Thread: Carbon Dating Is Invalid!

What is it with this carbon dating stuff that such people have an obsession with? C14 is only useful on stuff containing organic material or that was made from such things. No one in their right mind bases the age of the earth from it because it decays too rapidly.

It's just the morons who listen to Kent Hovind et al who think that attacking carbon dating gets them anywhere. Of course they're completely deluded here, because even if carbon dating didn't work at all, we use many different decay cycles to determine the age of rocks and so on, e.g. U-Pb, and they all give a consistent result as to the age of the earth.

I actually believe that evildoctor is referring to me.

As you can see by my profile pic, I am not completely supportive of Kent Hovind, and am not completely reliant on what he says.

However, radiocarbon dating does have much controversy.

If I write it up myself, I'm certain that my explanation of radiocarbon dating will be rejected by all (and indeed, it will most likely not be a very accurate explanation.)

So I will paste this well written and relatively unbiased article from a different website. (Link below article.)

This is how carbon dating works: Carbon is a naturally abundant element found in the atmosphere, in the earth, in the oceans, and in every living creature. C-12 is by far the most common isotope, while only about one in a trillion carbon atoms is C-14. C-14 is produced in the upper atmosphere when nitrogen-14 (N-14) is altered through the effects of cosmic radiation bombardment (a proton is displaced by a neutron effectively changing the nitrogen atom into a carbon isotope). The new isotope is called "radiocarbon" because it is radioactive, though it is not dangerous. It is naturally unstable and so it will spontaneously decay back into N-14 after a period of time. It takes about 5,730 years for half of a sample of radiocarbon to decay back into nitrogen. It takes another 5,730 for half of the remainder to decay, and then another 5,730 for half of what's left then to decay and so on. The period of time that it takes for half of a sample to decay is called a "half-life."

Radiocarbon oxidizes (that is, it combines with oxygen) and enters the biosphere through natural processes like breathing and eating. Plants and animals naturally incorporate both the abundant C-12 isotope and the much rarer radiocarbon isotope into their tissues in about the same proportions as the two occur in the atmosphere during their lifetimes. When a creature dies, it ceases to consume more radiocarbon while the C-14 already in its body continues to decay back into nitrogen. So, if we find the remains of a dead creature whose C-12 to C-14 ratio is half of what it's supposed to be (that is, one C-14 atom for every two trillion C-12 atoms instead of one in every trillion) we can assume the creature has been dead for about 5,730 years (since half of the radiocarbon is missing, it takes about 5,730 years for half of it to decay back into nitrogen). If the ratio is a quarter of what it should be (one in every four trillion) we can assume the creature has been dead for 11,460 year (two half-lives). After about 10 half-lives, the amount of radiocarbon left becomes too miniscule to measure and so this technique isn't useful for dating specimens which died more than 60,000 years ago. Another limitation is that this technique can only be applied to organic material such as bone, flesh, or wood. It can't be used to date rocks directly.

Carbon Dating - The Premise
Carbon dating is a dating technique predicated upon three things:

* The rate at which the unstable radioactive C-14 isotope decays into the stable non-radioactive N-14 isotope,
* The ratio of C-12 to C-14 found in a given specimen,
* And the ratio C-12 to C-14 found in the atmosphere at the time of the specimen's death.

Carbon Dating - The Controversy
Carbon dating is controversial for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's predicated upon a set of questionable assumptions. We have to assume, for example, that the rate of decay (that is, a 5,730 year half-life) has remained constant throughout the unobservable past. However, there is strong evidence which suggests that radioactive decay may have been greatly accelerated in the unobservable past.1 We must also assume that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 in the atmosphere has remained constant throughout the unobservable past (so we can know what the ratio was at the time of the specimen's death). And yet we know that "radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster than it is decaying,"2 which means it hasn't yet reached equilibrium, which means the ratio is higher today than it was in the unobservable past. We also know that the ratio decreased during the industrial revolution due to the dramatic increase of CO2 produced by factories. This man-made fluctuation wasn't a natural occurrence, but it demonstrates the fact that fluctuation is possible and that a period of natural upheaval upon the earth could greatly affect the ratio. Volcanoes spew out CO2 which could just as effectively decrease the ratio. Specimens which lived and died during a period of intense volcanism would appear older than they really are if they were dated using this technique. The ratio can further be affected by C-14 production rates in the atmosphere, which in turn is affected by the amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere. The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth's atmosphere is itself affected by things like the earth's magnetic field which deflects cosmic rays. Precise measurements taken over the last 140 years have shown a steady decay in the strength of the earth's magnetic field. This means there's been a steady increase in radiocarbon production (which would increase the ratio).

And finally, this dating scheme is controversial because the dates derived are often wildly inconsistent. For example, "One part of Dima [a famous baby mammoth discovered in 1977] was 40,000 RCY [Radiocarbon Years], another was 26,000 RCY, and 'wood found immediately around the carcass' was 9,000-10,000 RCY." (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 176)

As we've already seen, in order for Carbon dating to work we need to know what the C-12 to C-14 ratio was at the time of a specimen's death. If the ratio has fluctuated throughout the unobservable past (and we can be sure that it has), how can we determine what the ratio was during the lifetime of a specimen that lived and died before we first began measuring the ratio?

Advocates of the Carbon dating method have turned to "Dendrochronology" (a.k.a. tree-ring dating) to calibrate their timescale (that is, to adjust it to compensate for the C-12 to C-14 ratio fluctuations). By carbon dating a piece of wood which has also been dated by counting its annual tree-rings, scientists can create a table by which they can convert the questionable Carbon-14 years into true calendar years. This is how it works: scientists begin with a living tree or dead wood specimen which can be accurately dated by some reliable means. Then they look for pieces of dead wood which are older than the specimen which they started with and whose tree-ring patterns match up with and overlap those of the first specimen (tree-rings can vary greatly in width due to environmental factors and thus produce a pattern by which we can match specimens which grew in the same environment). Scientists then look for more pieces of dead wood to match and overlap the second specimen and on and on. And finally, they count all of the tree-rings, using the matching patterns to connect all the pieces, and they determine the age of the oldest piece of wood. This is called a "long chronology." By dating the oldest piece of wood using the Carbon dating method and comparing the two dates, scientists can make the necessary adjustments to their calculations.

Unfortunately, this method of calibrating Carbon dating by using tree-ring dating is itself flawed. Dr Walt Brown explains, "…links are established based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Sometimes 'missing' rings are added.1 …Standard statistical techniques could establish how well the dozen supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences fit. However, tree ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data so others can do these statistical tests" (Walt Brown, In the Beginning, 2001, p. 246; emphasis in the original). This refusal to submit their work to close scrutiny raises a reasonable concern, especially in light of the apparent circular reasoning employed by the researchers. "Wood specimens considered for 'long chronologies' are first radiocarbon dated. If the date is old enough (perhaps by an erroneous reading), tree-ring specialists look at ring thicknesses for a way to extend the 'long chronology'. This chronology is then used to assure the public that radiocarbon dating has been calibrated by a continuous sequence of tree rings. [This practice is also described by Henry N. Michael and Elizabeth K. Ralph, "Quickee" 14C Dates, Radiocarbon, Vol. 23 No. 1, 1981, pp. 165-166]." (Brown, ibid, p. 246; See also Gerald E. Aardsma, "Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating," Impact, No. 189, March 1989.)

Carbon Dating - What Do The Experts Think?
Robert Lee summed up the reasons behind the controversy over the Carbon dating method in his article "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada: "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technical refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a 'fix-it-as-we-go' approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation here, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted. …No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates" (Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," Anthropological Journal of Canada, Vol. 19, No.3, 1981, pp. 9, 29).

Courtesy of allaboutarchaeology.org

Noogah, C14 dating is not used to date the Earth.

Ahem.

Did I say it was?

Well you said you thought the OP was adressing you regarding young Earth creationism.

Which of your mentioned errors could account for a total error factor of a million by the way? :l

He said that c14 dating proves an old earth. He didn't say that the creationist was using evidence against c14 dating to prove a young earth.

Which of your mentioned errors could account for a total error factor of a million by the way?

Maybe you could read it, and decide for yourself?

I mean, the entirety of mankind once believed the earth was flat. I guess that makes for several hundred million mistakes right?

Mass errors have/do/will happen.

None of those people had actually done any experiments to determine if the Earth was flat or not.

C14 is itself an experiment, and with well defined margins of error.

How are these two analagous?

I'm interested in why you care so much about C14 dating if it doesn't conflict with your beliefs..? Oh, except I suppose some matter has been identified as being around 60,000 years old which is out by a factor of 10 (none of your mentioned errors can possibly account for such a factor, incedentally). Especially when other radiometric methods give accurate results older than the Bible's by factors of a million...

+ Potassium argon dating
+ Dendrochronology
+ Radioactive dating
+ DNA mutation tracing
+ Optically stimulated luminescence
+ Paleomagnetic dating

All forms of dating. All confounding.

Except creationists.

Here's that video that you seem to ignore so much, Noogah.



~

Noogah, it just amazes me, the lengths you and other YEC's will go to defend a 2,000 year old text. You're sitting here denying scientific fact.

Lest we forget:

Mountain building
trench forming
argon-argon dating
cosmogenic nuclide dating
thermoluminescense
plate techtonic tracing
electron spin resonance dating
fission track dating
varve chronology
lichenometry
the whole U, Cs, Si, and lead dating series
and all the relative dating methods

I'm writing a paper for school on a lot of the above mentioned methods. I suppose all those other tested methods don't mean a thing to young earthies?

I'm an old Earth creationist. I know this doesn't pretain to me but I still cannot understand why someone would support an 6000-1000 year old Earth. First of all, there is far too much evidence to prove otherwise. Secondly, no where in the bible does it give a time frame of each day being equivlant to 1000 years.

Originally Posted by Xei

I'm interested in why you care so much about C14 dating if it doesn't conflict with your beliefs

Because others think it does.

Originally Posted by O'nus

+ Potassium argon dating
+ Dendrochronology
+ Radioactive dating
+ DNA mutation tracing
+ Optically stimulated luminescence
+ Paleomagnetic dating

All forms of dating. All confounding.

Except creationists.

Um...link maybe?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Here's that video that you seem to ignore so much, Noogah.

Already told ou what I think of that video.Those claims are as old as the hill, and Kent Hovind himself debunked 'em. Yes, yes I know. Kent Hovind doesn't have the best reputation here, but he has made some good points in the past.

Creationists and the age of the earth.

Have fun.

Originally Posted by mini0991

You're sitting here denying scientific fact.

...fact?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Secondly, no where in the bible does it give a time frame of each day being equivlant to 1000 years.

ALthough I disagree, Ne-yo does make a point. The age of the earth amongst creationists is really just as much speculation as it is to Evolutionists.

I don't see why people get so passionate about these issues.

Age of the earth. What? Why would anyone get so aggressive about such a trivial matter? I think the answer is rather obvious through common sense itself, and I believe that I will make a post pertaining to the subject.

However, radiocarbon dating does have much controversy.

No it doesn't. The only controversy is that some deluded people refuse to accept it because it means altering their beliefs (and even then other decay cycles do a far better job of proving the timescales wrong).

C14 dating has known limitations and only works for certain types of material. These limitations are well known in the scientific field and are not controversial.

I think the answer is rather obvious through common sense itself

Please explain.

Already told ou what I think of that video.Those claims are as old as the hill, and Kent Hovind himself debunked 'em. Yes, yes I know. Kent Hovind doesn't have the best reputation here, but he has made some good points in the past.

Yes, each of those fifty or so completely different methods are wrong for completely different reasons but still by an amazing coincidence they all give exactly the same wrong answer as each other.

And the single different answer given by the Bible without any empirical evidence whatsoever is the correct one. Of course.

Why don't you do what the video says and come up with your own method of dating the Earth? Or just link to some method which agrees with what the Bible says. Or explain why methods such as dendrology or geology or radiometric dating are wrong.

Originally Posted by Noogah

I mean, the entirety of mankind once believed the earth was flat. I guess that makes for several hundred million mistakes right?

Mass errors have/do/will happen.

Like creationism perhaps...

Originally Posted by Noogah

Except creationists.

Um...link maybe?

Are you that daft? Do you really need me to link to you how old you believe the earth is?

Already told ou what I think of that video.Those claims are as old as the hill, and Kent Hovind himself debunked 'em. Yes, yes I know. Kent Hovind doesn't have the best reputation here, but he has made some good points in the past.

Creationists and the age of the earth.

Have fun.

Kent Hovind did not debunk them.

Using the bible to prove the bible and then "disprove" other things is nothing but fallacious. Do you understand what circular reasoning is?

...fact?

Yes. Fact.

Frankly, I am just beginning to give up on you because you are just that stubborn and unrelentingly stupid. You completely ignore all points and then try to prove yours using either circular reasoning or none at all. Then you disprove others by using your tautological reasoning ("mine is true because it is so yours must be wrong").

I am beginning to understand why people do not debate with Creationists. It is nothing but disappointment. You expect other human beings to be willing to listen and learn new things rather than blindly adhere to something regardless of mounds of evidence.

I have heard a quote from a creationist, his name escapes me, with a PhD. from Harvard who even said, "Even if there were a plethora of evidence that all proved creationism wrong, I would still have to support it."

In the words of Dawkins, "That is nothing but a disappointment in a human being."

ALthough I disagree, Ne-yo does make a point. The age of the earth amongst creationists is really just as much speculation as it is to Evolutionists.

It is not speculation.

How can there ever be fact in your world view? Why is it that you apply such speculative reasoning only to evolution but not the presupposition that God exists which supports the reasoning you use that evolution is speculation?

What evidence do you need to prove that evolution is a fact? How many times do I need to ask this? Seriously, I am really losing respect for creationists because they consistently demonstrate such arrogance.

I don't see why people get so passionate about these issues.

Why should people not get passionate about how the world works and how we understand the cosmos? What else do you think we should get passionate about?

How about civil communication and the quest for knowledge?

Age of the earth. What? Why would anyone get so aggressive about such a trivial matter? I think the answer is rather obvious through common sense itself, and I believe that I will make a post pertaining to the subject.

Common sense? Trivial matter?

It is very important because the reasoning you are using is the very reasoning that is detrimental to the development of human kind - scientific endeavor.

I want to know - how does it feel to be associated with the group of people that are solely responsible for the greatest opposition and prejudice towards human's only logical and reasonable quest for knowledge?

Of course, you think you already have all the answers. And that is what is maddening.

I hope you will understand when I say I have little hope in you. Not only in responses, but as a learning human being. I have already hoped for you to prove otherwise, but nothing has come out but failure. Even in the face of undeniable evidence.

You say what you need for evidence and I will (and have) provided it.

~

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes, each of those fifty or so completely different methods are wrong for completely different reasons but still by an amazing coincidence they all give exactly the same wrong answer as each other.

Just highlighting this to make sure Noogah doesn't "miss" it.

Childe Noogah to the dark thread came.....

Originally Posted by Noogah

So I will paste this well written and relatively unbiased article from a different website. (Link below article.)

Courtesy of allaboutarchaeology.org

Lol "Relatively unbiased" right noogah

This from their "about us" page.

ABOUT US

We seek to be non-threatening, practical, and informative, using the technology of the Internet to pose tough questions and seek candid answers about God, Creation, Life, Humanity, Thought, History, and Truth.

Many people refer to us as “Christians,” but we consider ourselves followers of Jesus. Like Jesus, we reject many of the issues found in “organized religion” (man-made attempts to reach God through rules and rituals). Actually, we believe religion has kept more people from the truth than anything in history.

Although we reject man-made religion, we consider the personal pursuit of God as tantamount in each of our personal life journeys. We also believe that ultimate, saving Truth is found only through God’s Son, Jesus Christ.


They also have this on their front page:
WHAT DO YOU THINK? - We have all sinned and deserve God's judgment. God, the Father, sent His only Son to satisfy that judgment for those who believe in Him. Jesus, the creator and eternal Son of God, who lived a sinless life, loves us so much that He died for our sins, taking the punishment that we deserve, was buried, and rose from the dead according to the Bible. If you truly believe and trust this in your heart, receiving Jesus alone as your Savior, declaring, "Jesus is Lord," you will be saved from judgment and spend eternity with God in heaven.



Noogah - here's the news. This web site is not "relativley unbiased". It is a web site run by fundie dweebs who so desperately need to beleive their little lives and deaths are receiving personal attention from the sky fairy.

Look up "unbiased" in a dictonary.


You still have not answered my questions - posting an extremley biased wall of text from a fundie web propoganda site is not an answer.

Again my questions (plus Xei's as I liked his also):

Scientists beleive in repeatable results, process, facts, etc. Why would the scientific community even tolerate, yet alone continue to use a testing method if it was inaccurate?

Why would research instutions, universities, archeologists, geologists and many other "ologists" invest their reputations on a testing process that was substanitally inaccurate?

Carbon dating is not cheap. Why would reasearch organisations spend vast sums of money paying for these tests if they are inaccurate?

Why do each of the fifty or so completely different methods are wrong for completely different reasons but still by an amazing coincidence they all give exactly the same wrong answer as each other?



I got the following from an essay on Rapture Ready. Which I enjoy for its comedy value. It would appear to be the same place Kingerman got his "rapture survival guide for the atheist" from.

Therefore I counter you "relativley unbiased" source with a very biased fundie xtian source:

From the essay "This Old planet" By Todd Strandberg:

There Is No Necessity For A Young Earth.
Fitting the age of our world into the 6,000-year time frame would require disrupting our understanding of the speed of light, annual growth cycles, the erosion process, historical records of tectonic movement, rates of decay for radioactive atoms, climate patterns, the historical content of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the freezing point of water, and a host of other processes.

It would be foolish to modify everything we know about how the physical world operates just to accommodate one single theory. I find the chasm between reality and the young earth theory too vast for any explanation to span. Even if one is kind enough to assume that the growth of coral was once 10 times faster than it is today, some reefs would still be more than 13,000 years old.

Far too many Christians have fallen into a group-think mentality.

Evildoctor. I said the article was unbiased, not the website.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Evildoctor. I said the article was unbiased, not the website.

Dont dance with words Noogah - im english and you wont win.

The website has an agenda. A big one. It has the following links to click on the front page:

Yes, today I am deciding to follow Jesus

Yes, I am already a follower of Jesus

I still have questions


Interesting that theres no link you can click to tell them Get a life you idiots


Its very simple Noogah. A web site looking to find new fundie recruits IS ONLY going to post articles it approves of. The website is biased therefore the articles it selects are indictive to their point of view.

Now thats not so hard to understand I hope.

By the way - I checked some of the references made in your "article":

Both the "Journal" and the "Association" were founded by Thomas E. Lee, who I gather was in dispute with more mainstream anthropologists in Canada (represented by the Canadian Anthropological Society) over the dating of the Sheguiandah artifacts.



Therefore we now have an agenda on top of an agenda, as it would seem Mr Lee was "at odds" with the mainstream anthropologists and was also scraping around desperately for something to prove them wrong and him right.

Also - Dont use 28 year old articles to make a point about science. Science marches on - unlike religous dogma.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

- im english and you wont win.

Dude...what? No one wins anything.

I didn't say beans about the website, I just posted one article, and the article was unbiased.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

Just highlighting this to make sure Noogah doesn't "miss" it.

He missed it... :'(

Originally Posted by Noogah

Dude...what? No one wins anything.

I didn't say beans about the website, I just posted one article, and the article was unbiased.

Noogah,

When you finish your homework and finish playing with your little brother then please read my last post again.

Or please read the below SLOWLY :

A website with a strong agenda, such as the one you posted, is only going to post articles that supports the organisations point of view - in this case evangelical creationist fundies.

Your "unbiased" article quote sources almost 30 years old from a now defunct magazine quoting a Mr T. Lee who was in DISAGREEMENT with most of his fellow scientists 30 YEARS AGO and wanted to prove hisself "right" by trashing dating methods which did not give him the results HE WANTED to see.