Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,573 Year: 4,830/9,624 Month: 178/427 Week: 91/85 Day: 8/20 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

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


Message 16 of 30 (26644)
12-15-2002 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mr. Davies
12-02-2002 10:17 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Davies:
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 fis.....
.

From what I hear animals that fed on some of these sea ceatures also exhibit an older "false" age when carbon 14 dated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mr. Davies, posted 12-02-2002 10:17 PM Mr. Davies has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 30 (26645)
12-15-2002 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by YEC
12-15-2002 8:33 AM


quote:
Originally posted by YEC:
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?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by YEC, posted 12-15-2002 8:33 AM YEC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by YEC, posted 12-15-2002 11:09 AM edge has replied

  
YEC
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 30 (26647)
12-15-2002 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by edge
12-15-2002 10:22 AM


Tell me why I should believe your creation bashing sites?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by edge, posted 12-15-2002 10:22 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by edge, posted 12-15-2002 11:42 AM YEC has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 30 (26651)
12-15-2002 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by YEC
12-15-2002 11:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by YEC:
Tell me why I should believe your creation bashing sites?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by YEC, posted 12-15-2002 11:09 AM YEC has not replied

  
Cryptic
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 30 (37968)
04-25-2003 2:59 AM


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..

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by edge, posted 04-25-2003 10:26 AM Cryptic has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 30 (37986)
04-25-2003 6:49 AM


Snails
Over on the Literalism thread, we got diverted into talking about snails and C14 dating.
I posted:
quote:
I've found the snail study:
Page not found | Physics
And what do you know? Same reason it doesn't work for aquatic organisms - limestone.
Can I point you to the salient sentence?
quote:
This is that at the time the living organism laid down its carbon into the structure which would later be analyzed, the carbon-14 laid down was an accurate reflection of the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. This assumption holds very well for trees and other land plants. Recently, A. S. Riggs of the United States Geological Survey has reported an instance where the assumption was not true, and where radiocarbon dating gave misleading results. The significance of Riggs' work is that scientists must take care to be sure that their experiments on carbon dating are done with materials for which the assumption just mentioned is justified.

I invite Booboo to continue debate of this issue here.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 04-25-2003 3:26 PM Karl has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1783 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 30 (38007)
04-25-2003 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Cryptic
04-25-2003 2:59 AM


quote:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions...
Indeed, but 'not your own facts.'
quote:
But bringing relion into debates is wrongful. Its only fair not to bring religon into a fourum and rebound off that.
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:
Clearly we have Evolutionists and Creationists. But bringing religon into these fourums is a bit lousy..seriously..
Again, please amplify. Who is bringing religion into the discussion and how do you avoid the topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Cryptic, posted 04-25-2003 2:59 AM Cryptic has not replied

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


Message 23 of 30 (38035)
04-25-2003 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Karl
04-25-2003 6:49 AM


Re: Snails
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Karl, posted 04-25-2003 6:49 AM Karl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Karl, posted 04-28-2003 4:36 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 30 (38189)
04-28-2003 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Coragyps
04-25-2003 3:26 PM


Re: Snails
I knew it was poor; didn't have access to full information.
Fact remains that Booboocruise never came back to address it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Coragyps, posted 04-25-2003 3:26 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by NosyNed, posted 04-28-2003 11:45 AM Karl has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 25 of 30 (38204)
04-28-2003 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Karl
04-28-2003 4:36 AM


A good nickname?
quote:
Fact remains that Booboocruise never came back to address it.
One of the better nicknames here. He made a boobob and cruised out of here.
(sometimes I'm sooo funny!)
(and sometimes not )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Karl, posted 04-28-2003 4:36 AM Karl has not replied

  
MarkAustin
Member (Idle past 3892 days)
Posts: 122
From: London., UK
Joined: 05-23-2003


Message 26 of 30 (41085)
05-23-2003 6:52 AM


YEC
quote:
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?
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by IrishRockhound, posted 05-23-2003 12:30 PM MarkAustin has not replied

  
IrishRockhound
Member (Idle past 4513 days)
Posts: 569
From: Ireland
Joined: 05-19-2003


Message 27 of 30 (41104)
05-23-2003 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by MarkAustin
05-23-2003 6:52 AM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by MarkAustin, posted 05-23-2003 6:52 AM MarkAustin has not replied

  
ralphperry 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 5249 days)
Posts: 3
Joined: 01-28-2010


Message 28 of 30 (544757)
01-28-2010 6:41 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by rockondon, posted 03-29-2010 1:20 PM ralphperry has not replied

  
rockondon
Member (Idle past 5002 days)
Posts: 40
Joined: 03-29-2010


Message 29 of 30 (552491)
03-29-2010 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ralphperry
01-28-2010 6:41 AM


quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ralphperry, posted 01-28-2010 6:41 AM ralphperry has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-29-2010 3:52 PM rockondon has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1482 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 30 (552507)
03-29-2010 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by rockondon
03-29-2010 1:20 PM


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by rockondon, posted 03-29-2010 1:20 PM rockondon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024