Analysing the dating systems - 2

[Rudolph Hucker]

The old thread had some really interesting stuff and it would be good to pursue some of them.

To catch up, here is the link to the old thread http://www.christianforums.com/t5759139-analyzing-the-dating-systems.html

I was especially interested in the half life stuff, and although not a science buff, readily understand the basics.

Is there any point at which dating by this method becomes impossible or impracticable?

 

[metherion]

Well, the equations start to break down when you get to small numbers of atoms (probably about a couple million).

Now, a couple million atoms may seem like a lot, but it isn't. A million is 10^6. If we look at the definition of mole (the scientific term, not the animal), a mole is ~6x10^23 atoms. Yup, 10 to the twenty-third power. And the mass of each atom on the period table refers to the mass in grams of one mole of that particular element. Similarly, it refers to the mass of one atom in AMU, but that's not relevant to our purposes. Now let's take 1 billionth of a heavy material- Uranium 238. The 238 indicates 1 mole masses 238 grams. So one billionth of a gram is ~10^-11 times the size of a mole. (-2 for the scale of 100s down to 1, -9 for one to one billionth). That is still ~10^12 atoms, around a million squared. So even on what seem to be very small amounts of a heavy element, it still works because of the sheer tinyness of atoms.

Certain other factors can mess up certain types of dating. For instance, mold can mess up C-14 dating on an inanimate object, because it messes up the amount of carbon. Same with radiation and fire.

Metherion

 

[KerrMetric]

Certain other factors can mess up certain types of dating. For instance, mold can mess up C-14 dating on an inanimate object,

Do you have any idea how difficult this messing up is?

 

[metherion]

I really couldn't tell you significant the mess-up is, not off the top of my head. Sorry. It would depend on such things as how long it's been moldy, the specie of mold (which determines things such as the growth and metabolism of the mold), and so on.

Metherion

 

[Deamiter]

I think it actually has more to do with the depth of the mold's contamination. Scientists are certainly aware of potential sources of contamination are would not date a moldy portion of an artifact if there was a chance the date could be thrown off. Well, they might date the portion but only to compare it to an uncontaminated portion to test the amount of contamination induced by the mold.

Of course, the amount of contamination necessary to throw off dates is often rather huge. An analysis of the shroud of Turin suggested that it would have to absorb more than twice it's weight in soot from the fire in order for the date to be thrown off enough for it to be authentic. While this sort of contamination is certainly possible, the error introduced is extremely small and in no way could allow for the extremely young 6000 year-old creation date that some creationists seem to claim.

 

[metherion]

And other types of dating don't have this problem. Like the various Uranium datings, which are accurate in the billions of years period. C-14 gives out at ~50000 years.

Metherion