gevo27 Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Who has any proof that this method is accurate, cause i see many mnay proofs against it...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 What do you mean proofs against it? Carbon dating simply relies on the radioactive decay of C14 isotopes ... it is not "exact" by any means but it is generally used to come up with ball park figures for how long ago a certain sample was alive. I mean we don't really need "proof" for radioactive decay as we can observe it on our own. The half-life rate of decay is then just a method to date things so I guess the main question is what are the "proofs against" carbon dating claiming that are making you unhappy? By the way, carbon dating, as far as I understand, works for certain things and not everything. So those proofs maybe related to things that can't really be carbon dated (i.e. life that didn't get exposed to the atmospheric C14). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 By the way, I obviously don't think you can come up with the birthday of some dead guy using carbon dating but you can probably figure out if he was alive 1000 years ago or 5000 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 ok - lets test this Carbon dating Fedi Hos yegur desnem now we will know haw old you are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Who has any proof that this method is accurate, cause i see many mnay proofs against it...? Sip is right, Carbon dating is based on the isotope C14. There may be mistakes, but is quit precise, Carbon dating does not work pretty well when a substance(organic that is, or by organic) has been contaminated, or that the analysis echantion is not old enought, because the radioactif decay is not a linear function, it is rather more closer to an assymptotic one. Not old enought substances may be hard to date because of the instability of the first years decay, older ones may be too close of the assymptote and the instrument may not be precise enought to find the range. This means that the instrument error margin is not constant. There is other colaborating technics which will help, like the sedimentation one etc... Why are you asking? MosJan, You won't find any C14 Isotope on me. That means that my age would be infinit or older then the formation of subatomic particules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Mos your new Avatar is helerious As for the carbon Sip is on the money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Sip is right, Carbon dating is based on the isotope C14. There may be mistakes, but is quit precise, Carbon dating does not work pretty well when a substance(organic that is, or by organic) has been contaminated, or that the analysis echantion is not old enought, because the radioactif decay is not a linear function, it is rather more closer to an assymptotic one. Not old enought substances may be hard to date because of the instability of the first years decay, older ones may be too close of the assymptote and the instrument may not be precise enought to find the range. This means that the instrument error margin is not constant. There is other colaborating technics which will help, like the sedimentation one etc... Why are you asking? MosJan, You won't find any C14 Isotope on me. That means that my age would be infinit or older then the formation of subatomic particules. then will it work on hagarag ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 By the way, carbon dating, as far as I understand, works for certain things and not everything. So those proofs maybe related to things that can't really be carbon dated (i.e. life that didn't get exposed to the atmospheric C14). Works with a Carbon containing substances which should contain preferably(to be practicle) O and H, which will mean, the subtance in order to have a good accuracy be organic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 then will it work on hagarag ??? Could if he has not been contaminated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Could if he has not been contaminated. Hagarag? Contaminated? I think he has eaten so many plants, he is probably the most ideal candidate for carbon dating But we should add at least 20 years to the carbondating result to come up with an exact figure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 (edited) Hagarag? Contaminated? I think he has eaten so many plants, he is probably the most ideal candidate for carbon dating But we should add at least 20 years to the carbondating result to come up with an exact figure If he is old enought(few thousand of years), the plants would be contaminated, because they don't have the same ages and some are older than others. Edited January 10, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted January 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 well, this is why i asked this question, i found numerous lengthy documents that are from evolutionists, theologists and even scientists that seem to really disprove the underlying assumptions that carbon dating is based on.. here is some of what i was reading.. The following statement has been taken from the Anthropological Journal of Canada: The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a "fix-it-as-we-go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. No matter how "useful" it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. It is important to keep in mind that dates and ages of most rock strata were assumed, based on evolutionary theory, before radiometric dating was invented. If the dates measured are contrary to evolution's preconceived positions, then the date is often rejected. In a publication titled, Contributions to Geology, this paragraph was found: In general, dates in the "correct ballpark" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained. The dating discrepancies in the radiometric field are daunting. Example: wood which was buried in lava flow that formed basalt in Australia was dated by Carbon-14 at about 45,000 years old. The basalt it was found in was measured by the Potassium-Argon method at 45 million years old. Potassium-Argon said it was a thousand times older than Carbon-14. The following paragraphs are found in a book authored by Morris and Morris titled Many Infallible Proofs: As in the case of uranium dating, potassium dating also commonly yields great ages on rocks known to be very young. The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent...it is possible to deduce that these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old. And again we ask how it is possible to be sure that potassium ages are correct when determined for rocks of unknown age, when the same method gives ages 100,000 times too great for rocks whose age we know! Evolutionist F.B. Jueneman in Industrial Research and Development stated: The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man. The following statement is from evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State: It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 gevo, there is some other ways to confirm the age of Earth, such as the % of heavy ellements from the Sun, as well as the production of neutrinos detected from the Sun which collaborate that the Sun is near 5 billion year old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 gevo27 - Ok - admit it - you do not believe in Science or Scientific method(s)...this post (evolutionists...LOL) and your link to the absurd - Godsaid - man said site - prove that you are not at all a person of the 21st century...let alone the 20th or 19th even...yeah - Dinosaurs were just lizards who ate alot and breathed clean air...the only reason why they ever died at all was if they happened to wonder to far and fell of the edge of the earth...LOL ...measurement of the radiocarbon content of an organic sample will provide an accurate determination of the sample's age if it is assumed that (1) the production of radiocarbon by cosmic rays has remained essentially constant long enough to establish a steady state in the 14C/12C ratio in the atmosphere, (2) there has been a complete and rapid mixing of radiocarbon throughout the various carbon reservoirs, (3) the carbon isotope ratio in the sample has not been altered except by radiocarbon decay, and (4) the total amount of carbon in any reservoir has not been altered. In addition, the half-life of radiocarbon must be known with sufficient accuracy, and it must be possible to measure natural levels of radiocarbon to appropriate levels of accuracy and precision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 (edited) Thoth 1 and 3 are not really true anymore, they are considered controversial by many. Edited January 10, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted January 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 gevo27 - Ok - admit it - you do not believe in Science or Scientific method(s) Where did you get that since i beleive in God, i dont believe in science, i am an Engineer major at CSUN, and i wouldnt be an engineer major if i didnt believ science worked THOT, really if you knew me, you would tell me yourself i say things the way they are, i dont "believe" in the theory of carbon dating, it cant be proved in anyways, it would work perfect in a test tube, but al the scientific mumbo jumbo aside, i have seen to many fallacys in carbon dating to conclude it anywhere near accurate... I may seem to have mainly religious views on certain aspects, whatever i dont deny that, but trust me THOT... i beleive science works when things can be proven , not theorized (if thats a word lol).. And i wanted to see from you guys what your thoughts were on this, honestly i came in asking the question with my mind half way made up, and now read more things for and against carbon dating,, and the theory has yet to be set in stone... indzi app jan avely shat koncret hastatumner a petk for havatam... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Well anyone who soes not believe in evolution clearly does not believe in science its pretty simple... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Thoth 1 and 3 are not really true anymore, they are considered controversial by many. Yes - I am aware of these issues...but you are discussing science... And regardless - the varitations are not such to throw out the basic prmiss of approximate dates for such. And there are other methiods opf course - for going back further in tie - yes perhaps approximates - but good enouch...(to prove well beyond...choke...6000 years...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 yeah - Dinosaurs were just lizards who ate alot and breathed clean air...the only reason why they ever died at all was if they happened to wonder to far and fell of the edge of the earth...LOL Gevo, where have you "seen" where carbon dating turns out to have suckered people out? Carbon dating is by no means going to be abandoned - I know of an archaeologist who very recently had to change the title of his dissertation because of new findings about another batch of samples from another location, done via carbon dating - cultural remains that they were thinking were influenced from somewhere else because of the style, refinement, etc., but it actually turned out they predated the latter. And they accept this although it goes against all their assumptions thus far. Why? Because of the method's track record for some form of reliability and for the simple reason that you don't have any other method that measures up to that. I get the feeling that most of these people (especially theologists) that "argue" the earth is not so old at one point or another have something to do with creationists or their like. Anyone ever asked that bunch how they explain the remains of all those dinosaurs and all? So much funny stuff you could come up with, like how they managed to get them in Noah's Ark and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 The following statement has been taken from the Anthropological Journal of Canada: The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a "fix-it-as-we-go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. I don't know about the merits of this person, but they have a very poor understanding of how scientific research works. "Fix-it-as-you-go," "design-as-you-go," is accepted in the study of behaviour of natural phenomena. I don't know about astrophysics at all, but in the case of rock mechanics, all theory, all equations dealing with rock behaviour are constantly updated with new findings, new constraints, new whatever, as people study these more, and it takes time - nobody is going to expect it to be dropped into their laps like someone dropped a holy book, now, are they? Except for creationists, of course. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. No matter how "useful" it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. It is important to keep in mind that dates and ages of most rock strata were assumed, based on evolutionary theory, before radiometric dating was invented. If the dates measured are contrary to evolution's preconceived positions, then the date is often rejected. In a publication titled, Contributions to Geology, this paragraph was found: In general, dates in the "correct ballpark" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained. The dating discrepancies in the radiometric field are daunting. Example: wood which was buried in lava flow that formed basalt in Australia was dated by Carbon-14 at about 45,000 years old. The basalt it was found in was measured by the Potassium-Argon method at 45 million years old. Potassium-Argon said it was a thousand times older than Carbon-14. I sense something wrong here. I may be wrong, but you're not supposed to tell the age of the lava as it was spurted out and solidified - what you do tell is the age of the rock matter that formed it - not how long ago the magma under the crust turned into lava. It's totally different from what goes on with plant matter. (I could be wrong.) There is what is called the rock cycle - various kinds of rock constantly churn and form into the other, but that is a physical process, not a nuclear/radioactive/whatever one. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. Uhm, I don't get the meaning of that - it might as well be gibberish from the point of view of a layman such as myself unless there is more to the words there, but basic chemistry not too many years ago (my freshman year) said radioactive decay/processes of the nucleus are not influenced by physical/chemical conditions. I mean - he's not talking about contamination. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man. The following statement is from evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State: It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock." Not in a position to comment, but why do they not say that a method can give relative points on the timeline for samples of things so you know what is older than what? Two different methods are unlikely to give different results on two samples. Also, although I am not a scientist, as an engineer I know you have to use at least two methods when studying something and use experience/engineering judgement to decide what works best for you. Like I said, nobody is going to do it for you/us - we have to work and try to understand. This article you posted was NOT something that compared various methods - it had an underlying agenda, methinks. Statements like "Since half the dates are rejected, why do they accept the other half" make me think (why didn't he just outright say, "I don't trust your judgement and I want you to reject the other half as well, I want I want"), ya know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Gevo, where have you "seen" where carbon dating turns out to have suckered people out? Carbon dating is by no means going to be abandoned - There is new experimental instruments that are supposed to replace present ones. C14 dating will become more precise in future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted January 11, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 Guys your taking this all wrong, I dont beleive in the evolution theory that we as men have evolved from monkeys and stuff.... But trust me THOT i do beleive in the scientific method, and i do beleive science works... Ofcourse how could i say it doesnt... I have heard from some of my own professors that the sam sample of rock matter was tested by 3 different scientists, and there was a HUGE difference in there answers, now thats one test and only 3 scientists right.... but that was enough to really scare my trust on this carbon dating theory... And i used this forum as an oppertunity to discuss it.. I have seen some good responses from you guys, and everybody has allready trusted carbon dating, and you guys dont even botter to want to argue the contrary point... I know all the scientific stuff for it, i have been reading about it often, its quite interesting... Again i find more disprofs for it tha proofs.... Heck im still researching to see what i really think about this... so this discussion is helping... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted January 11, 2004 Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 I don't know where I heard it but there's a little saying somewhere - not to believe in fortune-telling but not to go without it. I think, especially in archaeology, what is important is the relation of things with one another. Once you know that you'll have half your knowledge ready in the event you have more reliable methods and won't be left hanging there in the meantime. I don't know about the approach of scientists within the field, but it is not uncommon for science to advance and for things to be understood better and recorollated. The best (or more observed/obvious) example is medicine - we keep hearing stuff - one thing one decade, another thing the other (as with cholesterol and hormones and some drugs). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.