Carbon Dating - scientists admit its shortcomings & inaccuracy - DFWstangs Forums
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-14-2008, 07:46 AM Thread Starter
Time Served
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 860
Carbon Dating - scientists admit its shortcomings & inaccuracy

http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspo...-accurate.html

The above link is an article where an acheaologist admits that carbon dating is dependent upon the level of carbon in the atmosphere at the time the object existed which is being dated. Don't pay attention to the commentator's remarks about how we get older dates, because he's not taking into account other dating methods for some reason. The point is to show that carbon dating, as expressed by scientists themselves, is wholely dependent upon knowing the amound of carbon in the atmosphere at the time the object existed which is being dated. Carbon dating is pointless. Also, this article shows how scientists have preconceived notions of how old certain "finds" are, and if carbon data and other dating methods don't line up with their preconceived notions, they toss out the data as corrupt. So just because the data won't agree with their theory, they throw it out as corrupt? I'm confused. I thought they drew their theories off of the data. Hmmmmm... kind of backwards if you ask me...

- Brian
1992 Taurus SHO
BrianC is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-14-2008, 08:25 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
What are the variables in the amount of carbon available?
FSON is offline  
post #3 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-14-2008, 08:47 AM
Out
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 41,952
Carbon-14 can only go back a few thousand years. Anything else is just an "edjucated" guess. Worldwide events (take the Flood with Noah, for instance) would have thrown such a rift in the carbon dating theory, that anything older than that incident is probably useless to even try since 14C is calculated from cosmic ray patterns (knocking neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere and hitting ordinary nitrogen).
Denny is offline  
 
post #4 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-14-2008, 09:15 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denny
Carbon-14 can only go back a few thousand years. Anything else is just an "edjucated" guess. Worldwide events (take the Flood with Noah, for instance) would have thrown such a rift in the carbon dating theory, that anything older than that incident is probably useless to even try since 14C is calculated from cosmic ray patterns (knocking neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere and hitting ordinary nitrogen).

That is the problem with debating "scientists". They do not believe in a worldwide, flood, so it is hard to make them see that carbon levels...as well as the earth's atmosphere.... was completely different than it is now, skewing carbon dating.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #5 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-14-2008, 09:19 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Can a much heavier atmosphere change carbon levels?
FSON is offline  
post #6 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-14-2008, 09:41 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by FSON
Can a much heavier atmosphere change carbon levels?

A heavier atmosphere changes everything. Pressure is far greater and takes a different toll.

There is evidence that the atmosphere enveloping the early earth was very different than it is today. At one time the entire earth enjoyed a warm tropical environment and there was enhanced oxygen in the atmosphere. Organisms grew larger and lived longer as a result.

Many creationists attribute this to a water vapor canopy that was created by God on the second day, the "waters above the firmament" (Genesis 1:7). This theory holds that a "vast blanket of invisible water vapor...productive of a marvelous greenhouse effect which maintained mild temperatures from pole to pole, thus preventing air-mass circulation and the resultant rainfall (Genesis 2:5). It would certainly have had the further effect of efficiently filtering harmful radiation from space, markedly reducing the rate of somatic mutations in living cells, and, as a consequence, drastically decreasing the rate of aging and death." (Morris, Henry, Scientific Creationism, 1984, p. 211) Some have postulated that this vapor layer could have dramatically increased the atmospheric pressure on the surface of the early earth, again contributing to a healthier environment. Later the canopy would have collapsed in the form of rain (the "windows of heaven" in Genesis 7:11), contributing to the Flood water, and resulting in the dramatic drop-off in longevity after the deluge. Some creationists emphasize other factors that may have caused the worldwide temperate conditions that existed before the Flood. They stress the evidence of far greater concentrations of carbon dioxide levels in the past and point out that the earth’s magnetic field was far stronger than today. This could have acted as the shield for cosmic radiation and produced the healthier environment.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #7 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-14-2008, 09:47 AM
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,249
Is there any evidence for a once heavier atmosphere?
FSON is offline  
post #8 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-14-2008, 09:51 AM
Rhabdomyolysis anyone?
 
flashstang04's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,224
Here is some more of that study:



It is interesting that scientists who would not subscribe to the water vapor canopy theory described above, have published articles that lend credence to portions of that theory. "Using evidence collected in South America and New Zealand, an international team of researchers has determined that climate changes - both warming and cooling patterns - during the late Pleistocene occurred rapidly and were global in scale. As giant iceberg armadas flooded the North Atlantic, alpine glaciers were simultaneously advancing across the Chilean Andes and Southern Alps of New Zealand. Thomas Lowell, associate professor of geology at the University of Cincinnati, and his colleagues published their findings in the September 15, 1995, issues of Science. ...So, what did cause the climate changes? Lowell admits that he and his colleagues have no quick and easy answers. Possibly water vapors played a role. ‘A lot of water vapor in the atmosphere leads to a warmer climate,’ he states. ‘If there’s less vapor, temperatures become colder. Amounts of water vapor can change quickly, and the geological record indicates that climate changes could be very fast.’" (Anonymous, "Were Climate Changes Global During Ice Ages," Geotimes, vol. 41, 1996, p.7, as cited in Morris, 1997, p. 305.) Additionally some scientists have been quite surprised to find water vapor in the freezing atmospheres of Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune and Saturn. (Dayton Daily News, April 8, 1998, p. 12A)

The water vapor canopy hypothesis would neatly explain yet another observed anomaly...too much water in Earth’s upper atmosphere. NASA satellites have confirmed far more hydroxyl in the hydrosphere than current models predict. The parent molecule of hydroxyl (OH) is water (H2O). Because ultraviolet radiation from the sun breaks down water in Earth's upper atmosphere into hydroxyl and hydrogen, a large amount of water must have previously existed. Some have proposed a constant influx of mini-comets as a source for the mysterious water, but that theory has been strongly criticized as unworkable. (Matthews, Robert, New Scientist, July, 1997, pp. 26-27.)

Another interesting feature of the early earth atmosphere was enhanced oxygen. "The Earth’s atmosphere 80 million years ago contained 50 per cent more oxygen than it does now, according to an analysis of microscopic air bubbles trapped in fossilized tree resin. The implications of the discovery - if confirmed by more experiments - are enormous. One implication is that the atmospheric pressure of the Earth would have been much greater during the Cretaceous era, when the bubbles formed in the resin. A dense atmosphere could also explain how the ungainly pterosaur, with its stubby body and wing span of up to 11 meters, could have stayed airborne, he said. The spread of angiosperms, flowering plants, during the Cretaceous era could have caused the high oxygen levels reported by Berner and Landis, scientists said last week." (Anderson, Ian, "Dinosaurs Breathed Air Rich in Oxygen," New Scientist, vol. 116, p. 25. Cited in The Modern Creation Trilogy by Morris) Some have even suggested that without such an atmosphere the relatively small lung capacity in certain dinosaurs could not have supplied their massive tissue with the needed oxygen.

Crossfit.com <--- no wimps allowed
flashstang04 is offline  
post #9 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-14-2008, 02:04 PM
You lookin' at mah EYE?!
 
DarkWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 8,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by flashstang04
That is the problem with debating "scientists". They do not believe in a worldwide, flood, so it is hard to make them see that carbon levels...as well as the earth's atmosphere.... was completely different than it is now, skewing carbon dating.
Actually you're quite wrong. Scientists know the earth's atmosphere was completely different then, than now.

You can get accurate readings of carbon levels in ice core samples, for example.

What we are seeing is a sharp increase in carbon levels over the last 120-130 years that is not consistent with historical increases & decreases over the past 650 or so million years. And especially in the past 40-50 years.

The industrial revolution kicked off the spike, then overpopulation following WWII, and gas guzzling cars during the 50's - 70's really sent it skyrocketing.

What we are not seeing is a change in the rate of decay. The decay is what is used for measuring the age of a sample, not the amount.

DarkWolf
Graphic Design / Photography / Web Design
DarkWolf is offline  
post #10 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-15-2008, 10:46 AM
Musician for the deaf
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Euless, TX
Posts: 9,656
Its not just the carbon in the atmosphere, it is the incident UV radiation that penetrates the atmosphere. It requires both to create carbon 14.
Casper is offline  
post #11 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-17-2008, 04:07 PM
Banned
 
poopnut2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: On the Fence
Posts: 20,196
There is no just "carbon" in the atmosphere. The only carbon comes in the form of carbon dioxide which is completely different that carbon on it's own. How many planets even have just carbon as a factor in their atmosphere?

Earth's atmospheric gas composition: (Taken from Wikipedia)
Nitrogen 78.0842%
Oxygen 20.9463%
Argon 0.93422%
Carbon dioxide 0.03811%
Water vapor about 1%
Other 0.002%

...also, DarkWolf is right about the early earth atmosphere. Earth's early atmosphere contained almost no oxygen. The evolution of plants and them releasing oxygen is why we now have a large amount of oxygen in our atmosphere.

Carbon dating is a very accurate way of measuring the dates of fossils and other historical items.

Does religion provide a better way?
poopnut2 is offline  
post #12 of 12 (permalink) Old 04-18-2008, 09:47 AM
Secular Dogooderist
 
Zarathustra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The Hive
Posts: 3,031
Very good post, sir.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
---
This will help everyone out, check it.
It is time we acknowledged a basic feature of human discourse: when considering the truth of a proposition, one is either engaged in an honest appraisal of the evidence and logical arguments, or one is not. Religion is the one area of our lives where people imagine that some other standard of intellectual integrity applies.
-Sam Harris
Zarathustra is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the DFWstangs Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome