Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,572 Year: 4,829/9,624 Month: 177/427 Week: 90/85 Day: 7/20 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   fossils and carbon dating
m4hb
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 30 (23393)
11-20-2002 2:42 PM


This is my first topic so help me out.
I've come to understand that the two forms of measuring how old something is are relying on each other.
that fossil dating is based on carbon dating and carbon dating is based on fossil. its called something like circular reasoning so there is no standerd ground on the dating prosses
Help me out here, and set me straight.
------------------

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 11-20-2002 2:59 PM m4hb has not replied
 Message 3 by joz, posted 11-20-2002 3:00 PM m4hb has replied
 Message 4 by John, posted 11-20-2002 3:08 PM m4hb has not replied
 Message 5 by TrueCreation, posted 11-20-2002 4:52 PM m4hb has not replied
 Message 6 by Budikka, posted 11-23-2002 12:20 PM m4hb has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5272 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 30 (23395)
11-20-2002 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by m4hb
11-20-2002 2:42 PM


m4hb,
Carbon dating isn't used in dating fossils. Various other radiometric methods may be used, however. For carbon dating to be effective it must contain actual organic material. This decays/leaches out & is replaced by minerals which would render carbon dating inneffective.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by m4hb, posted 11-20-2002 2:42 PM m4hb has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 30 (23396)
11-20-2002 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by m4hb
11-20-2002 2:42 PM


C14 dating is NOT based on fossils, it is based on the measured half life of C14 and the fact that the C14/C12 ratios in living organisms are equal to that in the atmosphere they respire. The ratio only begins to change after death so by taking the C14/C12 ratio you can see how long something has been dead for....
This is based on the physics of nuclear decay NOT fossils...
Now the C14/C12 ratio becomes rather small after 50,000 years (around 10 half lives) so measuring a fossils age by C14 is a bit pointless...
Does that help?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by m4hb, posted 11-20-2002 2:42 PM m4hb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by m4hb, posted 11-26-2002 12:27 AM joz has not replied
 Message 11 by m4hb, posted 11-26-2002 12:28 AM joz has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 30 (23397)
11-20-2002 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by m4hb
11-20-2002 2:42 PM


quote:
Originally posted by m4hb:
This is my first topic so help me out.
I've come to understand that the two forms of measuring how old something is are relying on each other.
that fossil dating is based on carbon dating and carbon dating is based on fossil. its called something like circular reasoning so there is no standerd ground on the dating prosses
Help me out here, and set me straight.

This is a typical creationist misrepresentation of the process. You'll run into this objection a lot from that crowd. You seem to realize that something is wrong so congrats.
The first thing that goes awry is that there are not only two methods of dating fossils.
There is a class of dating method that rely upon radioactive decay. These are called radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 is one of those methods. Also in that group is potassium-argon, argon-argon, and a bunch of others.
Here is a quick intro:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.dc.peachnet.edu/~pgore/geology/geo102/radio.htm
And a much longer read:
asa3.org
Joe Meert, an infrequent poster here, has a great article on his web page concerning this.
One of the main objections to radiometric dating
Radiometric dating depends upon radioactive decay, not upon fossil finds.
It is also possible to date via tree rings, ice core and magnetic orientations within certain rocks.
Then there is relative dating, which is essentially dating a fossil by association. A fossil of unknown age, which is beneath fossils that consistently date to a certain age, is dated older than the fossils above it. Simple.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by m4hb, posted 11-20-2002 2:42 PM m4hb has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 30 (23403)
11-20-2002 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by m4hb
11-20-2002 2:42 PM


"This is my first topic so help me out.
I've come to understand that the two forms of measuring how old something is are relying on each other.
that fossil dating is based on carbon dating and carbon dating is based on fossil. its called something like circular reasoning so there is no standerd ground on the dating prosses
Help me out here, and set me straight."
--Though I might slightly disagree with some of the content, previous posts have pretty much sufficiently countered your misunderstanding. Might I ask where you obtained knowledge of such a high quality argument?
-------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by m4hb, posted 11-20-2002 2:42 PM m4hb has not replied

  
Budikka
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 30 (23922)
11-23-2002 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by m4hb
11-20-2002 2:42 PM


A lot of creationists have problems with radiocarbon dating. It's because with this, as with all other aspects of evolution and an ancient Earth, they have no clue what they are talking about. They should read this:
Radiometric Dating
This destroys two creationist myths in one fell swoop. It destroys the myth that evolution = atheism, since this article was written by a Christian, and it destroys the lie that radiocarbon dating is unreliable.
Radiocarbon dating is only unreliable when used by creationists to shore up the cracking, warped and faded false-front of their blind belief.
Budikka

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by m4hb, posted 11-20-2002 2:42 PM m4hb has not replied

  
m4hb
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 30 (24342)
11-26-2002 12:17 AM


mark
thanks for the reply and for the most part clearing up what i was tring to get acrossabout carbon dating.

  
m4hb
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 30 (24343)
11-26-2002 12:20 AM


john
The information that you supplied was very helpful though some of it is over my head but thanks
m4hb

  
m4hb
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 30 (24344)
11-26-2002 12:20 AM


john
The information that you supplied was very helpful though some of it is over my head but thanks
m4hb

  
m4hb
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 30 (24345)
11-26-2002 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by joz
11-20-2002 3:00 PM


joz
now i know carbon dating is not based on fossils, but what i was going for was that the decaying prosses that is used for fossils and carbon dating are alike and beter put by message two posted by mark
m4hb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joz, posted 11-20-2002 3:00 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by John, posted 11-26-2002 12:35 AM m4hb has not replied

  
m4hb
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 30 (24346)
11-26-2002 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by joz
11-20-2002 3:00 PM


joz
now i know carbon dating is not based on fossils, but what i was going for was that the decaying prosses that is used for fossils and carbon dating are alike and beter put by message two posted by mark
m4hb

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by joz, posted 11-20-2002 3:00 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 11-26-2002 9:45 AM m4hb has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 30 (24348)
11-26-2002 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by m4hb
11-26-2002 12:27 AM


quote:
Originally posted by m4hb:
now i know carbon dating is not based on fossils, but what i was going for was that the decaying prosses that is used for fossils and carbon dating are alike and beter put by message two posted by mark
What decaying processes are alike?
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by m4hb, posted 11-26-2002 12:27 AM m4hb has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 811 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 13 of 30 (24398)
11-26-2002 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by m4hb
11-26-2002 12:28 AM


quote:
Originally posted by m4hb:
joz
now i know carbon dating is not based on fossils, but what i was going for was that the decaying prosses that is used for fossils and carbon dating are alike and beter put by message two posted by mark
m4hb

\
I think you are confusing "decay" as in a dead animal getting smelly with radioactive decay. The first is a huge set of chemical reactions, helped along by a huge variety of bacteria, and has no effect whatever on the individual carbon-14 atoms in the dead organism - it will change what these atoms are connected to, but not the fact that they are carbon-14 instead of the "normal" carbon-12.
Radioactive decay is when a carbon-14 nucleus (the center of the atom) loses an electron and turns into a nitrogen atom. The rate this happens at has almost nothing to do with what environment the carbon-14 is in, and certainly not whether the surroundings are rotton or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by m4hb, posted 11-26-2002 12:28 AM m4hb has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-02-2002 10:17 PM Coragyps has not replied

  
Mr. Davies
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 30 (25318)
12-02-2002 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Coragyps
11-26-2002 9:45 AM


What those promoting radiocarbon dating is correct must remember is where the creature is from.
As there's a great Chick track that points out a fish that shows up at 5000 years old. What is happening is that sea dwelling creatures, especially deep sea fishes, mollusks, etc., are not able to get to the source of C14.
The reason is that N14 is converted in the upper atmosphere into C14. The only sea life that would be even close to having "normal" C14 levels would be those up top on or near the surface. Deep sea or benthic lifeforms don't generally go there to often and stock up on C14. If that little fact is neglected, then the detractors will continue to pound away on how "unreliable" it all is.
Then they'll start on Radium Halos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Coragyps, posted 11-26-2002 9:45 AM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by YEC, posted 12-15-2002 8:37 AM Mr. Davies has not replied

  
YEC
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 30 (26643)
12-15-2002 8:33 AM


There are the Cardenas Basalts of the Grand Canyon Supergroup at the bottom of Grand Canyon and the Uinkaret plateau lava flows which are much higher up.
Rb/Sr radioisotope measurements were made of these rocks. The Uinkaret lava flows were measure and computed to be ~1.3 Billion years old while the lower Cardenas Basalts were measure and computed to be ~1.0 Billion years old.
Anomaly?

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by edge, posted 12-15-2002 10:22 AM YEC has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024