Print

[FektionFekler]

No he is a deiist.

[AkumAPRIME]

tupac - religious threads are stupid because they never go anywhere but down. I never said anything was wrong with them (especially in a forum half devoted to stupid threads), except that they are stupid.

ehb

[damam]

QUOTE (tupac @ Dec 8 2004, 03:19 AM)

. . . Carbon dating works because in AP chem we went on a field trip and got to see how they do carbon dating. The isotopeof carbon has a certiasn half life. That means it decays at a known certian exact rate. If you examine how much of a carbon isotope remains then you know how long it has been around. "

Tupac - Actually there are several problems with carbon dating.  Ill name a few here -  and there are others

Carbon dating assumes atleast two things
1)  The rate of decay of C14 has remained constant throughout all time here on earth.
2)  The present ratio of C14 to C12 in nature is the same today as it has been all through the earths history.

about assumption #1
This is probably safe to assume.  Decay does remain constant so long as our relative speed does not change.  But, you can manipulate decay by speeding up or slowing down the inirtial frame that the C14 is traveling in (time dialation).  This arguement is here only to show that in special circumstances decay in an ideal lab setting will not necessarily be constant to the observer should they choose to change the inertial frame.

about assumption #2
The second assumption is where Carbon dating has some major problems because it is known not to be true.  For instance, the amount of coal that has been burned in the last century alone has altered the ratios such that anything would appear about abt 400 yrs older than it is.  Then the US nuclear tests have increased the amt of C14 in the atmosphere such that everything would appear 1500 yrs younger.  These are man made causes, but they happen in nature as well.  Things like volcanoes, exposed uranium deposits, debree from space, sun spots, and cosmic rays, can all change these ratios as well.  The mere fact that they have had to resort to Dendrochronology (age dating by counting tree rings), to calibrate C-Dating from the present to abt 13,000 yrs ago should raise some eyebrows.  If it was as accurate and constant as is claimed, no calibration would be necessary.  If you want to know circular logic they use with dating past 13,000 yrs just ask.  It only takes a 101 class in logic to understand how absurd it is.

Of course the creationists (im not one) would just say that G-d created the trees with the levels of C14 in each ring when he created the earth 6000 yrs ago.  Which appears to be just as valid since both carbon dating and creationism are based on assumptions, faith, dogmas, (take your pick).

[SKoT]

the ratio doesnt matter, all that matters is that the C you take from the dead thing is from IT and that it is not contaminated for any reason

[damam]

QUOTE (SKoT @ Dec 8 2004, 10:33 PM)

the ratio doesnt matter, all that matters is that the C you take from the dead thing is from IT and that it is not contaminated for any reason

Actually the atmospheric ratios do matter because they determine how much you absorb during your life.  If the ratio of c14 to C12 is higher in your enviroment than you absorb more c14 than expected thus throwing off the entire C-Dating.

[gronne]

As far as I'm concerned they don't use c14 to measure how old dinosaurs are. They can see how old a dinosaur is by measuring the layers in the rocks it was found. It's sort of like measuring the age of a tree by its layers. They can clearly see lines from different periods in our planets history, like when major asteroids have hit the planet, as the last one for 65 million years ago.

[Mr. Chips]

QUOTE (gronne @ Dec 8 2004, 04:14 PM)

As far as I'm concerned they don't use c14 to measure how old dinosaurs are. They can see how old a dinosaur is by measuring the layers in the rocks it was found. It's sort of like measuring the age of a tree by its layers. They can clearly see lines from different periods in our planets history, like when major asteroids have hit the planet, as the last one for 65 million years ago.

here is a tree transcending several layers of strata.  So according to what you just said, it must be millions of years old.

[The unProfessional]

QUOTE

here is a tree transcending several layers of strata. So according to what you just said, it must be millions of years old.

Why?  I'm sure it could be estimated how old the tree is... but where do you get millions of years?  Do you know how many years of of those layers represents?

[damam]

QUOTE (delacruz @ Dec 9 2004, 06:49 AM)

Also the layers are found in different parts of the world, such as A is below B and somewhere else in the world B is below A and so on.

Also, in parts of the world they have entire layers that are just missing altogether.

[SKoT]

YEA! cuz everywhere is teh world is exactly teh same and has teh same geology

[Mr. Chips]

about my last post, (which I can't edit)....yes those layers were dates millions of years old.  With the bottom being the oldest.
And if you still trust carbon dating, how do you explain this?:
The imprint of a leather shoe was found in Triassic limestone in Fisher Canyon, Pershing County, Nevada, by Alfred E. Knapp. According to microphotographs of the print (found in 1927) the leather was hand stitched with a finer thread than was customarily used by shoemakers in 1927. Triassic limestone is conventionally dated as between 180 - 225 million years old.

Brad Steiger, Mysteries of Time and Space, p.18

[gronne]

It's very good to question if these methods are right, or not so right. But many of you do everything to make sure they are wrong. I'm not saying the measures can't be wrong, but I'm annoyed by fundamentailst reactionaries. Fundamentalists fear these methods, and completely dissociate themselves from them. Rediculous.

You can find answers for everything, no matter how unlikely your answers are.
How do you feel about the different kinds of hominids(other "humans") they've found, like the neanderthals? About a month ago they discovered a "new" hominid on a carribean island(I think). It was estimated to have died as late as 18,000 years ago. It was about 1 meter tall. I'm absolutely positive you've "found" reasons to disbelieve the discovery.

[FektionFekler]

18,000 you say? They found 50,000 year old remains of homo sapiens (modern man) in Australia (Mungo man), and 110,000 year old remains in China, which rules out the African Eve Theory, and just recently remains dating back to 30,000+ years in South Carolina, which rules out entirely the Bering Strait Theory (as to how homo sapiens came to be in North America). They are making new discoveries everyday, it is exciting times that we live in.

[gronne]

QUOTE (FektionFekler @ Dec 9 2004, 08:12 PM)

18,000 you say? They found 50,000 year old remains of homo sapiens (modern man) in Australia (Mungo man), and 110,000 year old remains in China, which rules out the African Eve Theory, and just recently remains dating back to 30,000+ years in South Carolina, which rules out entirely the Bering Strait Theory (as to how homo sapiens came to be in North America). They are making new discoveries everyday, it is exciting times that we live in.

 Most scientists still very much believe we originate from Africa, but it shouldn't automatically be taken as fact. You talked about 50,000 year old homo sapiens, this is not homo sapiens. They are not 100% it's part of the homonid-family. I just read they were found on an island in Indonesia. And these homonids apparently differed a lot from homo sapiens sapiens (modern man). They suppose they must have split early in the hominid-family, and evolution have made them small due to the lack of nutrition on the isolated island.

[FektionFekler]

No Mungo man was a homo-sapien (homo erectus) which was Australia, not Indonesia (where the hobbit like creature was found). So please do a little research before you attempt to bring me down.