Thread: Carbon Dating Is Invalid!

Originally Posted by evildoctor

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

1.I don't have homework
2.My little bro is napping
3.I don't care what you think about the website! I'm sorry that you dont like it.

Also, I don't care how old the articles are that they quoted. That holds zero relevance.

Originally Posted by Noogah

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.

Not to bring up a quote from the past, but I'm a bit irked by this. Nowhere can I ascertain from Ne-Yo's post that speculation of the earth's age is existent among Evolutionists. Whether or not it really exists, which honestly isn't the point of this post, I don't think it's what Ne-Yo was trying to say about scientists of that field. I think he was rather referring to creationists.

On another matter, is it really for an evolutionary scientist to think about the age of the earth? I think that'd be better left in the hands of a geologist or something of that nature.

Originally Posted by Noogah

1.I don't have homework
2.My little bro is napping
3.I don't care what you think about the website! I'm sorry that you dont like it.

Also, I don't care how old the articles are that they quoted. That holds zero relevance.

(Ironically, this was in the first row of pics when I search "fingers in ears lalala")

~

Originally Posted by Noogah

Lol. You could at least give a link ya know.

No, try again.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Also, I don't care how old the articles are that they quoted. That holds zero relevance.

WRONG.

Science moves at an amazing rate. I read somewhere that we are effectively doubling the sum of human knowledge every few years - and this rate is accelerating.

A real life example from my life:

Back in 1981 when I was 12, about your age now, i got my first computer. It was called a Sinclaire ZX81. It had 1kb of memory. It could only handle monochrome block graphics and could accept about 30-33 lines of BASIC code before the memory was full.

In 1986 I left school and got my first job as a programmer. My PC had two 256K floppy drives and a monochrome screen. In 1987 my company got its first PC with a 20mb winchester hard drive - we were amazed and could not possibly see how anyone would ever need so much disk space. There were no PC networks and nobody was using the internet for business or pleasure.

Flash forward to 2009 and see where computing technology is today and its impact on the world since the time the "sources" in your "article" were published.

Try turning up to your next computer sciences class with a text book published in 1981 and I think you will find your teacher will be telling you that you need something more relevant.

As I said, science marches on, unlike religous mooncalfs who think a book of creation myths written by a bronze age people millenia ago is 100% correct.

And no I dont like your web site - it blows chunks.

Back in 1981 when I was 12, about your age now, i got my first computer.

First of all, I'm not 12. Will you quit the stupid insults without basis? Also, you were born in 1966, and so you were twelve in 1978, not 1981. Unless you actually bought your first computer in 1978, you didn't get your first computer until you were fifteen, unless of course this whole thing was a sham simply so you could insult me by telling me I am a kid.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

Science moves at an amazing rate

This does not debunk the relevancy of the article aforementioned until you can show how it's scientific reasoning is flawed.

Originally Posted by Noogah

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).

Actually, scientists know that the levels of Carbon has flucuated in the past and their tests compensate for this fluctuation

I can't find where I found the exact wording of what I said, but this Wiki pretty much says close to the same thing, that scientists know the levels have fluctuated and have solved the problem

Read the "Calibration" section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

Originally Posted by Noogah

First of all, I'm not 12. Will you quit the stupid insults without basis? Also, you were born in 1966, and so you were twelve in 1978, not 1981. Unless you actually bought your first computer in 1978, you didn't get your first computer until you were fifteen, unless of course this whole thing was a sham simply so you could insult me by telling me I am a kid.





This does not debunk the relevancy of the article aforementioned until you can show how it's scientific reasoning is flawed.

I was born in 1968 (december). I am 40 now and will be 41 this coming december. I left school in 1985 and remember getting my computer in the first or second year (UK high school runs for 5 years). I was therefore 12 maybe 13. You are a kid. If you find being a kid an insult then I suggest this is your problem and not mine.

I have debunked your article as:

1) Quoting sources from 1981, almost 30 years ago. As I said before - science constanly strives to improve. The dating systems used 30 years ago will be NO WHERE near as refined and improved as those in use today. Just the computing technology alone has improved a thousand fold.

2) Your article closes by quoting a scientist that was in conflict with the rest of his fellow anthropologists over the dating of some artifacts. He felt so strongly about this that he started his own magazine (the very one your article uses as a source - and indeed it went bust a few months later). He used his own magazine to attack the testing methods used by the other anthropologists as their findings did not agree with his own dating of the artifacts. An extreme case of someone needling plenty of cheese with their whine. This is what is known as a DUBIOUS source.

It is also biblically ironic Noogah that you of all people should be asking to be shown "how its scientific reasoning is flawed." - does this mean you have converted to rationalism in the last 24 hours? Or are you being a hypocrite?

Originally Posted by evildoctor

Quoting sources from 1981, almost 30 years ago.

Yup! That there proves the article is wrong.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

Your article closes by quoting a scientist that was in conflict with the rest of his fellow anthropologists over the dating of some artifacts.

....and does that make the article scientifically inaccurate?

Originally Posted by evildoctor

does this mean you have converted to rationalism in the last 24 hours? Or are you being a hypocrite?

I have no idea what you mean. I've always wanted claims to be scientifically accurate.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

I was born in 1968 (december). I am 40 now and will be 41 this coming december.

You're either lying here, or you lied elsewhere.

Originally Posted by evildoctor

You are a kid. If you find being a kid an insult then I suggest this is your problem and not mine.

And why, pray tell, did you come to that conclusion?

Oh, and, by the way. By this evening, I'll be leaving the forums. Farewell evildoctor. I hope this can be on friendly terms.

You still haven't answered Xei's earlier point Noogah.

There are several scientific dating methods, and they all point out to the same age for the Earth. So if (as you claim) they are wrong, given that the methods are unrelated to each other, how could they all possibly wield the same wrong result?


#EDIT#

Noogah: "I'm gone now!!!!1"

Last activity, 3 minutes ago. Haha.

I can answer why scientists would use a method that is inaccurate... for the same reason it teaches an unproven theory in schools as to how we got here. They don't mind teaching this evolution THEORY as a fact, they also don't mind relying on something that is also inaccurate to date things back millions of years.. From what I can tell, time and time again, if a man can't wrap his head around something, he'd rather believe an unproven and very flawed theory just so that he can imagine it. In my opinion, if they teach one theory they should teach them all. But the truth is there will never be proof of how we got here so it's no one's damn business teaching it as the truth in school. The same goes for carbon dating. Time and time again it's been tested with objects that have known ages and it will test millions of years old, when tested again will come up with a different number even. This was going on back in the 90's when I first studied it. Now I won't claim to know, since I haven't done any recent study, any changes that have been made, or further discovery. But as far as I can tell, carbon dating relies upon itself to prove itself. Now how the hell is that gonna get anyone anywhere? Same goes for evolution theory. Pick your faith, whether it's in an almighty god or a theory that will NEVER be proven. Or in a system that relies upon itself.

If you're English you already lose. LOL Yes I know, yes I lived there for years, yes I married in and as far as I can tell you will all die from alcoholism. I'm widowed for it after all, and all the people I met were just the same, some died already, some died since, and some in the process of it. You know, I only met one sober person while I lived there in nearly 10 years time.... it doesn't help that if you drink you can become incapacitated for it (which is fine as people in all problems need help) but to be given MORE money to be a registered alcoholic does NOTHING but EXACERBATE the problem. Just sayin' I wouldn't flop around your being English as if it has some sort of relevance or as if you're any more stubborn or right than anyone else.

That's just example, I don't actually mean what I said because I don't work that way, but I do feel the need to show how you just stereotyped yourself. And if it has something to do with blood, well, I'm half German and half Irish. So I guess I could drink you under the table, while kicking butt around the room, I guess I am also prone to racism AND being enslaved. What a conflicted person I must be, And the stars determine who we are depending on the month and day we are born blah blah blah. (This is ridiculous.. I hope I've made my point because I can't go on with this ridiculousness).

I can't stand it when in disagreement people start acting childish by name calling, insulting, and especially saying someone is young. I've seen a lot of young people with wiser and smarter brains than some doctors, scientists, or a bunch of people that think they know everything because they spend their days on the internet rather than in the real world. I agree you put your faith in man or God. PERIOD. It's all faith based. And whether your English, Australian, American, Vietnamese or whatever, I will always call someone out on their bull****! And I expect no less. However, I DO expect respect otherwise you have no business debating. If you can't be respectful in your argument then perhaps you are the one that needs to go do your homework and get to bed, don't forget to eat your veggies and clean behind your ears.
Noogah, you must be making some headway with your claims considering it's gotten under their skin. You can tell when they begin to insult they are out of answers and pissed off about it. And they always look at it as win and lose rather than finding out the truth. No one wins if we are all believing something unreal or at least unproven. We all win when we discover something indisputable but it will NEVER happen. We will forever have to rely on the faith of our choice. And as far as I'm concerned, whatever makes ya happy I support. I don't need someone to believe the same as me to be content with myself, my life or my beliefs.

There are a very large number of independent methods for checking the hypothesis of evolution is true. Every single one of these confirms the hypothesis; not a single one contradicts it. You can read about them here:

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This discussion is from 2009 and the people you're talking to have either forgotten about it or left the forum.

Originally Posted by Amusieren

I can answer why scientists would use a method that is inaccurate... for the same reason it teaches an unproven theory in schools as to how we got here. They don't mind teaching this evolution THEORY

Stopped reading here.

So, you - someone completely new to the forums - are going to burst into a 3 year old conversation with no idea of the context and background in which this original discussion took place, and have the audacity to sit there in ignorance and lecture people with degrees on the subjects they discuss, when your opinions on the matter aren't even worth the virtual paper they're written on?

I question the wisdom of such.

Since you have no idea of what happened in the past, several highly qualified forumers spent a great deal of time attempting to educate Noogah on the many subjects he was ignorant of, yet continued to open his mouth about.

That is what got under people's skin; the fact that any attempt to educate him was a complete waste of time.

In my opinion, if they teach one theory they should teach them all.

Then I am glad most of us do not have to abide by your ignorant opinion on what is worth teaching, and so people are free to be taught ideas with evidence behind them, instead of having any random crap dreamt up by uneducated fools equated to well-backed theories.

Welcome to the forum, opinionated stranger. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I dont get it?

I thought forum newbs couldn't post outside of the dream forums until they had a certain number of posts? did we get rid of that rule? was that like ten years ago?

Originally Posted by evildoctor

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.

I am baffled by religion as a whole, but especially Christianity, and so I become frustrated, and my thoughts run amuck. This post is well thought out and well written. Nothing particularly special, but well written, as are many of the posts by Xei and others.

The best I can do is to say that Christianity boils down to faith. Nothing else really matters because you have to have faith to believe it. With faith, any christian claim is possible. Without faith, claims such as the immaculate conception sound preposterous.

I don't like how they teach theories as facts in school either. The theory of the atom is just a theory, which means it's just some crazy idea somebody had. He was probably stoned. The theory of the electromagnetic spectrum is being taught as fact too, and I object. Some weird scientist who probably shot up marijuana and worshipped Satan also said that Earth revolves around the sun. Why are we teaching his stupid theory instead of everybody else's theories? It would be fair to at least also teach in school that all matter is composed of elf bubbles, light and microwave oven heat come from Jesus' halo, and the Milky Way Galaxy revolves around Earth. Both sides should be represented.

This may be pretty random, but here it goes...
I'm doing a paper in school about how the dinosaurs went extinct, evolutionist asteroid theory vs. creationist worldwide flood (I go to a Christian school, by the way). I've learned a lot during the research I have done. For instance, did you know that fossils of marine life can be found in mountain tops all over the world? Kinda funny. Also, a lot of scientists say that erosion can take millions of years to form things like the Grand Canyon, but yet research shows a 100 foot deep gorge can be formed in a few days. Polystrate fossils, whale fossils in earth quarries, the list goes on and on... I think the conclusion is obvious.

Another thing, we have been studying genetics in Biology, and I've got to say, there is absolutely NO WAY that such well designed processes happened randomly. It's impossible.

There must be a Creator. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Jacob528491

This may be pretty random, but here it goes...
I'm doing a paper in school about how the dinosaurs went extinct, evolutionist asteroid theory vs. creationist worldwide flood (I go to a Christian school, by the way). I've learned a lot during the research I have done. For instance, did you know that fossils of marine life can be found in mountain tops all over the world? Kinda funny. Also, a lot of scientists say that erosion can take millions of years to form things like the Grand Canyon, but yet research shows a 100 foot deep gorge can be formed in a few days. Polystrate fossils, whale fossils in earth quarries, the list goes on and on... I think the conclusion is obvious.

Do more research in geology. Examine what that field says with regard to those topics before jumping to conclusions.

Another thing, we have been studying genetics in Biology, and I've got to say, there is absolutely NO WAY that such well designed processes happened randomly. It's impossible.

Your first mistake is thinking it was/is a designed process. Your second mistake is thinking it's impossible w/o intelligence. Study genetics more and examine what that field has to say about that topic before jumping to conclusions.

There must be a Creator. Simple as that.

Your third mistake is allowing yourself to use incredulity as an argument. Study logic more and examine what that field has to say about that topic before jumping to conclusions.

What gave the creator his powers? Does he just randomly have them from nothing?

Fossils of marine life can be found in mountain tops because of changes in the earth.

WHALE FOSSILS HIGH IN ANDES SHOW HOW MOUNTAINS ROSE FROM SEA - NYTimes.com

CC364: Marine fossils on mountains

How did fossils get on the top of the Himalaya mountains

The Grand Canyon is not one of the gorges that was formed at the rate of a 100 foot gorge that formed in a few days.

The Geology of the Grand Canyon

Evolution involves randomness, but that does not mean it is an entirely random process. There are very specific scientific principles that direct it, and they are constant. See #7 here:

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

I recommend reading the entire page. The common arguments against evolution are very easily debunked.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_BzWUuZN5w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLr5vl-n0Bo

Originally Posted by Jacob528491

This may be pretty random, but here it goes...
I'm doing a paper in school about how the dinosaurs went extinct, evolutionist asteroid theory vs. creationist worldwide flood (I go to a Christian school, by the way). I've learned a lot during the research I have done. For instance, did you know that fossils of marine life can be found in mountain tops all over the world? Kinda funny. Also, a lot of scientists say that erosion can take millions of years to form things like the Grand Canyon, but yet research shows a 100 foot deep gorge can be formed in a few days. Polystrate fossils, whale fossils in earth quarries, the list goes on and on... I think the conclusion is obvious.

Er... are you serious? You've never heard of tectonics? Landmasses move around over millions of years. In particular, mountain ranges are formed by two tectonic plates (which are large pieces of the Earth's crust) being forced together, so that the boundary is forced upwards. Whichever mountains you're talking about, if you look up their geological history, you will find that the tectonic plate they lie on used to form a sea bed.

Why didn't you search for the answer yourself? A brief visit to Google would have answered this for you very quickly. But instead you were content to simply say "funny that" and assume that there was no explanation. That is highly biased behaviour. Have a hard think about why you did it. If you really want to get at the truth, you must look for evidence and arguments to disprove your existing beliefs, not to prove them. If you only ever look for arguments which support your beliefs, you will never change your mind about anything.

You seem to have the bizarre impression that all mass extinctions, the formation of the Grand Canyon, and the (supposed) deposition of fossils on top of mountains, all occurred at the same time.

This is false. In fact there have been several very large extinctions during the Earth's history. Deducing this is a fairly straightforward process. All you have to do is look at the fossils in the ground at various fossil sites. As you go back further in time (which generally means going further down into the rock), you will discover several different places in the rock where large numbers of species are very common below a certain level, but they've all disappeared above that level. Radiometric dating and other methods can establish when these events occurred, to a high degree of accuracy. You can read about the mass extinctions here:

Extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The extinction of the dinosaurs is just the most recent one, 65 million years ago. This raises the obvious question of why in the first place you think a flood killed the dinosaurs specifically. Why aren't you arguing that any of the other mass extinctions (some of which were even bigger) were caused by the flood? My suspicion is that you simply haven't heard of these other species and their extinctions, and that you think the dinosaurs are the only large group of animals to have ever disappeared.

Even if the fossils found at the top of mountains were there because of a flood, why would you think that that flood killed the dinosaurs? For all you know the flood could have happened at any time. It could have happened at the same time as one of the other mass extinctions, or in fact it might have coincided with none of them. Why did you assume it coincided with the death of the dinosaurs specifically when you have zero evidence regarding the date when you think the fossils were deposited there?

So, the correct way to find out what happened is to look for evidence of events which happened around 65 million years ago. We know that a singularly large asteroid hit Mexico 65 million years ago (what a coincidence), and we know that it had a very large effect on the Earth's atmosphere, and that this effect would have severely affected the dinosaurs. You can read about that here:

Cretaceous

Do you have any evidence at all that there was a global flood 65 million years ago?

Another thing, we have been studying genetics in Biology, and I've got to say, there is absolutely NO WAY that such well designed processes happened randomly. It's impossible.

This suggests to me you don't actually know what evolution is. It isn't "random" at all, the whole point is that it's very strongly directed by the environment. If this is false and you do actually understand it, please briefly explain to me how evolution works. Then explain the basis for your assertion that "it's impossible" that genetics is an evolved process. Do you think other "well designed" things like the human eye is also impossible to evolve?

Originally Posted by Xei

Er... are you serious? You've never heard of tectonics? Landmasses move around over millions of years. In particular, mountain ranges are formed by two tectonic plates (which are large pieces of the Earth's crust) being forced together, so that the boundary is forced upwards. Whichever mountains you're talking about, if you look up their geological history, you will find that the tectonic plate they lie on used to form a sea bed.

Why didn't you search for the answer yourself? A brief visit to Google would have answered this for you very quickly. But instead you were content to simply say "funny that" and assume that there was no explanation. That is highly biased behaviour. Have a hard think about why you did it. If you really want to get at the truth, you must look for evidence and arguments to disprove your existing beliefs, not to prove them. If you only ever look for arguments which support your beliefs, you will never change your mind about anything.

You seem to have the bizarre impression that all mass extinctions, the formation of the Grand Canyon, and the (supposed) deposition of fossils on top of mountains, all occurred at the same time.

This is false. In fact there have been several very large extinctions during the Earth's history. Deducing this is a fairly straightforward process. All you have to do is look at the fossils in the ground at various fossil sites. As you go back further in time (which generally means going further down into the rock), you will discover several different places in the rock where large numbers of species are very common below a certain level, but they've all disappeared above that level. Radiometric dating and other methods can establish when these events occurred, to a high degree of accuracy. You can read about the mass extinctions here:

Extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The extinction of the dinosaurs is just the most recent one, 65 million years ago. This raises the obvious question of why in the first place you think a flood killed the dinosaurs specifically. Why aren't you arguing that any of the other mass extinctions (some of which were even bigger) were caused by the flood? My suspicion is that you simply haven't heard of these other species and their extinctions, and that you think the dinosaurs are the only large group of animals to have ever disappeared.

Even if the fossils found at the top of mountains were there because of a flood, why would you think that that flood killed the dinosaurs? For all you know the flood could have happened at any time. It could have happened at the same time as one of the other mass extinctions, or in fact it might have coincided with none of them. Why did you assume it coincided with the death of the dinosaurs specifically when you have zero evidence regarding the date when you think the fossils were deposited there?

So, the correct way to find out what happened is to look for evidence of events which happened around 65 million years ago. We know that a singularly large asteroid hit Mexico 65 million years ago (what a coincidence), and we know that it had a very large effect on the Earth's atmosphere, and that this effect would have severely affected the dinosaurs. You can read about that here:

Cretaceous

Do you have any evidence at all that there was a global flood 65 million years ago?


This suggests to me you don't actually know what evolution is. It isn't "random" at all, the whole point is that it's very strongly directed by the environment. If this is false and you do actually understand it, please briefly explain to me how evolution works. Then explain the basis for your assertion that "it's impossible" that genetics is an evolved process. Do you think other "well designed" things like the human eye is also impossible to evolve?

You are seriously one of the most patient people ever. Time and time again you entertain these idiots and genuinely try to explain things to them. You're a better man than I.