How radiometric dating works and why it's wrong

[ThaiDuykhang]

And why don't they exist?

They don't exist because scientific evidences are against them. because they're based fallacious assumptions. because God told us the earth is 6000 years old.

Put such amateur questions away. Do you think any member here will fall for such questions? start another thread and I'll explain to you in detail. this is not the topic of this thread.

 

[KerrMetric]

They don't exist because scientific evidences are against them. because they're based fallacious assumptions. because God told us the earth is 6000 years old.

What you actually mean is that superstition is against them.

Put such amateur questions away. Do you think any member here will fall for such questions? start another thread and I'll explain to you in detail. this is not the topic of this thread.

You have quite a nerve to mention amateurism yet you completely ignore carbon dating calibrations and the resevoir effect present in marine organisms or the incomplete mixing of atmospheric carbon into the oceans.

 

[Deamiter]

It is used as an assumption that the amount of C14 they took in billions of years ago (wow !) are the same as the amount we're taking in now. and they have messured it 50 years ago. and it is lower.

Absolutely ridiculous. C14 dating is utterly worthless over 100,000 years. Why you would claim that scientists assume C14 ratios were the same then is utterly beyond me! Again, the levels have been measured thousands of times across the globe back tens of thousands of years using tree rings and ice cores. The levels do not change.

I have no idea why you think you're qualified or even INFORMED enough to speak authoritatively on this subject, but your wild misrepresentations of the field exposes your conclusions as utterly unfounded.

so when plants in water perform photosynthesis. where does the CO2 come from? atmophere. Where did the oxygen in water come from? atmophere. when fish, seals, clams eat aquatic plants. breathe the oxygen in the water, they take in the same amount of C14 as we do on land.

I guess you didn't know that plants take CO2 FROM the water and put O2 back INTO the water. The atmosphere is not involved in the process of photosynthesis under water. Yes, the ocean absorbs a certain amount of carbon each year depending on a number of factors including salinity and temperature. However, it's FAR from the same ratio as the atmosphere. For all intents and purposes, the ratio of C14 to C12 in the ocean is zero -- too low to be reliably detectable.

I really can't believe you think that oxygen ONLY comes from the atmosphere. I mean, did you think that aquatic plants bubbled O2 to the surface where it later dissolved back into the water?!?!? Surely you're making this up!

Land animals that eat primarily seafood get the vast majority of their carbon from the sea and not from the atmosphere. Thus their ratio is MUCH lower than it is for land animals that eat mixed or land-based diets.

Secondly, those who dated the aquatic animals are professionals. you can expect anyone with a little knowledge in physics to use a ruler to measure a bacteria or diameter of earth.

Um, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I've heard of a number of cases where creationists submit aquatic tissue to labs for C14 dating. The labs are happy to take their money, and report on the date given solely from the C14 ratios. If the creationists want to take the number and interpret it in ridiculous ways, nobody's stopping them. But if you ask any professional who interprets the data, they'll tell you right away that the sea creatures are NEVER C14 dated by the scientific community for the purposes of dating!

The above passages mostly blame wild dates on nuke tests, I'm wondering why it's rejected universally by professionals on both sides? It's a conspiracy theory like US goverment bombed WTC. it's unprovable and unfalsifiable.

Well first of all, I didn't blame ANY wild dates on nuclear tests. Samples less than 1000 years old have too much statistical error to be very accurate anyway. Even IN 1950, if you tried to date a live land animal, you'd be lilkely to get 2000 plus or minus 4000 years!!!

Scientists never claim that the nuclear tests affected the ratios of older artifacts (unless they were in the blast radius I suppose). You're just making that up as a straw man.

What the nuclear tests DO explain is the sharp increase in C14 ratios in the 1950s. In fact, less than a month after the first atomic test in the 1940s, scientists worldwide were reporting that the measured atmospheric C14 levels had sharply increased. For the first couple of years, they noted a similar increase after EACH nuclear test or explosion -- even those they didn't know about.

The increase obviously wasn't immediate, and after a decade of nuclear testing, each nuke was lost in the "background" of increased C14 ratios, but there is little doubt that the sudden increase in C14 ratios was caused by nuclear testing. If you have an alternate theory, you're welcome to publish it, but I don't even think you HAVE one, much less evidence to support one!

Now if you look back, you'll find that the PRIMARY reason for mentioning nuclear tests is that you claimed that since C14 levels were lower in the 1950s, it shows that we haven't hit equilibrium yet. Never mind that previous data always shows a pretty constant rate of C14 with a regular increase due to the industrial revolution UNTIL the 1950s...

to put it simply:
If the amount of C14 is increasing, can you prove it's all because of nuke tests? no. Can you say without nuke tests the figure observed in the 1950s would be the same as it is today? no. Why do you choose to ignore it. because you believe the earth is billions of years old.

Again, there was a sharp increase in C14 ratios right after the nuclear tests that has never been observed in tree rings, ice cores, or even in direct measurements prior to the nuclear testing. And of COURSE nuclear testing isn't the cause of all the rise in C14 ratios. Since the industrial revolution, we've been burning tons of petrolium products -- coal, gasoline etc... We're releasing tons and tons of carbon that's been sitting in the earth surrounded by low levels of radioactive elements. It is easy to show that crude oil has higher ratios of C14 to C12 than the atmosphere. This is due to all the radiation in the Earth (granite is particularly radioactive). So would YOU be suprised if the C14 ratio started slowly rising at the start of the industrial revolution when we started throwing all that carbon into the atmosphere?

I know I'm not going to convince you -- especially since you don't have a problem making things up. Particularly the claims that C14 dating works for stuff billioins of years old, or that the water has the same C14 ratio as the atmosphere... They're nothing more than straw men that you've made up on the fly to make your case sound good.

At LEAST have the integrity to make assertions only when you've studied the topic! You can say you don't "believe" in C14 dating -- that wouldn't bother me much. But to try to deceive people by making such outrageous claims about what scientists say and do... I can't imagine how you justify that.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Absolutely ridiculous. C14 dating is utterly worthless over 100,000 years. Why you would claim that scientists assume C14 ratios were the same then is utterly beyond me! Again, the levels have been measured thousands of times across the globe back tens of thousands of years using tree rings and ice cores. The levels do not change.

Why they have to assume the ratio is the same? because if they took less C14 during their life time and currently there're more C14 around, the Carbonmetric dating will indicate a long history. read argument 12 in post #1 and you'll understand the importance. C14 dating is practised by professionals who knows more about the procedure than any of us here. and wild result come out of every where. a fresh snail shell is dated 27000 years old is a prove it doesn't work even within 100,000 years old

I have no idea why you think you're qualified or even INFORMED enough to speak authoritatively on this subject, but your wild misrepresentations of the field exposes your conclusions as utterly unfounded.

doesn't serve any purpose, ignored.

I guess you didn't know that plants take CO2 FROM the water and put O2 back INTO the water. The atmosphere is not involved in the process of photosynthesis under water. Yes, the ocean absorbs a certain amount of carbon each year depending on a number of factors including salinity and temperature. However, it's FAR from the same ratio as the atmosphere. For all intents and purposes, the ratio of C14 to C12 in the ocean is zero -- too low to be reliably detectable.

You're wrong here. one can produce a date using carbonmetric dating of aquatic animals shows they have enough C14 to be readily detected.
if there're no C14 in aquatic animals. the result is simply infinite.

I really can't believe you think that oxygen ONLY comes from the atmosphere. I mean, did you think that aquatic plants bubbled O2 to the surface where it later dissolved back into the water?!?!? Surely you're making this up!

Land animals that eat primarily seafood get the vast majority of their carbon from the sea and not from the atmosphere. Thus their ratio is MUCH lower than it is for land animals that eat mixed or land-based diets.
Um, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I've heard of a number of cases where creationists submit aquatic tissue to labs for C14 dating. The labs are happy to take their money, and report on the date given solely from the C14 ratios. If the creationists want to take the number and interpret it in ridiculous ways, nobody's stopping them. But if you ask any professional who interprets the data, they'll tell you right away that the sea creatures are NEVER C14 dated by the scientific community for the purposes of dating!

Those experiments are not done by creationist. they're done by professionals. do you think carbon dating professionals are creationists?

If you think Carbon dating agency is happy to take money and produce false results. this is enough to show Carbon dating is a fraud not science.

Well first of all, I didn't blame ANY wild dates on nuclear tests. Samples less than 1000 years old have too much statistical error to be very accurate anyway. Even IN 1950, if you tried to date a live land animal, you'd be lilkely to get 2000 plus or minus 4000 years!!!

Can Radiocarbon dating explain why it's can't date things less 1000 years old? No. just because we all know the age of things less than 1000 years old and it can't produce any reasonable result. so it said it can't do so. when it dates something 10000 years old, how do you know it's right or wrong. you have seen that thing 10000 years old, anyone saw it? no. it can't be falsified. it's a conpiracy theory.

a dating of xxx,000 years usually has an error of 200-300 years.then why the error suddenly increased to 2000-4000 years

Suppose I say "I can speak most languages in the world" Someone asks "Can you speak Spanish, French, Italian?" I said no. I say "I can speak Basque, Javian and Hindu and many others" If no one here understands Basque, Javian and Hindu, they simply can't verify my claim is true or not. in fact I can't speak any of them. you just can't verify. I can only speak 3 languages: English, Chinese and Vietnamese. you even can't verify I speak Vietnamese as no one else here speak that language.

Scientists never claim that the nuclear tests affected the ratios of older artifacts (unless they were in the blast radius I suppose). You're just making that up as a straw man.

What the nuclear tests DO explain is the sharp increase in C14 ratios in the 1950s. In fact, less than a month after the first atomic test in the 1940s, scientists worldwide were reporting that the measured atmospheric C14 levels had sharply increased. For the first couple of years, they noted a similar increase after EACH nuclear test or explosion -- even those they didn't know about.

The amount of C14 is atmophere is changing now. you can't observe if it's changing before, but you assume it's not changing. not very convincing, isn't it?

The increase obviously wasn't immediate, and after a decade of nuclear testing, each nuke was lost in the "background" of increased C14 ratios, but there is little doubt that the sudden increase in C14 ratios was caused by nuclear testing. If you have an alternate theory, you're welcome to publish it, but I don't even think you HAVE one, much less evidence to support one!

What theory do I need? How can you prove the amount of C14 many years (millions again?) ago is the same as it is today? I don't need conbon dating, everything to me is less than 6000 years old. that's nearly the error margin of carbon dating in some cases.(-4000~2000 years for example). I'm not even satified with a conclusion the earth is 30000 years old.

Now if you look back, you'll find that the PRIMARY reason for mentioning nuclear tests is that you claimed that since C14 levels were lower in the 1950s, it shows that we haven't hit equilibrium yet. Never mind that previous data always shows a pretty constant rate of C14 with a regular increase due to the industrial revolution UNTIL the 1950s...

Again, there was a sharp increase in C14 ratios right after the nuclear tests that has never been observed in tree rings, ice cores, or even in direct measurements prior to the nuclear testing. And of COURSE nuclear testing isn't the cause of all the rise in C14 ratios. Since the industrial revolution, we've been burning tons of petrolium products -- coal, gasoline, even wood... We're releasing tons and tons of carbon that's been sitting in the earth surrounded by low levels of radioactive elements. It is easy to show that crude oil has higher ratios of C14 to C12 than the atmosphere. This is due to all the radiation in the Earth (granite is particularly radioactive). So would YOU be suprised if the C14 ratio started slowly rising at the start of the industrial revolution when we started throwing all that carbon into the atmosphere?

I have questions for you: Do you think creatures supposedly 100000 years ago took in the same amout of C14 as we do today? where is the evidence? What has been observed is the amount of C14 in atmophere is increasing.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Evolutionists' claim "fossil and aquatic animals don't contain C14" is false for the simple evidence carbon dating can produce a date.

If there were none, carbon metric dating simply wouldn't produce any number. the result would be infinitely old.

 

[KerrMetric]

Evolutionists' claim "fossil and aquatic animals don't contain C14" is false for the simple evidence carbon dating can produce a date.

Rubbish. No one claims this. Is English not your primary language? That might explain the problem here, otherwise it is just more evidence that you have not researched this topic at all and are just typing from ignorance.

You might find it profitable to actually read up on a topic prior to posting. It would prevent embarrassment on something you obviously know not a thing about.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Rubbish. No one claims this. Is English not your primary language? That might explain the problem here, otherwise it is just more evidence that you have not researched this topic at all and are just typing from ignorance.

You might find it profitable to actually read up on a topic prior to posting. It would prevent embarrassment on something you obviously know not a thing about.
[/size]

deamiter #23

it's FAR from the same ratio as the atmosphere. For all intents and purposes, the ratio of C14 to C12 in the ocean is zero -- too low to be reliably detectable.

artybloke post #2

What has C14 dating got to do with dating fossils? (Clue: nothing. It's never used to date fossils, as fossils don't have carbon in them.)

I feel they're evolutionists. I don't know what do you think they're

English indeed isn't my native language. but what's your score of reading comprehension in IELTS? I got a 9. you got a 10?

 

[KerrMetric]

deamiter #23


artybloke post #2


I feel they're evolutionists. I don't know what do you think they're

English indeed isn't my native language. but what's your score of reading comprehension in IELTS? I got a 9. you got a 10?

Deamiter is wrong, but then I doubt they are a geochemist. The C14/C12 ratio in the ocean varies from the atmosphere and also from location to location in the ocean because the oceans are not always well mixed. This incidentally is why a freshly killed seal is not going to give a trustworthy date, especially in the Antarctic.

All I have to say, again is research, research, research.

 

[gluadys]

Why they have to assume the ratio is the same?

Didn't you read what you just responded to? They don't assume the ratio is the same. Look at what Deamiter said:

Again, the levels have been measured thousands of times across the globe back tens of thousands of years using tree rings and ice cores. ​

Measurement is not assumption.

a fresh snail shell is dated 27000 years old is a prove it doesn't work even within 100,000 years old

C-14 is not used for dating live or freshly-killed animals. It is not used for dating marine animals of any age.

Those experiments are not done by creationist. they're done by professionals. do you think carbon dating professionals are creationists?

Do you think the laws of nature work differently for creationists than for other people?

Can Radiocarbon dating explain why it's can't date things less 1000 years old?

Yes. It takes 1,000 years or more for enough C-14 to decay so that the difference in ratio is detectable. And the reason you can't date anything over 100,000 years is that so much of the C-14 has decayed by then that it is no longer detectable. You can't date living or freshly dead organic matter because the C-14 has not begun to decay yet.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Deamiter is wrong, but then I doubt they are a geochemist. The C14/C12 ratio in the ocean varies from the atmosphere and also from location to location in the ocean because the oceans are not always well mixed. This incidentally is why a freshly killed seal is not going to give a trustworthy date, especially in the Antarctic.

All I have to say, again is research, research, research.

C14 is made by sun right? I mean C14 can't come out of sea bottoms right? The solubility of CO2 and every other chemicals that have carbon element is equal in the water. (tell me the reason when CO2 of C12 is more soluble than CO2 made of C14) Shallow sea plants depends on photosynthsis. Seal isn't a deep sea creature, nor does seal's food. so there's no reason why it can't be carbon dated.

examples are plants put in aquarium are green. they're photoautotrophs.

Evolutionists, have a Great Purge among yourselves. I think a Big Bang is about to occur.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Didn't you read what you just responded to? They don't assume the ratio is the same. Look at what Deamiter said:

Again, the levels have been measured thousands of times across the globe back tens of thousands of years using tree rings and ice cores. ​

Measurement is not assumption.


1) show me that tree. The oldest tree found is ~4000 years old, matching the date of the flood. TalkOrigin admits that. (Though it doesn't admit any significance in it)
2) How the ice core dating is done? in WW2 some plane run out fuel and landed in Greenland, 48 years later they're found under 263 feet of ice. so an "anual layer" is 5.5 feet high. If you assume an anual layer is 5.5 feet fine, then the earth is young.is that what evolutionist teach?

C-14 is not used for dating live or freshly-killed animals. It is not used for dating marine animals of any age.

Are dating professional idiots? Are they Creationists? Are they bribed by Creationists?
It's even unreliable to date rocks. there're examples in the first post.
So fossils are dated by rocks and rocks are dated by fossils.

Do you think the laws of nature work differently for creationists than for other people?

No. this shows no matter who do the dating, the result is equally absurd. Read the moon rock example.

Yes. It takes 1,000 years or more for enough C-14 to decay so that the difference in ratio is detectable. And the reason you can't date anything over 100,000 years is that so much of the C-14 has decayed by then that it is no longer detectable. You can't date living or freshly dead organic matter because the C-14 has not begun to decay yet.

Failure to detect the decay means the result is zero year not 20000 years.
if no C14 decay is detected then the age is 0. if no C14 is detected then the age is infinite. that's the 2 extremes of radiocarbon dating.

The accuracy of dating they claimed is much higher than 1000 years. for example: 3000+-30 years. which shows they can detect a decay of 60 years.

 

[Deamiter]

Why they have to assume the ratio is the same? because if they took less C14 during their life time and currently there're more C14 around, the Carbonmetric dating will indicate a long history. read argument 12 in post #1 and you'll understand the importance. C14 dating is practised by professionals who knows more about the procedure than any of us here. and wild result come out of every where. a fresh snail shell is dated 27000 years old is a prove it doesn't work even within 100,000 years old

Of course the C14 ratio is changing. But measurements of C14 in tree rings which you admitgo back at least 4000 years shows that the ratio was constant for at LEAST these 4000 years.

The actual dates are not produced by scientists. The scientists send samples to a lab where a technician will carefully prepare and test the sample for radioactivity. They compare the radioactivity to the base amount of carbon to get the current ratio. Then they compare this ratio to a table of measured ratios (from tree rings and ice cores) to give a "date."

It is solely up to the SCIENTIST to interpret the data -- the technician does none of the interpretation. ANYBODY can send ANY sample -- even a sample of granite or a computer chip -- ANYTHING to be carbon dated. Again, the labs are happy to take your money. Just remember that the labs don't interpret the data -- they don't tell you if the sample was contaminated or if it was a valid sample. They don't particularly care. The technicians there are paid to run the samples through the dating machines. It's the scientist who SENT the sample that's responsible for the data.

You're wrong here. one can produce a date using carbonmetric dating of aquatic animals shows they have enough C14 to be readily detected.
if there're no C14 in aquatic animals. the result is simply infinite.

I'm sorry, I misspoke. What I should have said is that the ratios in the ocean are not constant from one place to another. They are also much lower than in the atmosphere.

Those experiments are not done by creationist. they're done by professionals. do you think carbon dating professionals are creationists?

If you think Carbon dating agency is happy to take money and produce false results. this is enough to show Carbon dating is a fraud not science.

It's not an agency, it's a commercial lab. And they aren't producing "false" results. Any scientists knows that dating aquatic animals is inconclusive because there is no reliable C14 level in any part of the ocean. It changes from place to place and from time to time. In contrast, C14 levels in the atmosphere have been MEASURED to stay constant for thousands of years (I'll address ice cores in a second, but for now, say... 4000 for your tree rings -- though it's actually more like 9000).

Again, the dating lab will date anything you send them. They might send you a note saying, "what the heck are you doing -- this sample won't give a reliable date," but in the end, their job is only to date, not to interpret the results.

Can Radiocarbon dating explain why it's can't date things less 1000 years old? No. just because we all know the age of things less than 1000 years old and it can't produce any reasonable result. so it said it can't do so. when it dates something 10000 years old, how do you know it's right or wrong. you have seen that thing 10000 years old, anyone saw it? no. it can't be falsified. it's a conpiracy theory.

a dating of xxx,000 years usually has an error of 200-300 years.then why the error suddenly increased to 2000-4000 years

Look, radiocarbon dating relies on a DECAY of radioactive carbon. This decay is statistical, so there's a range in which it's quite accurate, and a range where it's not. When dating something that died yesterday, in order to get ANY date, they're required to turn the sensitivity (in a manner of speaking) way up.

It's like a car radio -- if you're too far away from the radio tower, you'll hear a weak signal with a LOT of static. That's why stuff over 50,000 years starts to get much more error. Similarly, if you've ever driven your car right up to a powerful radio tower, the radio will also get a lot of static because the signal is too powerful.

Of course it's not a perfect analogy, but the result is the same. For the first thousand years or so, it is nearly impossible to tell how MUCH C14 has decayed. It's not that they can't detect the C14 levels -- they're quite detectable. It's just that the ratio is so high, it doesn't corrispond to any of the calibrated levels.

The amount of C14 is atmophere is changing now. you can't observe if it's changing before, but you assume it's not changing. not very convincing, isn't it?

People DID observe that it wasn't changing much before 1950. Additionally, it's heavily calibrated by tree rings and ice cores. This IS convincing.

2) How the ice core dating is done? in WW2 some plane run out fuel and landed in Greenland, 48 years later they're found under 263 feet of ice. so an "anual layer" is 5.5 feet high. If you assume an anual layer is 5.5 feet fine, then the earth is young.is that what evolutionist teach?

I'm sure you're aware that the annual snowfall in Greenland is huge -- much more than 5.5 feet (though much of it got compressed). What do you think the annual snowfall in Iceland is? It's just a few centimeters of snow a YEAR. With year-round temperatures below freezing, the ice stays, but it forms very different crystals in the summer and the winter months. It's also been calibrated to the sun's 11 year cycle. It's ALSO been calibrated to tree rings that show catastrophic events (like the eruption of volcanoes which throw tons of ash and sulphur into the atmosphere).

What you're doing is akin to expecting that there is the same amount of annual rock formation in a desert as in a flood plain. Never mind that the flood plain (like greenland with snow) gets tons of silt dumped on it each year when the river floods!

 

[Deamiter]

Failure to detect the decay means the result is zero year not 20000 years.
if no C14 decay is detected then the age is 0. if no C14 is detected then the age is infinite. that's the 2 extremes of radiocarbon dating.

The accuracy of dating they claimed is much higher than 1000 years. for example: 3000+-30 years. which shows they can detect a decay of 60 years.

I thought this was worth responding to too. Yes, if no decay is present, it'll give an extremely large age. But extremely young samples are undatable for a totally different reason -- not ENOUGH C14 has decayed to put the sample on the calibrated scale.

In essence, it's like measuring time based on water flowing out of a bucket with a small hole in the bottem. There's a small region at first where you can't tell if it HAS moved. This corrisponds to the initial thousand years. In reality stuff a few hundred of years old CAN be dated, but as you can imagine, the less decay, the more error. So yes, you CAN date things that are 400 years old. The results will have large error bars though.

After a while, the level of water in the bucket is in a range that is very predictable. As the water gets lower, the drop slows down, but you knew this ahead of time so you can account for it. At some point, the water in the bucket gets SO low that it's only lapping at the small hole. Now it's no longer accurate.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

I thought this was worth responding to too. Yes, if no decay is present, it'll give an extremely large age. But extremely young samples are undatable for a totally different reason -- not ENOUGH C14 has decayed to put the sample on the calibrated scale.

if no decay is present, it will give an age of zero. a typing mistake I guess?
Does the handbook of carbon metric dating says failure to detect enough decay for procedure means the age is 0? do you think dating professionals are that ignorant or is this a creationist conspiracy?

In essence, it's like measuring time based on water flowing out of a bucket with a small hole in the bottem. There's a small region at first where you can't tell if it HAS moved. This corrisponds to the initial thousand years. In reality stuff a few hundred of years old CAN be dated, but as you can imagine, the less decay, the more error. So yes, you CAN date things that are 400 years old. The results will have large error bars though.

If I can't observe it hasn't moved, I'll say it hasn't moved instead of saying it has moved greatly. you're trying inject logical confusion here. but not into me.
400 year old may be dated 200 year old or 600 year old. as they both are not within your range of application. but you don't date them as 20000 years which is within the working range of carbon dating.
Put it simply, the water level goes down 0.5mm and it's not very easy to observe. you can say it goes down 0.2mm or 1mm, both are ok. but you don't say it goes down 10mm which is highly observable.

After a while, the level of water in the bucket is in a range that is very predictable. As the water gets lower, the drop slows down, but you knew this ahead of time so you can account for it. At some point, the water in the bucket gets SO low that it's only lapping at the small hole. Now it's no longer accurate.

If a carbon dating can't be used to date thing less than 1000 years. it can't distinguish 1000 years of change anywhere. be it 1000-2000 years or 10000-11000 years. however the accuracy claimed by dating professionals are stunning: 60 years for example. if you can't observe a 1mm drop of water level at the beginning, you also can't observe a drop 1mm when the tank is only half full.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Of course the C14 ratio is changing. But measurements of C14 in tree rings which you admitgo back at least 4000 years shows that the ratio was constant for at LEAST these 4000 years.

The age of 4000 of that tree is measured by counting tree rings. not by carbon dating.
No one has yet proved within 4000 years C14 level doesn't change.

The actual dates are not produced by scientists. The scientists send samples to a lab where a technician will carefully prepare and test the sample for radioactivity. They compare the radioactivity to the base amount of carbon to get the current ratio. Then they compare this ratio to a table of measured ratios (from tree rings and ice cores) to give a "date."

It is solely up to the SCIENTIST to interpret the data -- the technician does none of the interpretation. ANYBODY can send ANY sample -- even a sample of granite or a computer chip -- ANYTHING to be carbon dated. Again, the labs are happy to take your money. Just remember that the labs don't interpret the data -- they don't tell you if the sample was contaminated or if it was a valid sample. They don't particularly care. The technicians there are paid to run the samples through the dating machines. It's the scientist who SENT the sample that's responsible for the data.

I'm sorry, I misspoke. What I should have said is that the ratios in the ocean are not constant from one place to another. They are also much lower than in the atmosphere.It's not an agency, it's a commercial lab. And they aren't producing "false" results. Any scientists knows that dating aquatic animals is inconclusive because there is no reliable C14 level in any part of the ocean. It changes from place to place and from time to time. In contrast, C14 levels in the atmosphere have been MEASURED to stay constant for thousands of years (I'll address ice cores in a second, but for now, say... 4000 for your tree rings -- though it's actually more like 9000).

It doesn't matter you make mistakes. everyone has made some. however while there're less C14 in water. there're also less C12 in water. Even if C12 enters water much more readily than C14, Don't you think they have measured the amout of C14 in water first before measuring the amount of C14 in fish and seals? Why do they put out blunder after blunder when the solution according to you is quite simple?

Again, the dating lab will date anything you send them. They might send you a note saying, "what the heck are you doing -- this sample won't give a reliable date," but in the end, their job is only to date, not to interpret the results.

Why they date something they can't date? I ask you to write an article in Basque, you say you can't read or write in Basque instead of putting some random latin letters on it right?

Look, radiocarbon dating relies on a DECAY of radioactive carbon. This decay is statistical, so there's a range in which it's quite accurate, and a range where it's not. When dating something that died yesterday, in order to get ANY date, they're required to turn the sensitivity (in a manner of speaking) way up.

First this is answered in passages above. Second, there's no reason for unable to detect enough decay other than the sample is too young. and technicians are not ignorant. when they fail to detect enough decay, they'll tell you it's less than 1000 years old. they get the answer of 20000 years because they have detected enough decay and believe the sample is old enough to date.

It's like a car radio -- if you're too far away from the radio tower, you'll hear a weak signal with a LOT of static. That's why stuff over 50,000 years starts to get much more error. Similarly, if you've ever driven your car right up to a powerful radio tower, the radio will also get a lot of static because the signal is too powerful.

Well, when you get too close to a tower and hear a strong signal, you'll believe you're quite near the tower (corresponding to <1000 years) instead of very far from the tower (corresponding to 20000 years)

When you're too far from the tower. you say "hey I must be mre than 10km(corresponding to 50000 years) away from the tower" instead of "I'm 23.5km (corresponding to old age resulted from carbon dating) away from a tower"

Of course it's not a perfect analogy, but the result is the same. For the first thousand years or so, it is nearly impossible to tell how MUCH C14 has decayed. It's not that they can't detect the C14 levels -- they're quite detectable. It's just that the ratio is so high, it doesn't corrispond to any of the calibrated levels.

People DID observe that it wasn't changing much before 1950. Additionally, it's heavily calibrated by tree rings and ice cores. This IS convincing.

Please show me the record of C14 level before 1950. tree rings only indicate the oldest tree is 4000 years old and no one has yet dated it. if you date a tree died 1 year ago -2000~4000 years old and have already known it's chopped down 1 year ago, you'll put the number 1 year on the report. I've said previously the range of result is so wild that they just put the number fittest to them. see the moon rock example.

I'm sure you're aware that the annual snowfall in Greenland is huge -- much more than 5.5 feet (though much of it got compressed). What do you think the annual snowfall in Iceland is? It's just a few centimeters of snow a YEAR. With year-round temperatures below freezing, the ice stays, but it forms very different crystals in the summer and the winter months. It's also been calibrated to the sun's 11 year cycle. It's ALSO been calibrated to tree rings that show catastrophic events (like the eruption of volcanoes which throw tons of ash and sulphur into the atmosphere).

What you're doing is akin to expecting that there is the same amount of annual rock formation in a desert as in a flood plain. Never mind that the flood plain (like greenland with snow) gets tons of silt dumped on it each year when the river floods!

in the 5.5 feet per year of ice. numberous "anual" layers have been found. I forget the exact number but the thickness of an "anual" layer in greenland is no different than an "anual" layer in Iceland. if you use it to date planes buried there in ww2, you'll think they're hundreds of years old.
an "anual" layer is formed because of a shift of temperature. for example within a day or something like that.
the "summer" layer in ice core corresponds to the warmer part of the day and the "winter" layer in ice core corresponds to the colder part of the day.
I don't know how to caliberate sun's cycle with ice core. will you please explain it in detail?
Tree rings only tell how old the tree was when it died. it can't tell how long the tree has been dead. so you can't use trees rings to detect the date valcanos. will you please show me the source of this claim? it's just too wild

 

[KerrMetric]

The age of 4000 of that tree is measured by counting tree rings. not by carbon dating.
No one has yet proved within 4000 years C14 level doesn't change.



It is solely up to the SCIENTIST to interpret the data -- the technician does none of the interpretation. ANYBODY can send ANY sample -- even a sample of granite or a computer chip -- ANYTHING to be carbon dated. Again, the labs are happy to take your money. Just remember that the labs don't interpret the data -- they don't tell you if the sample was contaminated or if it was a valid sample. They don't particularly care. The technicians there are paid to run the samples through the dating machines. It's the scientist who SENT the sample that's responsible for the data.

It doesn't matter you make mistakes. everyone has made some. however while there're less C14 in water. there're also less C12 in water. Even if C12 enters water much more readily than C14, Don't you think they have measured the amout of C14 in water first before measuring the amount of C14 in fish and seals? Why do they put out blunder after blunder when the solution according to you is quite simple?


Why they date something they can't date? I ask you to write an article in Basque, you say you can't read or write in Basque instead of putting some random latin letters on it right?


First this is answered in passages above. Second, there's no reason for unable to detect enough decay other than the sample is too young. and technicians are not ignorant. when they fail to detect enough decay, they'll tell you it's less than 1000 years old. they get the answer of 20000 years because they have detected enough decay and believe the sample is old enough to date.


Well, when you get too close to a tower and hear a strong signal, you'll believe you're quite near the tower (corresponding to <1000 years) instead of very far from the tower (corresponding to 20000 years)

When you're too far from the tower. you say "hey I must be mre than 10km(corresponding to 50000 years) away from the tower" instead of "I'm 23.5km (corresponding to old age resulted from carbon dating) away from a tower"


Please show me the record of C14 level before 1950. tree rings only indicate the oldest tree is 4000 years old and no one has yet dated it. if you date a tree died 1 year ago -2000~4000 years old and have already known it's chopped down 1 year ago, you'll put the number 1 year on the report. I've said previously the range of result is so wild that they just put the number fittest to them. see the moon rock example.


in the 5.5 feet per year of ice. numberous "anual" layers have been found. I forget the exact number but the thickness of an "anual" layer in greenland is no different than an "anual" layer in Iceland. if you use it to date planes buried there in ww2, you'll think they're hundreds of years old.
an "anual" layer is formed because of a shift of temperature. for example within a day or something like that.
the "summer" layer in ice core corresponds to the warmer part of the day and the "winter" layer in ice core corresponds to the colder part of the day.
I don't know how to caliberate sun's cycle with ice core. will you please explain it in detail?
Tree rings only tell how old the tree was when it died. it can't tell how long the tree has been dead. so you can't use trees rings to detect the date valcanos. will you please show me the source of this claim? it's just too wild

You are woefully out of your depth when it comes to parsing scientific data. Don't you even see why your C14 in sea water comments are complete rubbish. Why not read up on this first before posting tripe.

Also - it doesn't matter what the exact C14 level was 4000 years ago as long as you can CALIBRATE it with tree rings, varve deposits or ice cores.

Are you this uninformed or just deliberately playing a game here. I already know from the other thread about Sirius you are to lazy to research a topic, I'm just not sure yet whether this is blissful ignorance or deceit.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

You are woefully out of your depth when it comes to parsing scientific data. Don't you even see why your C14 in sea water comments are complete rubbish. Why not read up on this first before posting tripe.

Also - it doesn't matter what the exact C14 level was 4000 years ago as long as you can CALIBRATE it with tree rings, varve deposits or ice cores.

Are you this uninformed or just deliberately playing a game here. I already know from the other thread about Sirius you are to lazy to research a topic, I'm just not sure yet whether this is blissful ignorance or deceit.

For such understanding of science I can even expect a TE to refute you.No one ever tries to date that 4000 year old tree. Where's the caliberation?I have shown you the &quot;anual layer&quot; of ice core isn't anual. you've read it?Robert the Pilegrim has done the search for you in that Sirius thread. and came up with a poor result. go and read it.
Let every new member come and see which side is swearing and insulting.

 

[shernren]

Any thinking human would rather believe what is improbable than what is impossible. To Thai the idea of carbon radiodating being accurate is impossible, for reasons entirely unscientific, and therefore any improbable objection against it carries more weight than any scientifically solid and logical reason - because those reasons are impossible for him to accommodate even if they are scientifically solid and logical.

Now if only he had the integrity to admit that.

This whole load of heard-before pabulum on carbon radiodating almost completely ignores the fact that the antiquity of the earth and its billions-of-years age is based not on C-12/C-14 dating but on uranium-lead and other similarly long-lived systems, none of which are very much subject to the objections raised against the carbon system here.

To overturn carbon radiodating, if possible, would only cause difficulties for old-life theories. It does not cause significant difficulty for old-earth theories.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Any thinking human would rather believe what is improbable than what is impossible. To Thai the idea of carbon radiodating being accurate is impossible, for reasons entirely unscientific, and therefore any improbable objection against it carries more weight than any scientifically solid and logical reason - because those reasons are impossible for him to accommodate even if they are scientifically solid and logical.

Now if only he had the integrity to admit that.

This whole load of heard-before pabulum on carbon radiodating almost completely ignores the fact that the antiquity of the earth and its billions-of-years age is based not on C-12/C-14 dating but on uranium-lead and other similarly long-lived systems, none of which are very much subject to the objections raised against the carbon system here.

To overturn carbon radiodating, if possible, would only cause difficulties for old-life theories. It does not cause significant difficulty for old-earth theories.

Don't worry shernren.
1) The examples listed in post #1 and #3 covers wild results from other dating methods.
2) No one believes in old earth-young live theory

 

[shernren]

2) No one believes in old earth-young live theory

Well done! Thai has proved that gap theorists don't exist!

1) The examples listed in post #1 and #3 covers wild results from other dating methods.

And of course, the examples are substantiated with verifiable references to primary source documents, are they? The principal source of the age of the earth doesn't come from moon rocks (as far as I know) but from isochron dating of meteorite fragments.