Questions on Radiocarbon dating?

[RickG]

One thing I have found consistent with those who question the validity of dating methods, and especially those involving radiocarbon dating, never actually directly source the scientific literature in which this is described. In other words, they are completely in the dark about what they are questioning.

Below is a link to a full access paper (A revised calendar age for the last reconnection of the Black Sea to the global ocean) that describes how the process works in detail. That is, they describe their purpose, provide a previous history or similar research, giving a very detailed background, and providing an enormous amount of citations to specific research findings prior to theirs. There is also a huge amount of radiocarbon data provided relevant to their research in obtaining a revised and more accurate calendar age for the last reconnection of the Black Seas to the global ocean. Note that there are three different types of ages describe, 14C ages (radiocarbon), Calendar ages, and Reservoir ages.

http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00038/14909/12351.pdf

 

[Loudmouth]

It is collaborated by things like tree rings. The trees of Noah's day grew in weeks, . . .

Evidence please.

 

[dad]

Evidence please.

Easy to do. Firstly I doubt anyone doubts that science does use collaboration of things like tree rings. That leaves the question of how fast trees grew in Noah and Adam's day. Science doesn't know. Obviously. They merely assume it had to have been the same. Whoopee do. The bible indicates it was fast.

 

[RickG]

Easy to do. Firstly I doubt anyone doubts that science does use collaboration of things like tree rings.

It is not a collaboration, it is a correlation between dating methods which goes far beyond just the use of dendrochronology. In fact, it is the dendrochronology, and other methods that verify and quantify variations over time of atmospheric 14C content, which enables scientists to account for and adjust to make corrections.

That leaves the question of how fast trees grew in Noah and Adam's day. Science doesn't know.

Yes, science does know. They are the same today as then.

They merely assume it had to have been the same. Whoopee do.

No assumptions are made. Growth rings can be measured and quantified both before and after said event, not to mention that the dates of those rings can be verified by other means than just counting them.

The bible indicates it was fast.

I am unaware of any such description in the bible. Citation please.

 

[RickG]

What is the process for dating bones such as dinosaurs and humans?

Dinosaur bones cannot be dated directly, however, the strata they are contained in can be dated through a number of methods applicable to the age and isotopes available.

As for human bones, there are both absolute and relative dating methods available, but for the sake of the topic of this thread lets stick to the radiocarbon method. Bone is composed fibrous protein called collagen and bone mineral, of which the principle components are a phosphate and calcium, hydroxyapatite. Of the two, bone mineral is most likely to become contaminated, therefore the proteinaceous fraction (collagen) is most favored.

 

[lesliedellow]

How accurate is radiocarbon dating?

To within about 3%.

What is the time limit on the dating?

Around 50,000 years.

How can the earth be dated?

Uranium-lead dating.

 

[dad]

It is not a collaboration, it is a correlation between dating methods which goes far beyond just the use of dendrochronology.

It is a belief based imposition on various evidences.

1Co 2:14 - But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

In fact, it is the dendrochronology, and other methods that verify and quantify variations over time of atmospheric 14C content,

Over time is a claim that sits squarely on a belief that the present state physics and laws applied in all time. That is religion, and disbelief in the creation by Christ and Scripture and the former world described. Nothing more.

Yes, science does know. They are the same today as then.

1Co 2:14 -But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Science is strictly natural! Not only that but pegged to the present nature only!

No assumptions are made. Growth rings can be measured and quantified both before and after said event, not to mention that the dates of those rings can be verified by other means than just counting them.

The assumption that trees gew at present rates is nothing more than a belief the present nature existed. That is the assumption you deny exists! Yet there it is in living color!


I am unaware of any such description in the bible. Citation please.[/QUOTE] God planted a garden. Later that week Adam ate fruit from trees. Noah sent a bird out after the flood. There were no trees so it came back to the ark. A week later....a fresh leaf from a tree!

 

[mark kennedy]

nuclear physics mostly, also you can do it by measuring a pure sample and looking at the amout of radiation it gives off.

Hey Jet, long time no see. I'm not entirely sure this is on topic but I encountered perhaps the first time a radiometric sample interested me.

Three cities are recorded as having been destroyed by fire by the Israelites: Jericho (Josh 6:24); Ai (Josh 8:28); and Hazor (Josh 11:11). There is a major issue with the dating being 12th or 13th century and the sites have been excavated and thoroughly analyzed including the radiometric dating of the ash. The problem is that dating ash is extremely difficult, results had to be adjusted repeatedly. With pottery, for instance, you don't run into those kind of problems very much. At any rate, I was intrigued to see radiometric dating being used to determine a date within a century.

 

[SkyWriting]

How accurate is radiocarbon dating?

What is the time limit on the dating?

How can the earth be dated?

Science is unable to look backwards.
It CAN make predictions about future
events or observations.

Those may be useful. But actually
seeing into the past is not possible.

 

[twob4me]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT ON!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This thread has gone through a clean up and a further cleaning may take place. Please stay on topic and STOP with the Flaming. You should be addressing the CONTENT of the post NOT the poster personally. If you continue to post like you were the thread can and will be closed permanently and those involved may find themselves with staff actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~MOD HAT OFF!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Loudmouth]

Science is unable to look backwards.
It CAN make predictions about future
events or observations.

Those may be useful. But actually
seeing into the past is not possible.

We can test our hypotheses of what happened in the past by looking at what we have in the present since the present is the product of the past.

 

[SkyWriting]

We can test our hypotheses of what happened in the past by looking at what we have in the present since the present is the product of the past.

Any authoritative source on that?
The real process of science - Understanding Science

 

[Loudmouth]

Any authoritative source on that?
The real process of science - Understanding Science

How about hundreds of thousands of SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED PAPERS that describe the past evolution of life?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=evolution

 

[SkyWriting]

How about hundreds of thousands of SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED PAPERS that describe the past evolution of life?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=evolution

What percentage of those "describe the past evolution of life"?
Because I had a hard time finding one using your link.
Perhaps if you dug one out, we could look at it.

 

[Loudmouth]

What percentage of those "describe the past evolution of life"?
Because I had a hard time finding one using your link.
Perhaps if you dug one out, we could look at it.

Just skimming through . . .

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151451

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151218

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26150830

You could also search for something more specific at PubMed, such as "transitional fossils"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26106865

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26020788

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25283779

 

[SkyWriting]

Just skimming through . . .

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151451

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151218

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26150830

You could also search for something more specific at PubMed, such as "transitional fossils"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26106865

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26020788

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25283779

Thanks! I was curious about your screening process.
#1 Current " is a large group of proteins present in diverse bacteria "
#2 Ancient stories
#3 Unclear what the timeframe is.
#4 Everybody and their uncle thinks they are an expert and when they get together
the police have to break up the bloody fist-fights:
"The origin and early evolution of turtles have long been major contentious issues in vertebrate zoology."
#5 This is just show and tell - look what we found
#6 is just grown up story telling. Nothing for me to examine,dispute, or even object to.
Did Poo bear eat the honey? Seems he did according to my fossil evidence.


Lots of people think "Evolutionary theory" means that whatever they
believe has been confirmed, when it really means that "we believe
what people tell us". Sounds like religion to me.

 

[Loudmouth]

Thanks! I was curious about your screening process.
#1 Current " is a large group of proteins present in diverse bacteria "
#2 Ancient stories
#3 Unclear what the timeframe is.
#4 Everybody and their uncle thinks they are an expert and when they get together
the police have to break up the bloody fist-fights:
"The origin and early evolution of turtles have long been major contentious issues in vertebrate zoology."
#5 This is just show and tell - look what we found
#6 is just grown up story telling. Nothing for me to examine,dispute, or even object to.
Did Poo bear eat the honey? Seems he did according to my fossil evidence.

Could you try and type something that makes sense? I gave you papers written by very real scientists about evolutionary histories. Did you read any of the papers? Did you read about the evidence they presented?

Lots of people think "Evolutionary theory" means that whatever they
believe has been confirmed, when it really means that "we believe
what people tell us". Sounds like religion to me.

I just gave you the papers where very real facts were discovered by very real scientists. That isn't religion.

 

[Gracchus]

Lots of people think "Evolutionary theory" means that whatever they
believe has been confirmed, when it really means that "we believe
what people tell us". Sounds like religion to me.

Well, if that is what it sounds like to you, it certainly does sound like religion. Of course, to those of us who have actually tramped the hills digging out fossils, run chemical analyses, and have a smattering of theoretical physics, in short, to those of us who understand just a bit of the scientific method, and have, at least, a minimally functioning brain, it doesn't sound like religion.

It is interesting though, that when religious folks want to disparage science as nonsense they always charge it is just like religion.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well, if that is what it sounds like to you, it certainly does sound like religion. Of course, to those of us who have actually tramped the hills digging out fossils, run chemical analyses, and have a smattering of theoretical physics, in short, to those of us who understand just a bit of the scientific method, and have, at least, a minimally functioning brain, it doesn't sound like religion. It is interesting though, that when religious folks want to disparage science as nonsense they always charge it is just like religion.

You might enjoy thinking so, having not done your research on my background.
.......Which pretty much supports my point.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes, science does know. They are the same today as then.

A research team roped off 1 square meter of plant and soil and measured the biomass of the
area to see if CO2 increased the total amount of living material from year to year under
increasing CO2 conditions and temperature. In 3 years the bio-mass had increased by 75%
in the measured square.