Is this true?

[Chris†opher Paul]

1. The Carbon 14 dating procedure is only good on objects that are dead...that were once living. Carbon 14 is absorbed and ingested by all living plants, animals and humans and only begins to diminish after death. The Carbon-14 dating method measures the decay and converts that decay into years.

2. Rocks, minerals and fully mineralized fossils cannot be dated by the "radiocarbon" method.

3. Even ardent proponents of Carbon-14 dating know that past 50,000 years, the Carbon-14 remaining in a once-living object would be so minute that no reliable measurement could be made.

4. May scientists doubt Carbon-14 dating's accuracy beyond 3,000 years.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

All except #4 are true.

If #4 was true, why would any scientist use it to date an object believed to be older than 3,000 years? Clearly they do use it, so there must be some level of confidence in its accuracy.

Edited to add: #3 is true today, but as the accuracy of the measuring technique improves, this limit may be extended.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Thanks

So what mechanism is used to date the Earth as being older than 6,000 years?

 

[Arikay]

There are other methods. But Carbon 14 dating can be accurate beyond 6000 years, so it works good enough.

 

[seebs]

Radiometric dating is not generally carbon dating. Note that just counting rings in fossilized trees will get you some ways back...

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Thanks

So what mechanism is used to date the Earth as being older than 6,000 years?

There are a variety of methods, all under the general class of methods referred to as radiometric dating. Here are two resources:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Thanks

So what mechanism is used to date the Earth as being older than 6,000 years?

Radiometric dating using such systems as K-40 to A-40 decay and perhaps the most powerful method of all, isochron dating which involves systems such as U-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr. These nuclides have much longer half-lives which allow us to date on a longer time scale.

However, since C-dating has an accuracy of ~50,000 years, that's older than 6,000 years to begin with. That's just not what we use to find the 4.45 billion year old bound that radiometric dating has provided.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Mechanical Bliss
Radiometric dating using such systems as K-40 to A-40 decay and perhaps the most powerful method of all, isochron dating which involves systems such as U-Pb, Sm-Nd, Rb-Sr. These nuclides have much longer half-lives which allow us to date on a longer time scale.

I'll have to read up on that because I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Weins' ASA paper is very easy to understand.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I'll have to read up on that because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Here's some help:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Thanks

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I'll have to read up on that because I have no idea what you are talking about.

Ken Miller's chapter in Science and Creationism is also very good. 

But even just looking at the geological strata, Souljah, geologists had decided by 1800 that the earth could not possibly be 6,000 years old.

 

[Arikay]

Engineers also had decided that humans would never fly.

That was 200 years ago. Try to find a geologist that thinks that now.

Originally posted by lucaspa
Ken Miller's chapter in Science and Creationism is also very good. 

But even just looking at the geological strata, Souljah, geologists had decided by 1800 that the earth could not possibly be 6,000 years old.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Arikay
That was 200 years ago. Try to find a geologist that thinks that now.

Er.... I think you may have misread his post. He was saying geologists had already decided the Earth is older than 6000 years, even before radiometric dating.

 

[Arikay]

Ah, thanks, Yes I did.

I jumped over a couple important things there As ive heard a similiar reasoning used before to support a young earth

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Er.... I think you may have misread his post. He was saying geologists had already decided the Earth is older than 6000 years, even before radiometric dating.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
All except #4 are true.

If #4 was true, why would any scientist use it to date an object believed to be older than 3,000 years? Clearly they do use it, so there must be some level of confidence in its accuracy.

You mean, some scientists accept it because they believe it's true, and the fact that they accept it, means it must be true. I hear some circular reasoning in that, LFOD. And you know what they say -- circular logic deserves circular (0) credit.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Arikay
Engineers also had decided that humans would never fly.

That's funny... Shouldn't a doctor decide something like that? I don't know about you, but i don't think we'll ever be able to fly either.

If you're talking about mechanical flight, though, then these engineers were obviously just lazy and simply proclaimed that man won't ever build aircraft, as opposed to actually trying to do make it happen.

God bless you!

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by alexgb00
You mean, some scientists accept it because they believe it's true, and the fact that they accept it, means it must be true. I hear some circular reasoning in that, LFOD. And you know what they say -- circular logic deserves circular (0) credit.

Scientists accept radiometric dating because the foundations of the method have not been shown to be false and that evidence such as cross-referencing of data techniques with each other or even biostratigraphy for example yield very similar dates. It isn't about belief that it's true, it's about the evidence.

 

[Arikay]

Um, Yes im talking about mechanical flight. Have you read history? Many Many ideas were tried and non of them worked. People said that we would never fly. Not to long ago, quite a few different people have said that there was only a use for a couple computers in the world. And that people would never be able to, or want to use a computer at home.

Originally posted by alexgb00
That's funny... Shouldn't a doctor decide something like that? I don't know about you, but i don't think we'll ever be able to fly either.

If you're talking about mechanical flight, though, then these engineers were obviously just lazy and simply proclaimed that man won't ever build aircraft, as opposed to actually trying to do make it happen.

God bless you!