Carbon Dating

[RickG]

Although carbon dating is discussed in many threads, I could not find any recent threads in which it was the specific topic of the thread.

So with that in mind, let's have a discussion specifically on the methods involved with carbon dating, problems, and solutions.

 

[RealityCheck]

Although carbon dating is discussed in many threads, I could not find any recent threads in which it was the specific topic of the thread.

So with that in mind, let's have a discussion specifically on the methods involved with carbon dating, problems, and solutions.

Why? This is something that's been re-hashed innumerable times by the anti-evolution crowd, and it's been thoroughly rebutted. It's only a matter of whether the person raising the issue then recognizes it's been rebutted, or simply refuses to acknowledge such.

Start here: CD011: Carbon dating.

For example:

"Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).

In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method. "

 

[RickG]

So when any dating method is mentioned in numerous threads, the first one to come up is usually Carbon Dating. When a thread devoted specifically to Carbon Dating comes up, no response. Go figure.

 

[lesliedellow]

So when any dating method is mentioned in numerous threads, the first one to come up is usually Carbon Dating. When a thread devoted specifically to Carbon Dating comes up, no response. Go figure.

The only people who obsess about carbon dating are creationists. Not untypically they are unaware that other methods of radiometric dating exist, and they harp on about carbon dating's margin of error. The latter is typically less than 1%.

 

[AV1611VET]

So when any dating method is mentioned in numerous threads, the first one to come up is usually Carbon Dating. When a thread devoted specifically to Carbon Dating comes up, no response. Go figure.

No disrespect meant to your frustration, Rick, but ...

 

[RealityCheck]

So when any dating method is mentioned in numerous threads, the first one to come up is usually Carbon Dating. When a thread devoted specifically to Carbon Dating comes up, no response. Go figure.

Because carbon-dating objections by creationists are straw-men PRATTS. Actually discussing carbon-dating is not helpful to creationists because it would potentially point out to them concretely why using the carbon-dating objection is wrong.

 

[RickG]

Because carbon-dating objections by creationists are straw-men PRATTS. Actually discussing carbon-dating is not helpful to creationists because it would potentially point out to them concretely why using the carbon-dating objection is wrong.

Correct. Probably the silliest arguments presented by creationists are those concerning carbon dating. Essentially, every argument is a deliberate misrepresentation of the actual process.

 

[Kylie]

I'd like to see a single instance of carbon dating producing an impossible date when used correctly and no mechanism exists which would skew the results.

 

[RickG]

I'd like to see a single instance of carbon dating producing an impossible date when used correctly and no mechanism exists which would skew the results.

The YEC literature does have some claims involving this, however, every one I have tracked down turned out to either be a quote mine or a citation of the scientific literature said to support their position that indeed did not support it. Most involve the marine reservoir effect.

 

[RickG]

Here's a paper that dwells very deep into carbon dating that I would like to get some feedback from. Any takers?

http://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Laurentide_lakes/file/9c96051eff3eeca9df.pdf

 

[[serious]]

One thing I'd be interested to see is if any YECs have a robust model for carbon dating interpretation. For example, what kinds of rocks date well and how do they date? What processes lead to those types of rocks dating well or not dating well?

 

[RealityCheck]

One thing I'd be interested to see is if any YECs have a robust model for carbon dating interpretation. For example, what kinds of rocks date well and how do they date? What processes lead to those types of rocks dating well or not dating well?

You cant be serious.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Although carbon dating is discussed in many threads, I could not find any recent threads in which it was the specific topic of the thread.

So with that in mind, let's have a discussion specifically on the methods involved with carbon dating, problems, and solutions.

You can also start your search with Enrico Fermi who developed radioactive decay. Which was based upon the weak force. Later after it was found to violate parity, that theory was revised, but radioactive dating still uses the same exact formula it started with, even though the theory it was based on was shown to be in error and had to be revised.

This is why it's only consistent to a around 50,000 years. After that the errors introduced from parity violation become too cumulative great.

Weak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Violation of Symmetry heading"

It used to be described by Fermi's theory, but it was wrong. Yet radioactive decay is still described by Ferni's theory.

So don't put too much faith in a theory using an incorrect theory to start with.

 

[[serious]]

You can also start your search with Enrico Fermi who developed radioactive decay. Which was based upon the weak force. Later after it was found to violate parity, that theory was revised, but radioactive dating still uses the same exact formula it started with, even though the theory it was based on was shown to be in error and had to be revised.

This is why it's only consistent to a around 50,000 years. After that the errors introduced from parity violation become too cumulative great.

Weak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Violation of Symmetry heading"

It used to be described by Fermi's theory, but it was wrong. Yet radioactive decay is still described by Ferni's theory.

So don't put too much faith in a theory using an incorrect theory to start with.

How does violation of symmetry impact decay rate?

Decay rates were known prior to Fermi. His model was an attempt to explain them. His theory being wrong about the underlying mechanisms doesn't change the observations on which they were based, nor does it suggest that the rates were different in the past.

 

[RickG]

You can also start your search with Enrico Fermi who developed radioactive decay. Which was based upon the weak force. Later after it was found to violate parity, that theory was revised, but radioactive dating still uses the same exact formula it started with, even though the theory it was based on was shown to be in error and had to be revised.

This is why it's only consistent to a around 50,000 years. After that the errors introduced from parity violation become too cumulative great.

Weak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Violation of Symmetry heading"

It used to be described by Fermi's theory, but it was wrong. Yet radioactive decay is still described by Ferni's theory.

So don't put too much faith in a theory using an incorrect theory to start with.

I wonder if I might ask you to source the link I provided in post #10 and give me your analysis of the first paragraph of that study. Thanks.

 

[Kylie]

The YEC literature does have some claims involving this, however, every one I have tracked down turned out to either be a quote mine or a citation of the scientific literature said to support their position that indeed did not support it. Most involve the marine reservoir effect.

Well then, I'll take this as strong support for my position that there are no examples of carbon dating producing impossible dates when used correctly.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I wonder if I might ask you to source the link I provided in post #10 and give me your analysis of the first paragraph of that study. Thanks.

And, this has what to do with the accuracy of carbon dating relying on a theory shown wrong since 1957? the study was from 8,400 years ago. Did you read what I said?

"This is why it's only consistent to a around 50,000 years. After that the errors introduced from parity violation become too cumulative great."

Never said it wasn't close enough to use on something within the last few thousand years.

Some studies suggest we don't know what we like to think we know about how cold it might have been around 7000 years ago.

Researchers find arctic may have had less ice 6000-7000 years ago | Watts Up With That?

When sunspots numbers were at their lowest.

http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/Sunspots_11000_years.jpg

Ice Ages, Sea Level, Global Warming, and Geology

I mean it fluctuates in tune with the sun all the time.

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Global-temps.png

EDIT: But yes, it is quite possible something locally affected things, but look at the overall picture. It's a cycle with higher temps in the past than we have achieved, and it's gonna go down, not up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And, this has what to do with the accuracy of carbon dating relying on a theory shown wrong since 1957? the study was from 8,400 years ago. Did you read what I said?

"This is why it's only consistent to a around 50,000 years. After that the errors introduced from parity violation become too cumulative great."

Never said it wasn't close enough to use on something within the last few thousand years.

Some studies suggest we don't know what we like to think we know about how cold it might have been around 7000 years ago.

Researchers find arctic may have had less ice 6000-7000 years ago | Watts Up With That?

When sunspots numbers were at their lowest.

http://www.kednos.com/physics/climatology/Sunspots_11000_years.jpg

Ice Ages, Sea Level, Global Warming, and Geology

I mean it fluctuates in tune with the sun all the time.

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Global-temps.png

EDIT: But yes, it is quite possible something locally affected things, but look at the overall picture. It's a cycle with higher temps in the past than we have achieved, and it's gonna go down, not up.

I see that justa is still stringing together articles that he does not understand and claiming that a theory has been debunked.

I guess some things never change.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I see that justa is still stringing together articles that he does not understand and claiming that a theory has been debunked.

I guess some things never change.

I'm still waiting for any of you to show me one correct prediction by mainstream where probes have taken direct measurements?????

So I wouldn't be so sure of myself if I was in your shoes.


You are right, some things never change, you are still following falsified theories and ignoring the data in favor of Fairie Dust...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm still waiting for any of you to show me one correct prediction by mainstream where probes have taken direct measurements?????

So I wouldn't be so sure of myself if I was in your shoes.


You are right, some things never change, you are still following falsified theories and ignoring the data in favor of Fairie Dust...

What "probes" are you yammering about now?

And please. You have shown time after time that you have no understanding of science or even math. Don't you remember how badly you failed my gravity question?