green). Note that (1) there is other data than tree rings and lake varves, (2) that this other data also lies along the same general curve, and (3) that this covers the time period where 14C dating is valid, showing that this method is accurate for that whole period. Then there is this correlation curve of C-14 dates with actual dates known from a number of sources, some of them from marine samples that have been corrected for the marine resevoir effect (more on this later):
Notice how the other correlations have the same pattern at ~30kyr as the lake varves. Notice that there is no line drawn between data points here -- instead what appears to be a line is the sheer number of known data points available for making this calibration. Notice that there are variations about the mean for this curve, and that this is the amount of uncertainty that is involved with C-14 dating. Finally, see if you can explain this correlation:
Here you see the correlation of 14C with the annual varves in Lake Suigetsu AND with the changes in deposition rate of sediments. Note that these are from scientific research published in scientific journals and peer reviewed by scientists. For more see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1. The earth is old. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : added another graphic of the 14C calibration data 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi ZenMonkey,
I was under the impression that the term "fossil," properly applied, referrs only to permineralized, inorganic impressions. If it's legitimate to use it to indicate any preserved material, then I stand corrected. I would say that this is the common layman's understanding of fossil is that the bones etc are replaced by minerals. Fossil - Wikipedia
quote: So if it's a fossil, then it already is older than your common YEC earth claim ... and the time scale was worked out by geoologists (many of whom were clergy) well before Darwin.
quote: There's obviously some overlap in the various types, so there are a spectrum of objects that are called fossils in science. Some take longer to form than others. The footprints at Laetoli are trace fossils. I have some replacement/cast fossils of Brachiopods from a beach in Oregon. Any time you have some mineral deposition or replacement going on, there is the possibility of water carrying recent carbon into such fossils. Coyote can correct me, but it is my understanding that fossils per se are not dated, rather artifacts that are of known organic materials are dated with 14C (if not too old) and otherwise rocks above and below the fossils are dated to provide a window for the age of the fossil. When it comes to 14C dating, there are a number of well known (by scientists) factors that can affect the results, and these are usually published along with the effect in question. A good resource for this is: Corrections to radiocarbon dates.
quote: Of course, when this information is published, unscrupulous creationists then (mis)use this information without telling their gullible readers the reasons for these dates. An example of this creationist fraud is a seals from the antarctic area
quote: There is also another common creationist claim regarding a freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound: Radio Carbon Dating - Archaeology Expert(Notice that they claim to be experts, but there are no names provided, no information of the basis for their "expertise"... can you say hoax? fraud? deceit?) quote: See Message 13 of Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes for the data that shows that the expected uncorrected 14C age of seals from this reservoir effect area would be from 1215 BP to 1476 BP. The correction dates for different areas of the ocean are published: 14CHRONO Marine Reservoir Database So all an unscrupulous creationist need do the find uncorrected dates that appear to be erroneous, is look up locations where there is a large reservoir effect and go there and take samples, ... but don't tell anyone that the dates are uncorrected ... Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle 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) • • •
|
||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi simple1, and welcome to the fray.
Of course it is not exact. Unless you are talking about quite recently. And what you mean by exact. It is accurate enough for practical purposes. See Message 212. Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it. by our ability to understand R ebel A merican Z en D eist ... 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