Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Quote Mining? No, Fact Stating. S J Gould Essay Disclosing the Debacle of Darwins Ev
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Loudmouth" data-source="post: 20676823" data-attributes="member: 11790"><p>Do you like baseball? I do. Whenever I see a creationist site listed it always looks like a big, fat, fastball coming right down the pipe. I'll show you why (as if I already didn't with the other creationist sites you listed). I'll list the supposed assumptions that C14 dating is based on and why they are not assumed but conclusions based on real data.</p><p> </p><p>Assumption one: "First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates."</p><p> </p><p>Constant decay of radioisotopes is not assumed, it is a conclusion drawn from cosmological and geological data. First, new isotopes are produced in supernova and their decay energies can be measured. The energy given off during decay is directly tied to the other decay characteristics as determined by well understood and accepted formulas. One example is <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/" target="_blank">Supernova 1987a</a>. Therefore, constant decay rates are not assumed, they have been measured to be constant. The only thing that is capable of changing decay rates is extreme pressures and temperatures.</p><p> </p><p>Secondly, the conditions required for C14 to decay at a different rate would destroy the sample. C14 is used to date organic material that is less than 50,000 years old. The temperatures and pressures needed would turn these samples into ash.</p><p> </p><p>Assumption 2: "The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years."</p><p> </p><p>Already discussed. C14 formation has fluctuated in the past, and the amount of those fluctuations is known. Therefore, C14 dates can be calibrated to take those fluctuations into effect. I wonder why you never read about these calibrations on creationist websites?</p><p> </p><p>Assumption 3: "Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere."</p><p> </p><p>This is nothing but a reiteration of assumption 2. C14 has not remained constant, but those fluctuations have been measured and are used when dating organic remains.</p><p> </p><p>Looks like that fastball is sailing over the fence.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Loudmouth, post: 20676823, member: 11790"] Do you like baseball? I do. Whenever I see a creationist site listed it always looks like a big, fat, fastball coming right down the pipe. I'll show you why (as if I already didn't with the other creationist sites you listed). I'll list the supposed assumptions that C14 dating is based on and why they are not assumed but conclusions based on real data. Assumption one: "First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant over the years. However, evidence indicates that the opposite is true. Experiments have been performed using the radioactive isotopes of uranium-238 and iron-57, and have shown that rates can and do vary. In fact, changing the environments surrounding the samples can alter decay rates." Constant decay of radioisotopes is not assumed, it is a conclusion drawn from cosmological and geological data. First, new isotopes are produced in supernova and their decay energies can be measured. The energy given off during decay is directly tied to the other decay characteristics as determined by well understood and accepted formulas. One example is [url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/supernova/]Supernova 1987a[/url]. Therefore, constant decay rates are not assumed, they have been measured to be constant. The only thing that is capable of changing decay rates is extreme pressures and temperatures. Secondly, the conditions required for C14 to decay at a different rate would destroy the sample. C14 is used to date organic material that is less than 50,000 years old. The temperatures and pressures needed would turn these samples into ash. Assumption 2: "The second faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the years." Already discussed. C14 formation has fluctuated in the past, and the amount of those fluctuations is known. Therefore, C14 dates can be calibrated to take those fluctuations into effect. I wonder why you never read about these calibrations on creationist websites? Assumption 3: "Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained constant in the atmosphere." This is nothing but a reiteration of assumption 2. C14 has not remained constant, but those fluctuations have been measured and are used when dating organic remains. Looks like that fastball is sailing over the fence. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Quote Mining? No, Fact Stating. S J Gould Essay Disclosing the Debacle of Darwins Ev
Top
Bottom