[_ Old Earth _] Carbon dating in respect to Creation/ Darwinian Evolution

[jonesma23]

I am very interested to hear both sides of the view on carbon dating as a reliable technique.


Mostly because I am very uninformed in this area- I have some idea of how carbon dating works based on several articles I've read online and it sounds pretty damn reliable.


So why do some claim that is in fact flawed and cannot be used to date objects such as fossils and historical documents? This argument is, of course, good for a step in the direction of the case for the Genesis account of creation.

If carbon dating is very accurate then fossils dating back millions of years support theories of Darwinian evolution.


It would seem carbon dating is key for how we continuously get timeline numbers that say millions of years. And the disregarding of carbon dating would mean that the Earth could be far younger or at least much less determinable.


Thoughts?

 

[stovebolts]

Both Radioactive decay (dating of rocks) and Carbon dating (fossils) are reliable means for accumulating data for dating. However, to date something as millions or billions of years old isn't as straight up as you may think.

For examples, you can date a rock at a billion years old (Radioactive Decay) and within that rock, you find a fossil where Carbon Dating says it's only millions of years old. In that case, geologist use the date from the rock to date the fossils... Thus, a fossil that dates only millions of years old gets dated as billions because of the the dating of the rock, not the fossil.

You also need to know the assumptions that geologist come into dating rocks. They date rocks by radioactive decay via isotopes. Just because we understand and can accurately measure the current rate of decay, doesn't mean that the rate of decay has always been the same. Also, radioactive decay assumes that the rock wasn't tainted with other elements or even water which would cause an anomoly within their assumption.

Ironically, and I can't remember the exact dating, but using radioactive decay as a means of dating the Mt. St. Helens eruption, the data came back as millions of years... Just saying.

 

[Roof]

Both Radioactive decay (dating of rocks) and Carbon dating (fossils) are reliable means for accumulating data for dating. However, to date something as millions or billions of years old isn't as straight up as you may think.

For examples, you can date a rock at a billion years old (Radioactive Decay) and within that rock, you find a fossil where Carbon Dating says it's only millions of years old. In that case, geologist use the date from the rock to date the fossils... Thus, a fossil that dates only millions of years old gets dated as billions because of the the dating of the rock, not the fossil.

Radiocarbon dating is only accurate to about 60,000 years.

You also need to know the assumptions that geologist come into dating rocks. They date rocks by radioactive decay via isotopes. Just because we understand and can accurately measure the current rate of decay, doesn't mean that the rate of decay has always been the same. Also, radioactive decay assumes that the rock wasn't tainted with other elements or even water which would cause an anomoly within their assumption.

Ironically, and I can't remember the exact dating, but using radioactive decay as a means of dating the Mt. St. Helens eruption, the data came back as millions of years... Just saying.

Mt. St. Helens dating was done by Steve Austin he used the Potasium-Argon radio isotope which is not accurrate until a sample is at least 100,000 years old. Containiments need to also be removed, such as xenoliths, to get an acurate date.

 

[handy]

Mt. St. Helens dating was done by Steve Austin he used the Potasium-Argon radio isotope which is not accurrate until a sample is at least 100,000 years old. Containiments need to also be removed, such as xenoliths, to get an acurate date.

Which naturally begs the question, if it not accurate until a sample is at least 100,000 years old, how do we know when dating things, if a date is accurate, or if the sample wasn't 100,000 years old?

If radio-carbon dating is only accurate to about 60,000 years, and potassium-argon dating is only accurate if a sample is over 100,000 years, we seem to not have very accurate means to date extremely old items.

 

[felix]

No radiocarbon dating is accurate. All are based on radioactive decay rates and half life periods. There are several assumptions made that lead us to assume the entire radiocarbon dating is crap.

1. No one knows when an element begins to decay.
2. The percent of radioactive to non-radioactive is assumed to be constant throughout history.
3. The decay rate is also assumed to be a constant through out history. (Although some say it is, it is also proved it is not and does vary slightly based on pressure. If is varies slightly in our lab environments, imagine the cosmos and extreme pressure and temperatures.
4. External forces can easily influence decay rate which is often ignored.

If you are rich enough, try to get some old samples in your home and send it to 100 different labs and you will get 100 different results each contradicting each other.

 

[stovebolts]

Your absolutely right Felix.
While the data returned from both radioactive decay and carbon dating is consistent, we have several different options when trying to logically determine what that data represents. Simply put, this same data can be used to prove a young earth, but it all starts with an assumption.

For example, you cited a case about the constant rate of decay. Since we have only been watching radioactive decay for around a hundred years, we have to assume that the rate of decay has been consistent. This poses some issues, such as the escape of helium in some rocks... based on the escape of helium, a rock would date X, yet the radioactive decay rate would put the rock as much older.

Roof, it seems agrees with the assumption that radioactive decay is only good for something over 100,000 years.. yet the Bible tells us the earth is only 6,000 years. Unfortunately, we don't have any recorded writings from 6k years ago, and we certainly didn't take a sample from the rocks either.

 

[stovebolts]

Thought you guys might apprecaite this.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v6/n3/soft-tissue

 

[Barbarian]

No radiocarbon dating is accurate. All are based on radioactive decay rates and half life periods. There are several assumptions made that lead us to assume the entire radiocarbon dating is crap.

Radiocarbon is not used for fossils. It's mostly for archaeology. Too short a half-life to be used for fossils.

No one knows when an element begins to decay.

It starts to decay the moment it's formed. The only forms you can use to date rock are those that begin to accumulate daughter isotopes only after molten rock solidifies.

The percent of radioactive to non-radioactive is assumed to be constant throughout history.

No.

The decay rate is also assumed to be a constant through out history. (Although some say it is, it is also proved it is not and does vary slightly based on pressure. If is varies slightly in our lab environments, imagine the cosmos and extreme pressure and temperatures.

Extremes of heat not found in the Earth alter it less than 1%. So it's not much comfort for a denier.

External forces can easily influence decay rate which is often ignored.

Show us those.

If you are rich enough, try to get some old samples in your home and send it to 100 different labs and you will get 100 different results each contradicting each other.

That's been tested. And you know what? Even with widely different isotopes and methods, the answers all came back remarkably alike. Want to see the data?
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

 

[felix]

No radiocarbon dating is accurate. All are based on radioactive decay rates and half life periods. There are several assumptions made that lead us to assume the entire radiocarbon dating is crap.

Radiocarbon is not used for fossils. It's mostly for archaeology. Too short a half-life to be used for fossils.

Although I said radio carbon, I meant to say 'No radioactive dating techniques are accurate'.

No one knows when an element begins to decay.

It starts to decay the moment it's formed. The only forms you can use to date rock are those that begin to accumulate daughter isotopes only after molten rock solidifies.

The decay of an individual atom is a random event.

This is a random process, i.e.
it is impossible to predict the decay of individual atoms.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/r/radioactive_decay.htm

The entire calculation is based on probability not science.

The percent of radioactive to non-radioactive is assumed to be constant throughout history.

No.

If No, how do you know when what percent got changed and how? - and how does this change gets factored into the dating technique?

The decay rate is also assumed to be a constant through out history. (Although some say it is, it is also proved it is not and does vary slightly based on pressure. If is varies slightly in our lab environments, imagine the cosmos and extreme pressure and temperatures.

Extremes of heat not found in the Earth alter it less than 1%. So it's not much comfort for a denier.

I am interested to know the 'lab with extremes of heat' not found in earth that just altered 1%.
So, you yourself have said that 1% is altered. If 'extremes of heat' can alter 1%, then 'extremes of heat' to the power of 'near infinity not found on earth' can be altered 100%. period. Give me the equation and the heat parameter that altered 1%, I will give you the required heat that can alter 100%
Did you forgot the famous dialog from predator!? If it bleeds, we can kill it.

External forces can easily influence decay rate which is often ignored.

Show us those.

I found some articles for you to read to keep yourself informed.
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39158
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1679916/posts

If you are rich enough, try to get some old samples in your home and send it to 100 different labs and you will get 100 different results each contradicting each other.

That's been tested. And you know what? Even with widely different isotopes and methods, the answers all came back remarkably alike. Want to see the data?
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

I don't want an anti-'young earth creationists' website reference. Did I ever gave you any reference from creationists site? I didn't because, I know you ignore them as crap. Similarly I ignore anything 'anti-creationist' website as crap. When discussing on science, we must do it with an open mind of truly understanding/learning based on experiments.

 

[Barbarian]

Although I said radio carbon, I meant to say 'No radioactive dating techniques are accurate'.

That's wrong, too. For example, argon/argon dating accurately called the age of the eruption that buried Pompeii. And calibration of C-14 with lake varves shows that it is quite accurate. Varves form annually in certain kinds of lakes, one white layer and one dark layer. Counting them is very accurate dating, and the C-14 results from the varves shows that radioisotope dating is accurate.

No one knows when an element begins to decay.

Barbarian observes:
It starts to decay the moment it's formed. The only forms you can use to date rock are those that begin to accumulate daughter isotopes only after molten rock solidifies.

The decay of an individual atom is a random event.

And yet the decay rate for isotopes is remarkably constant and begins from the moment the material is made. Do you see why?

The entire calculation is based on probability not science.

For the same reason that while it's possible all the oxygen atoms will move to the other side of the room and suffocate you, we can confidently predict that it will never happen. Think about it.

The percent of radioactive to non-radioactive is assumed to be constant throughout history.

Barbarian chuckles:
No.

If No, how do you know when what percent got changed and how?

Radioactive breakdown. Some nuclei are more unstable than others, and those break down at a predictable rate.

-

and how does this change gets factored into the dating technique?

Isochrons. Would you like to learn about it?

The decay rate is also assumed to be a constant through out history. (Although some say it is, it is also proved it is not and does vary slightly based on pressure. If is varies slightly in our lab environments, imagine the cosmos and extreme pressure and temperatures.

Barbarian observes:
Extremes of heat not found in the Earth alter it less than 1%. So it's not much comfort for a denier.

I am interested to know the 'lab with extremes of heat' not found in earth that just altered 1%.

Less than 1%. Very tiny amount. If you like, I can look it up for you. Suffice to say that it involves energies that would have killed all living things if it had happened on the Earth.

So, you yourself have said that 1% is altered. If 'extremes of heat' can alter 1%, then 'extremes of heat' to the power of 'near infinity not found on earth' can be altered 100%. period.

No. And it's a moot point, since living things guarantee those conditions weren't experienced on Earth.

External forces can easily influence decay rate which is often ignored.
Show us those.
I found some articles for you to read to keep yourself informed.
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/39158

But our focus today is a paper published in February, in which the team reported that cavitation--the generation and collapse of tiny bubbles in a liquid using pressure waves--causes the rate of decay of thorium-228 in solution to increase 1,000 times.

I guess it's not entirely beyond belief that cavitation could have an effect on the nuclei of atoms in solution. Cavitation is known to generate huge pressures and temperatures. By some theories, the energy released in this process is close to that needed for fusion. But it's fair to say that the current consensus is that there is no good evidence that this line has been crossed in practice.

Nevertheless, Cardone's claims are interesting, and his paper was published in Physics Letters A earlier this year.

Today, however, Stephan Pomp and pals from Uppsala University, in Sweden, cast some doubt on the result and the methods used by the Cardone team in the Physics Letters A paper.

They point out that the Cardone claim is extraordinary given the body of evidence gathered over the past 100 years about nuclear decay. Such an extraordinary claim should be backed by extraordinary evidence.

"We find that such evidence is missing in this paper and it even seems that methodological mistakes have been made," they say.

Thorium decays by emitting alpha particles. Pomp and pals say that Cardone and co placed their detector underneath the glass vessel containing the thorium solution. "We note that the range of the emitted particles in glass is in the order of tens of micrometers and that it thus would be impossible for particles . . . to penetrate the vessel."

They suggest a number of tests that Cardone and co can do to strengthen their results, such as measuring the background counts when the vessel is empty or filled with pure water in which cavitation is taking place.

It'll be interesting to see the Cardone team's reply to these criticisms; perhaps they'll be able to answer each point made by Pomp and pals.

In the meantime, the question still stands: can pressure waves accelerate nuclear decay? Not on the evidence presented by Cardone and co so far.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/23803/

So far, no one can replicate what Cardone claims to have seen. It's in cold fusion land right now.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1679916/posts

A political message board? Sorry, find something with some credibility.

If you are rich enough, try to get some old samples in your home and send it to 100 different labs and you will get 100 different results each contradicting each other.

Barbarian observes:
That's been tested. And you know what? Even with widely different isotopes and methods, the answers all came back remarkably alike. Want to see the data?
http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

I don't want an anti-'young earth creationists' website reference.

Joe Meert is a well-qualified PhD Geologist whose work is published, and whose data here is documented in the literature. The facts he cites demonstrates your claim is flat out wrong.

Did I ever gave you any reference from creationists site? I didn't because, I know you ignore them as crap.

Unfortunately, if you want to learn about science, you have to go to science sites.

Similarly I ignore anything 'anti-creationist' website as crap. When discussing on science, we must do it with an open mind of truly understanding/learning based on experiments.

Which is what Dr. Meert gave you. You can go and look up the results in the literature if you like.

 

[felix]

Hi Barbarian,

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676

C14 is simply wrong and you can see how lab data which came out in the past had been fabricated to fit the facts of known dates.

Joe Meert is a well-qualified PhD Geologist whose work is published, and whose data here is documented in the literature. The facts he cites demonstrates your claim is flat out wrong.

How about outcome of 8 PhDs proving that 1 PhD you referred is wrong?

Much research, even reported in the conventional scientific literature, has found that rocks of known age often yield erroneously old radioactive age estimates because either one of the first two assumptions, or both, can be demonstrated to be false. And if the radioactive “clocks†have not always “ticked†at the currently measured slow rates but were grossly accelerated in the past, then these radioactive dating methods cannot be used to provide reliable age estimates for rocks. After all, if these “clocks†don’t work on rocks of known ages, how can they be trusted on rocks of unknown ages? To be sure, there is a systematic trend of radioactive age estimates for rocks according to their positions in the geologic record, but this would be expected if nuclear decay was grossly accelerated systematically when the rock layers were forming. For example, rocks laid down early in the Flood would yield older ages than rocks laid down later during the Flood because the earlier rocks would have experienced more accelerated radioactive decay.

Ref: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radioisotopes-earth

 

[lordkalvan]

Hi Barbarian,

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2676

C14 is simply wrong...

How does this single article about a possible 'spike' in atmospheric carbon up to seven times' longer ago than YECs acknowledge the age of Earth to be evidence that 'C14 is simply wrong'? All it seems to imply is that, as more data are uncovered that show changes in the composition of the atmosphere, dating methodologies will become more precise and accurate. It may also be the case that the tested stalagmite's carbon-14 concentrations were anomalous. Are you aware of any follow-up work into these findings and its results?

...and you can see how lab data which came out in the past had been fabricated to fit the facts of known dates.

There are over 130 radiocarbon dating laboratories in the world. It seems to me that you would want to be very sure of your ground before you accused them - as you do here - of systematic and deliberate fraud. Where I come from, this is known as libel.

How about outcome of 8 PhDs proving that 1 PhD you referred is wrong?

The methodologies and science underlying RATE's work have been widely debunked. You can start here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/helium/zircons.html

Carbon-dating coal that is dated by other methods as far older than the ability of carbon-14 techniques to date and expecting to see anything other than an anomalous result is just as foolish as touting that result as 'evidence' that carbon-14 dating is unreliable.

Just out of interest, at what point and for what reasons do you regard carbon-14 dating as becoming 'unreliable', as it is consilient with several other, quite independent dating methodologies?

 

[felix]

lordkalvan, Just a quick science quiz..

Q. How does C14 generated?
A. Cosmic rays collide with Nitrogen which creates C14.

Now, give the list of C14/C12 ratio for each century and how did you arrive at that value, when you have no record of the amount of cosmic rays hitting the earth.

 

[abrown9]

lordkalvan, Just a quick science quiz..

Q. How does C14 generated?
A. Cosmic rays collide with Nitrogen which creates C14.

Now, give the list of C14/C12 ratio for each century and how did you arrive at that value, when you have no record of the amount of cosmic rays hitting the earth.

You use a calibration curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating#Calibration)

 

[felix]

You use a calibration curve (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating#Calibration)

Yes. the calibration is not even approximate because, if you happen to know the carbon/isotope ratio in atmosphere based on some fossils/sample (or other methods), you can never be sure of the date of that fossil/sample (which is used for radiocarbon dating).. which is cyclic.

I need the methods used for calibration and verify how accurate they are.

 

[abrown9]

Yes. the calibration is not even approximate because, if you happen to know the carbon/isotope ratio in atmosphere based on some fossils/sample (or other methods), you can never be sure of the date of that fossil/sample (which is used for radiocarbon dating).. which is cyclic.

I need the methods used for calibration and verify how accurate they are.

"...can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits)." - from Wikipedia.

So it's definitely not cyclic.. and while I'm no expert on other forms of dating, I believe tree-rings are pretty accurate. I imagine with human samples we could use our knowledge of history (eg. if it's the body of a 3rd century king he should date back to the 3rd century).

I don't know that much about Carbon dating, I was merely reporting about what I read. I'm all for calling the validity of methods in to question, but it seems to me that the validity of radiocarbon dating is only called into question on religious grounds. Then again, I could be wrong (I work in microbiology). I'll leave the heavier arguments to Barbarian and LK.

 

[felix]

"...can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits)." - from Wikipedia.

So it's definitely not cyclic.. and while I'm no expert on other forms of dating, I believe tree-rings are pretty accurate. I imagine with human samples we could use our knowledge of history (eg. if it's the body of a 3rd century king he should date back to the 3rd century).

I don't know that much about Carbon dating, I was merely reporting about what I read. I'm all for calling the validity of methods in to question, but it seems to me that the validity of radiocarbon dating is only called into question on religious grounds. Then again, I could be wrong (I work in microbiology). I'll leave the heavier arguments to Barbarian and LK.

What the tree growth rings gives us is less than 4000 years, which is mostly known.

Deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems does not give any dates to samples to verify their carbon compositions. These rely on other radioactive dating mechanisms, when the entire process is in question.

 

[theLords]

"...can be dated independently by other methods such as examination of tree growth rings (dendrochronology), deep ocean sediment cores, lake sediment varves, coral samples, and speleothems (cave deposits)." - from Wikipedia.

So it's definitely not cyclic.. and while I'm no expert on other forms of dating, I believe tree-rings are pretty accurate. I imagine with human samples we could use our knowledge of history (eg. if it's the body of a 3rd century king he should date back to the 3rd century).

I don't know that much about Carbon dating, I was merely reporting about what I read. I'm all for calling the validity of methods in to question, but it seems to me that the validity of radiocarbon dating is only called into question on religious grounds. Then again, I could be wrong (I work in microbiology). I'll leave the heavier arguments to Barbarian and LK.

Wikipedia is hardly a source for accurate information. I know people who like to go in and write false information for kicks.

 

[abrown9]

Wikipedia is hardly a source for accurate information. I know people who like to go in and write false information for kicks.

If your friends edited the radiocarbon dating article it would be changed back instantly.

Nature did a study: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Wikipedia was as accurate as encyclopedia britannica for articles in the physical sciences.

For the sciences, Wikipedia is a great place to learn information. Obviously you should always go to the primary sources, but that's the good thing about Wikipedia - they link primary sources for you. Wikipedia is more than a good enough starting point for a debate on an internet forum.

Do you doubt the voracity of the information I provided?

 

[theLords]

If your friends edited the radiocarbon dating article it would be changed back instantly.

Nature did a study: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html

Wikipedia was as accurate as encyclopedia britannica for articles in the physical sciences.

For the sciences, Wikipedia is a great place to learn information. Obviously you should always go to the primary sources, but that's the good thing about Wikipedia - they link primary sources for you. Wikipedia is more than a good enough starting point for a debate on an internet forum.

Do you doubt the voracity of the information I provided?

I doubt everything credited to Wikipedia. Would you cite Wiki when publishing an article for peer review? I get so surprised when the atheists who pride themselves on their logic and facts and intellectual honesty--think nothing of citing Wiki as a legitimate source for information.

Is Wikipedia Reliable?
By Dan Woods and Peter Thoeny
The creators of Wikipedia are the first to admit that not every entry is accurate and that it might not be the best source of material for research papers. Here are some points to consider: [LOL]

Look for a slant. Some articles are fair and balanced, but others look more like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. If an article has only one source, beware.
Consider the source. Even if an article cites external sources, check out those sources to see whether they are being cited fairly and accurately — and do, in fact, reinforce the article's points.
Look who's talking. If you research the contributors themselves and find that they are experts in their fields, you can be more confident in the entry.
Start here, but keep going. Wikipedia should be a starting point for research but not your primary source for research material.
In December 2005, the scientific journal Nature published the results of a study comparing the accuracy of Wikipedia and the printed Encyclopaedia Britannica. The researchers found that the number of "factual errors, omissions or misleading statements" in each reference work was not so different — Wikipedia contained 162, and Britannica had 123. The makers of Britannica have since called on Nature to retract the study, which it claims is "completely without merit."

When visiting controversial entries, look out for edit wars. Edit wars occur when two contributors (or groups of contributors) repeatedly edit one another's work based on a particular bias. In early 2004, Wikipedia's founders organized an Arbitration Committee to settle such disputes.

Wikipedia does have some weaknesses that more traditional encyclopedias do not. For example

There is no guarantee that important subjects are included or given the treatment that they deserve.
Entries can be incomplete or in the middle of being updated at any given time.
The writers of entries often fail to cite their original sources, thus making it hard to determine the credibility of the material.
These issues should not deter you from using Wikipedia. Just weigh the limitations of Wikipedia — and, for that matter, reference works in general.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/is-wikipedia-reliable.html