[_ Old Earth _] Revised Carbon 14 testing

[reznwerks]

How long have we heard arguments from the YEC'rs that Carbon 14 could not be counted on because it was wrong and the reality would be found that the earth is indeed much younger? Well read on and weep. The YEC'rs were correct in that the original testing methods were flawed but they have been corrected and guess what? Fossils are now determined to be older than previously thought not younger.
=============
"Other investigations of deep-sea sediments off Venezuela and ice-core records from Greenland yielded evidence of carbon variation problems, which turned out to be especially pronounced between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. Accordingly, radiocarbon dates were recalibrated.

The revised dates, for example, show that a standard radiocarbon reading of 40,000 years translated into a calendar age of 43,000.

Even more consequential, a date of 35,000 years is revised to an actual age of 40,500, Mellars reported.

If correct, the new chronology means that fossil and archaeological evidence, especially in the crucial 30,000-to- 40,000-year period, is much older than once estimated.

Modern people may have arrived in Europe slightly earlier, but the extinction of the Neanderthals, previously thought to have occurred around 30,000 years ago, is now subject to greater revision because the standard dating yielded the most serious underestimates of true ages.

The degree of age discrepancies is also illustrated by the revised date for the splendid wall art in Chauvet cave, in southern France.

The charcoal used to produce the Chauvet drawings was originally dated around 31,000 to 32,000 years ago. A team of scientists reported in 2004 in the journal Science a revised date closer to 36,000 years ago."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/22/news/carbon.php

 

[Khristeeanos]

The assumptions on all dating methods are unprovable.

One major assumption is that the amount of C14 has always been constant. If a global flood were to occur, it would fluctuate greatly and give strange dates.

 

[reznwerks]

point

The assumptions on all dating methods are unprovable.

.

So is the bible. What is your point? Some evidence is better than none at all.

 

[Khristeeanos]

Re: point

The assumptions on all dating methods are unprovable.

.

So is the bible. What is your point? Some evidence is better than none at all.

The Bible is always proven correct on archaeology.

It has hundreds of prophecies that prove it to be reliable.

 

[peace4all]

The assumptions on all dating methods are unprovable.

One major assumption is that the amount of C14 has always been constant. If a global flood were to occur, it would fluctuate greatly and give strange dates.

If a global flood were to occur, then, Wait, there would be no globe left, It would all be water. Everything on earth would be dead, etc etc etc.

And besides the archeological evidence for the bible, seems to prove that the Bible took stories from other religions, or areas, and just added them in, in an attempt to gain More followers.

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: point

The assumptions on all dating methods are unprovable.

.

So is the bible. What is your point? Some evidence is better than none at all.

The Bible is always proven correct on archaeology.

It has hundreds of prophecies that prove it to be reliable.

The Bible is always proven to be correct, provided you don't adhere to a young-earth interpretation. Then it's shown to be wildly inaccurate.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: point

[

The Bible is always proven correct on archaeology.

It has hundreds of prophecies that prove it to be reliable.

What is your definition of a prophecy? All those prophecies that you point to * were not considered prophecies * at the time. The prophecies you point to * were pulled out * to make them prophecies at a later date. There are prophecies about the coming Messiah that are called "Messianic" prophecies of which were never fullfilled. That is why the Jews don't accept Jesus.(if he actually ever lived) . The bible has failed prophecies as well. The bible predicted that Tyre would be destructed by Nebuchanezzar. It didn't happen. Micah predicted the destruction of Jerusalem. It didn't happen. The prophecies in Isaiah supposedly concerning Jesus are fullfilled in later verses and in no way can they be attributed to a child to be born hundreds of years later and all you have to do is read the WHOLE chapter or book of the verses in question and you will soon see what I am saying.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: point

The assumptions on all dating methods are unprovable.

.

So is the bible. What is your point? Some evidence is better than none at all.

The Bible is always proven correct on archaeology.

It has hundreds of prophecies that prove it to be reliable.

Well lets look at your claim of always.

"The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). "
Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

Link

(Edited by Khristeeanos to fix link so it doesn't stick way off the end of the page, no other section of this post was edited)

 

[Khristeeanos]

reznwerks

I edited the link in your post above, not because of the link itself, but because it was so long it caused the thread to be too wide.

As future reference, when you put in a link, click on the "url" button and backspace once and put in the "=" sign and put the link in.

After that, space forward and put in "link" or something like that so it doesn't make the post so wide.

Thank you.

Jake

PS, I will be away from my computer for a few days and won't be able to respond to these posts.

 

[reznwerks]

links

reznwerks

I edited the link in your post above, not because of the link itself, but because it was so long it caused the thread to be too wide.

As future reference, when you put in a link, click on the "url" button and backspace once and put in the "=" sign and put the link in.

After that, space forward and put in "link" or something like that so it doesn't make the post so wide.

Thank you.

Jake


PS, I will be away from my computer for a few days and won't be able to respond to these posts.

Does anyone else have problems with the links I post?

 

[ArtGuy]

Re: links

Does anyone else have problems with the links I post?

It's a little clunky, but it doesn't keep me awake at night. Though the one that got edited was a little ginormous.

 

[Vanaka]

How long have we heard arguments from the YEC'rs that Carbon 14 could not be counted on because it was wrong and the reality would be found that the earth is indeed much younger? Well read on and weep. The YEC'rs were correct in that the original testing methods were flawed but they have been corrected and guess what? Fossils are now determined to be older than previously thought not younger.
=============
"Other investigations of deep-sea sediments off Venezuela and ice-core records from Greenland yielded evidence of carbon variation problems, which turned out to be especially pronounced between 30,000 and 40,000 years ago. Accordingly, radiocarbon dates were recalibrated.

The revised dates, for example, show that a standard radiocarbon reading of 40,000 years translated into a calendar age of 43,000.

Even more consequential, a date of 35,000 years is revised to an actual age of 40,500, Mellars reported.

If correct, the new chronology means that fossil and archaeological evidence, especially in the crucial 30,000-to- 40,000-year period, is much older than once estimated.

Modern people may have arrived in Europe slightly earlier, but the extinction of the Neanderthals, previously thought to have occurred around 30,000 years ago, is now subject to greater revision because the standard dating yielded the most serious underestimates of true ages.

The degree of age discrepancies is also illustrated by the revised date for the splendid wall art in Chauvet cave, in southern France.

The charcoal used to produce the Chauvet drawings was originally dated around 31,000 to 32,000 years ago. A team of scientists reported in 2004 in the journal Science a revised date closer to 36,000 years ago."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/22/news/carbon.php

how do you know the Corrections are not incorrect? or made biasedly?


ya'know, most of these dating methods are like Ice dating....

if you dont know the story on that it goes somthing like this:


the method is mesuring how thick the ice is in say...the north pole or whatever...


this gave the evolutionists alot of the answers they wanted: millions of years...


However during world war II two world war II(what else? ) planes(bombers I think...) landed in the area because they ran out of fuel... and were abandond, some time later after the war, they went back to get them, they were found deep under the ice, and when ice dated, come up several million years old....they even refueled the planes and flew them around....

 

[jwu]

However during world war II two world war II(what else? ) planes(bombers I think...) landed in the area because they ran out of fuel... and were abandond, some time later after the war, they went back to get them, they were found deep under the ice, and when ice dated, come up several million years old....they even refueled the planes and flew them around....

These planes landed in an entirely different region, one that gets a lot of precipitation. One expects nothing else than lots of layers there. The ice cores however were taken in an entirely different region where precipitation is less common.

 

[ArtGuy]

how do you know the Corrections are not incorrect? or made biasedly?

How do you know translations of the Bible that support the idea of a young earth were not made biasedly? How do you know AiG isn't biased? Presumably, you look at the surrounding evidence and find that it meshes well with what you choose to believe. Same way.

Every time someone implies that the scientific community is a massive conspiracy to discredit Christianity, I die a little inside.

 

[protos]

I've realized it's pointless to debate the same old canards who are unwilling to learn:

Reznwerks, for the 50-freaking millionth time, the rate of decay for elements has not been constant throughout history. This has been shown by the erupted volcano crust in New Zealand in 1949 dated by C-14 to be 45,000 years old, and by Potassium-Argon dating as 45 million years old.

Learn freaking empirical science!

 

[jwu]

C14 cannot be used to date inorganic matter such as lava as it doesn't get C14 from the atmosphere as organic matter of landdwelling animals does, and in order to get good Pt/A dates one needs to free the sample of xenoliths.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

C14 cannot be used to date inorganic matter such as lava as it doesn't get C14 from the atmosphere as organic matter of landdwelling animals does, and in order to get good

It was a piece of wood trapped in the crust that was C14 dated.

Peace.

 

[jwu]

So it was wood which was trapped in lava...i.e. pretty much burnt wood...

What happens to wood if it gets heated? The carbon oxidizes and leaves it towards the atmosphere in form of CO2. So one would expect to find less C14 in such wood than in "live and undamaged" wood.

In other words, the reason why that wood was dated that old is well understood, and does not pose a problem for C14 dating in any way.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

So it was wood which was trapped in lava...i.e. pretty much burnt wood...

What happens to wood if it gets heated? The carbon oxidizes and leaves it towards the atmosphere in form of CO2. So one would expect to find less C14 in such wood than in "live and undamaged" wood.

In other words, the reason why that wood was dated that old is well understood, and does not pose a problem for C14 dating in any way.

Charcoal is the most common sample used to c14 date archeological sites.

How does burnt wood differ from charcoal?

Peace

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

and in order to get good Pt/A dates one needs to free the sample of xenoliths.

I would think those doing the sample collection, and the lab doing the analysis

were aware of this.

Peace