[_ Old Earth _] Earths Age

[KevinK]

imo carbon dating can detect carbon, that's all

You do understand that all life on earth is based on carbon? All organic material on earth contains carbon. What good is a test that detects carbon when 100% of your samples contain carbon by definition, no matter how old it is?

Carbon dating detects the different isotopes of carbon, one radioactive (C14), and one not (C12).

 

[brujaq]

I'm not sure where you got that, but one botched test wouldn't invalidate an entire methodology.

Carbon-dating is one of the most elegant test protocols around. It was pretty good using the old methodology, simply measuring the amount of radioactivity in a sample. But now they use mass spectrometry, and it's pretty cool how it works.

Basically, they electrically charge the test sample, then accelerate it obliquely across a magnetic field. Since the two isotopes have different atomic masses, they wind up in two different groups on a detection screen. This means you are directly measuring the ratio of C14 to C12. You don't even need to do a complicated calculation. It doesn't get more elegant than this!

 

[brujaq]

You do understand that all life on earth is based on carbon? All organic material on earth contains carbon. What good is a test that detects carbon when 100% of your samples contain carbon by definition, no matter how old it is?

Carbon dating detects the different isotopes of carbon, one radioactive (C14), and one not (C12).

Kev, you posted in post 70 that you're no expert, you must be a fast learner .. .. I'm no expert but I can read and both sides too . When I see both sides I think I can decide for myself just like you and I'm not impressed with carbon dating or other radiometric dating for that matter .. Did you see the new formed rock from Mt St Helens tested and dated out to from 200,000 years to 2,000,000 million yrs old , yeah right !!!

 

[KevinK]

How was it tested? As I said, rocks cannot be carbon-dated, and even organic material only back about 50,000 years. You're going to have to start providing links to those tests you're referencing.

Yes, I've been told I'm a fast learner. Even before the Internet.

 

[Jim Parker]

So, what do you use to calibrate this instrument? Every analytical instrument uses physical properties in order to measure a value.

Whether it is an Atomic Absorbtion spectrophotometer. Gas Chromatograph, Mass Spectrometer, pH meter or any other....it needs to be calibrated to a standard or buffer in order to assure it's accuracy....

I'm not the guy to ask.
I bet you could find your answer on line, though.

 

[KevinK]

Knock yourselves out: Calibration of radiocarbon dates

 

[brujaq]

How was it tested? As I said, rocks cannot be carbon-dated, and even organic material only back about 50,000 years. You're going to have to start providing links to those tests you're referencing.

Yes, I've been told I'm a fast learner. Even before the Internet.

I said other radiometric dating , I'm going to have to give you a demerit .. Just kidding bro, I love you .. The testing was done I think about 5 yrs after the eruption I think ..

 

[KevinK]

I said other radiometric dating , I'm going to have to give you a demerit .. Just kidding bro, I love you .. The testing was done I think about 5 yrs after the eruption I think ..

That's why I asked how it was tested. I want my merit back!

 

[Jacks Bratt]

I'm not the guy to ask.
I bet you could find your answer on line, though.

These instruments are calibrated with samples of a KNOWN value. Standards are expensive and need to be used regularly in order for data and results to be valid.

To translate this to dating a rock, or anything for that matter, you would have to have a standard that would be of a known and acredited value and represent data for that age from that time.

Therefore, in order to calibrate the instrument to read an age of 4.5 billion years, you would need a sample that had a known and credible age of 4.5 billion years. Same for 1 million years.......... 100 thousand years...

You would need samples of standards from ages from a number of ranges due to the fact that as you move from one end of the spectrum of the range of any instrument, it will drift and give false data. Every millenia of age would need it's own standard to give true values.

Unless you have a standard... your data is not valid. There is no known object that can be certified. It is all "Theoretical"

That would never fly when people are expecting results to pass quality assurance measures in any accredited testing facility.

 

[KevinK]

The standard does not have to be a physical sample. That is simply an incorrect statement, in fact wildly incorrect.

As I mentioned, the standard for carbon-14 dating is a number, namely the ratio of carbon 14 to 12 in the envrironment. It is a very precise number, and represents a fairly large sample size- the entire atmosphere of the earth and its crust.

Now, there is an admitted uncertainty here, and it is the historical change in the 14:12 ratio. Therefore, a correction factor is used. The corrected value brings radiocarbon dating to a fraction of a percent error. This translates to well under 100 years. Not a huge error when dating something thousands of years old.

Not sure how else I can say this.

 

[brujaq]

 

[KevinK]

Check out the dates of those studies. 1992 was the most recent, and the others much earlier (one is from 1949?!). They were using the old system, measuring the amount of radiation being emitted by decaying carbon in a sample, a very indirect way to estimate the isotope ratio. The current accepted method is mass spec, a way that directly counts the carbon atoms. A quantum leap in accuracy.

 

[brujaq]

Check out the dates of those studies. 1992 was the most recent, and the others much earlier (one is from 1949?!). They were using the old system, measuring the amount of radiation being emitted by decaying carbon in a sample, a very indirect way to estimate the isotope ratio. The current accepted method is mass spec, a way that directly counts the carbon atoms. A quantum leap in accuracy.

And the big bang first came from an area about a mile, then a meter, then the size of a period to now from nothing .. Kevin, I don't have faith in carbon dating, but I'm glad you're excited and I believe you believe it .. Everlearning ..

 

[Free]

View attachment 5405View attachment 5406

1949? Really? Technology makes rapid advances, unless this stuff hasn't advanced at all. How about something from at least this millennium, if not this decade, which is rapidly coming to a close. It hardly supports your case when the closest date is 26 years-old.

 

[Free]

Well, if everyone went around with their own interpretations... where would Christianity be?

Exactly where it is, with thousands of denominations and some contradictory beliefs between them.

The only time that I find that Christians want to use their own interpretations is when it conflicts with the assumptions of some person in a white lab coat.

Despite your comment not really making a whole lot of sense, is that not essentially supporting what I just said? Does not your position conflict "with the assumptions of some person in a white lab coat"?

And do not think for a moment that your interpretation of the Bible is without bias or assumptions, that it is any less biased than a scientists.

This is why we, Christians, are all pretty solid on how we interpret Christ's death, burial and resurrection...

 

[brujaq]

1949? Really? Technology makes rapid advances, unless this stuff hasn't advanced at all. How about something from at least this millennium, if not this decade, which is rapidly coming to a close. It hardly supports your case when the closest date is 26 years-old.

Ha, I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now, but the same people who believed it then believe it now ..

 

[Free]

Ha, I didn't believe it then and I don't believe it now, but the same people who believed it then believe it now ..

It seems like you didn’t get my point. Your information could very well be highly outdated.

 

[brujaq]

It seems like you didn’t get my point. Your information could very well be highly outdated.

Excuse me , My information is based on the Word of God as it is written .. Let God be true and every man a liar .. Carbon dating then and now is flawed imo and can only be as reliable as the information that goes into it and even if, it is still useless .. The science community includes as big a bunch of liars as exists today .. That stuff I posted in #91 are examples of their stuff, unfortunately or fortunately the net is getting harder to research simple things .. Look up the vollosovitch mammoth for example, there's hardly anything there anymore .. They can't BS folks like they use to , well many of us .. And I couldn't find the simple chart on Mt St Helens that showed the different rock, tests and results .. They are afraid of the truth

 

[Jacks Bratt]

Excuse me , My information is based on the Word of God as it is written .. Let God be true and every man a liar .. Carbon dating then and now is flawed imo and can only be as reliable as the information that goes into it and even if, it is still useless .. The science community includes as big a bunch of liars as exists today .. That stuff I posted in #91 are examples of their stuff, unfortunately or fortunately the net is getting harder to research simple things .. Look up the vollosovitch mammoth for example, there's hardly anything there anymore .. They can't BS folks like they use to , well many of us .. And I couldn't find the simple chart on Mt St Helens that showed the different rock, tests and results .. They are afraid of the truth

I believe that "truth" is getting as scarce as common sense.... or worse...running the chance of disappearing all together.

But, then again, Satan is the great deciever and deception is his most powerful weapon.

 

[Free]

Excuse me , My information is based on the Word of God as it is written

It is based on what you interpret the writings in the Bible and your interpretation could be wrong.

.. Let God be true and every man a liar ..

And that applies to you too, not just those you disagree with.

Carbon dating then and now is flawed imo and can only be as reliable as the information that goes into it and even if, it is still useless .. The science community includes as big a bunch of liars as exists today .. That stuff I posted in #91 are examples of their stuff, unfortunately or fortunately the net is getting harder to research simple things .. Look up the vollosovitch mammoth for example, there's hardly anything there anymore .. They can't BS folks like they use to , well many of us .. And I couldn't find the simple chart on Mt St Helens that showed the different rock, tests and results .. They are afraid of the truth

Don't forget that there are many Christians that are scientists, both evolutionists and non-evolutionists. Why should they be called liars by you when they believe just as sincerely their understanding of science and Scripture?