Carbon Dating & Evolution

[freeztar]

yes, thank you! that's what i mean, it's not accurate.

 

 

It doesn't have to be that accurate. If we know something died 20,000 years ago, it doesn't really matter if it was on March 10 or March 15.

 

Goku, I assume it was you who trackback-ed to Contender Ministries Apologetics, News, Forums, and Information for Christian Contenders

I just checked out that site and it's...err...interesting.

[Moontanman]

He asks to be shown the light but he refuses to see:naughty: Somehow I doubt he is really interested in anything other than convincing himself that he is right and everyone else is worng:evil:

[goku]

Define accurate.

 

i am confident that you know more about it's accuracy than an meek farmer such as i

[goku]

Define accurate.

 

i am confident that you know more about it's accuracy than a meek farmer such as i

[InfiniteNow]

i am confident that you know more about it's accuracy than an meek farmer such as i

 

I am, too, however, will you please now answer my question?

[goku]

don't know why it posted twice, must be a dumb farmer thing :confused:

 

acuuracy, dateing a fosil twice and getting the exact same answer

[InfiniteNow]

To be clear, being a farmer has nothing to do with one's intelligence. I've been involved with a few farms, and known a great many hard working people who were quite bright.

 

I challenge the words you use here, the falseness of your presentations, and the agenda you seem completely bent on pushing... namely, an ignorant attack on science itself.

 

I think it's great that you farm, and I think it has nothing to do with your intellectual abilities, or any lack of said abilities which may be part of who you are.

 

I've just learned that talking to you, sharing information with you, explaining the nature of things with you in discussion all seem to have little, if any effect.

 

It's one thing to ask questions. It's quite another to ignore the answers.

[Moontanman]

don't know why it posted twice, must be a dumb farmer thing :confused:

 

acuuracy, dateing a fosil twice and getting the exact same answer

 

I don't recall anyone in this thread calling you dumb, so far everyone has taken your questions seriously. At teh very least I know I have. Please give me and the rest the same respect. How accurate does it have to be?

[goku]

i was just calling myself dumb, i'm computer dumb, or is it dumb computer :hihi:

 

if i understood the mathematics correctly, you could test a fossil twice and get the exact same answer :confused:

[Moontanman]

i was just calling myself dumb, i'm computer dumb, or is it dumb comouter :hihi:

 

if i understood the mathematics correctly, you could test a fossil twice and get the exact same answer :confused:

 

It will give you the same accuracy within the limits of the tests. If you insist on it being accurate to the day and hour of death then you are loking at it complety wrong. I do understand statistics and they are never spot on accurate but they can be very accurate within defined limits.

[goku]

It will give you the same accuracy within the limits of the tests. If you insist on it being accurate to the day and hour of death then you are loking at it complety wrong. I do understand statistics and they are never spot on accurate but they can be very accurate within defined limits.

 

i understand

[CraigD]

if i understood the mathematics correctly, you could test [radiometrically date] a fossil twice and get the exact same answer :confused:

It’s important to understand that you can’t date fossils using radiometric dating techniques like radiocarbon dating, because they contain too little preserved plant or animal tissue or other materials required by available radiometric dating techniques. Even if one could find pristine mummified dinosaur, present-day radiocarbon dating would be unable to date it, because the technique is only sensitive enough to date formerly living tissue younger than about 60,000 years.

 

So criticism of fossil dating that focus on inaccuracies of radiocarbon dating is simply misguided, because radiocarbon dating is not used to date fossils. It is possible to radiometrically date certain type of surrounding rocks in which fossils are found, however, using techniques such as Potassium-argon dating.

 

Some young Earth creationists are aware of this, but argue that, while the surrounding rocks may be billions of years old, the fossils are much younger, and became imbedded in the old surrounding rocks through various sorts of physical settling, shuffling, etc. Others argue for the omphalos hypothesis (litterally “the belly-button hypothesis”), which proposes that the geological and fossil record appears old because it was intentionally made to appear that way by God – although such a hypothesis, being by definition untestable, is by definition non-scientific.

[Southtown]

Even if one could find pristine mummified dinosaur, present-day radiocarbon dating would be unable to date it, because the technique is only sensitive enough to date formerly living tissue younger than about 60,000 years.

I'd still like to see them try. If they did see remnant C14, they'd surely call it contamination.

 

So criticism of fossil dating that focus on inaccuracies of radiocarbon dating is simply misguided, because radiocarbon dating is not used to date fossils. It is possible to radiometrically date certain type of surrounding rocks in which fossils are found, however, using techniques such as Potassium-argon dating.

 

Some young Earth creationists are aware of this, but argue that, while the surrounding rocks may be billions of years old, the fossils are much younger, and became imbedded in the old surrounding rocks through various sorts of physical settling, shuffling, etc. Others argue for the omphalos hypothesis (litterally “the belly-button hypothesis”), which proposes that the geological and fossil record appears old because it was intentionally made to appear that way by God – although such a hypothesis, being by definition untestable, is by definition non-scientific.

Still others argue that radioisotopes are not remnant energy from a molten state, but were imparted into already existing rock, therefore nullifying the relationship between age and isotope ratios.

[Moontanman]

I'd still like to see them try. If they did see remnant C14, they'd surely call it contamination.

 

 

Still others argue that radioisotopes are not remnant energy from a molten state, but were imparted into already existing rock, therefore nullifying the relationship between age and isotope ratios.

 

I'm tired of hearing this, please give a possible mechanism to impart radioisotopes to rock other than the process of radiactive decay of the parent material that was already there. If not then give it up, you just can't just wish it away. Radiocarbon dating isn't used on acient fossils for all the very good reasons that have already been given. I'm sure it has been tried by someone who just didn't get it but then where would find someone like that:shrug:

[Southtown]

I'm tired of hearing this, please give a possible mechanism to impart radioisotopes to rock other than the process of radiactive decay of the parent material that was already there. If not then give it up, you just can't just wish it away.

Well, I suppose you have a point. My ideas concern the 9972. If the continental crust once encircled the globe and approx. half the world's water lie beneath it, when it ruptured, the sliding/contracting continents would generate quite a bit of energy, and globally at that.

 

Radiocarbon dating isn't used on acient fossils for all the very good reasons that have already been given. I'm sure it has been tried by someone who just didn't get it but then where would find someone like that:shrug:

I'm sure you are right. And that is a good question.

[Moontanman]

Well, I suppose you have a point. My ideas concern the 9972. If the continental crust once encircled the globe and approx. half the world's water lie beneath it, when it ruptured, the sliding/contracting continents would generate quite a bit of energy, and globally at that.

 

 

I'm sure you are right. And that is a good question.

 

How would this theory affect radioactive decay? The only thing it could do is make the rocks look much younger then they do now, not older.