Looking to remove all bias and argue from science only... If there are ways to argue scientifically about carbon dating's shortfalls...
Carbon Dating - Looking for good articles
- Thread starter Caveman
- Start date
Throckmorton
Lifer
- Aug 23, 2007
- 16,829
- 3
- 0
This is not a homework assignment, but rather an exchange of information among friends who were discussing the subject last night.
As a point of interest, we all believe the bible corroborates Carbon dating.
It's hard not to view folks who assume a belief in the bible assumes a non belief in science as "ignorant"... That really is a limited viewpoint.
As a point of interest, we all believe the bible corroborates Carbon dating.
It's hard not to view folks who assume a belief in the bible assumes a non belief in science as "ignorant"... That really is a limited viewpoint.
No, just the trillions of years implied in the Hebrew rendition of Gen 1:1 and 1:2. Also, the bible nowhere limits man's capability. Rather, it supports the notion that our purpose is far greater than we can conceive, even with the best science.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Agreed. Not all religious people are necessarily ignorant. Recently, even the Pope & Steven Hawking met face to face. There was agreement with science. Note: the Pope isn't an ignorant fundamentalist who believes the earth is 4000-some years old. The Pope isn't an ignorant fundamentalist who doesn't believe in evolution.
Unfortunately, there are a significant number of religious folks in the U.S. who don't believe in evolution and the big bang. Applying the term "ignorant" to that group is generally rather accurate, although there are some cases where the person isn't "ignorant", but rather just stubborn & refuses to give up some religious dogma and listen to reason, common sense, and a staggering amount of evidence.
It's ironic that the most important lesson we can learn from history is that people somehow never seem to learn from history & are doomed to repeat it. Go back a few hundred years and declare that the Sun was the center of the solar system and you were declared to be a heretic (and quite possibly, burned at the stake.) Unfortunately for religious fundamentalists, carbon dating contradicts some of their views, thus they must be wrong. Fortunately, they don't have enough power to burn the scientists at the stake any more. They feel obligated to attack science in order to cling to their beliefs, rather than modify them in light of the new information.
Some quotes from Galileo are appropriate: ?I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.? ?The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go? ?It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved.? ?Nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages.? ?I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments, and demonstrations.? ?To command the professors of astronomy to confute their own observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them not to see what they do see, and not to understand what they do understand, and to find what they do not discover.?
As far as carbon dating, it works. It works just fine. There is no controversy. There are plenty of objects of known age that can be dated with carbon dating, and carbon dating proves to be rather accurate (but not precise). Unfortunately, carbon dating finds things that are older than the earth (the age according to fundamentalists.) Thus they feel a need to cling to their religious dogma & reject the carbon dating.
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
No, he has it correct. Precision is the fine-tuned-ness of the measurement. i.e. if carbon dating said an object is "150 years, 6 months, 8 days, 14 hours and 23 minutes old", that'd be precise. If the actual age was 400 years though, the measurement wouldn't be very accurate.
If you invented a machine to throw darts at a dart board, and all the darts hit within 1 centimeter of each other, your machine would be much more precise (fine tuned) than a machine that scattered all the darts in a 3 inch diameter circle. Of course, if that 1cm cluster of darts was 5 feet away from the bullseye, then while precise, your machine wasn't that accurate. While if the 3 inch circle were centered at the bullseye, your machine would be accurate, but not precise. And, of course, hitting the bullseye every time would be both accurate and precise.
frostedflakes
Diamond Member
- Mar 1, 2005
- 7,925
- 1
- 81
ed21x
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2001
- 5,411
- 8
- 81
it has to be true, because any argument against it goes against the concept of science and being open minded. in addition, we are going to label you as a religious zealot and insult you without even looking at your argument. this is what being progressive is all about.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
Maybe you could actually put forth your view on the subject instead of passive-aggressively attacking the rationalists?
I'm not at all sold on carbon dating. The assumptions are essentially untestable from what I've read. That said, they assume in carbon dating:
1. The level of C14 in the atmosphere (and thus living organisms) is constant through time.
How do we know? We've only been testing for 100 years or so. How do we calibrate the answers within that 100 years? They compare ages to things of known historical times. What if the calibration is off? The natural abundance of C14 is what, a millionth of a percent relative to C12? That is talking some serious precision in order to be anywhere near accurate. With a half-life of about 8000 years, there is considerable margin for error.
2. The level of C14 in a specimen is a direct result of the the level of C14 present when it died, minus the amount that decayed.
A fairer assumption. Basically the premise is: If we can extrapolate the amount that should be there according to principle (1), then measure the amount that IS there, we can calculate how much decayed, and based on the half-life, how long the specimen has been dead. Ok, so what if there was more (or less) C14 present in the sample when it died? What if somehow the C14 disappeared through processes other than radioactive decay? (Doubtful, since it's based on relative abundance compared to C12). What if somehow the C14 levels were increased in the specimen after death, through some natural event?
It's all speculation as to whether any of these actually happen, but it's entirely possible. The first assumption is the most damaging, however. Assuming constant levels of C14 in the atmosphere (or environment) throughout time is a farce, and a measured one. The first measurements were taken in the 1860's I believe, and in that time, the concentration of C14 has decreased naturally by about 60%. So, there are correction factors introduced, which in turn may introduce more error.
I really don't think the dating techniques are the gospel they are purported to be.
1. The level of C14 in the atmosphere (and thus living organisms) is constant through time.
How do we know? We've only been testing for 100 years or so. How do we calibrate the answers within that 100 years? They compare ages to things of known historical times. What if the calibration is off? The natural abundance of C14 is what, a millionth of a percent relative to C12? That is talking some serious precision in order to be anywhere near accurate. With a half-life of about 8000 years, there is considerable margin for error.
2. The level of C14 in a specimen is a direct result of the the level of C14 present when it died, minus the amount that decayed.
A fairer assumption. Basically the premise is: If we can extrapolate the amount that should be there according to principle (1), then measure the amount that IS there, we can calculate how much decayed, and based on the half-life, how long the specimen has been dead. Ok, so what if there was more (or less) C14 present in the sample when it died? What if somehow the C14 disappeared through processes other than radioactive decay? (Doubtful, since it's based on relative abundance compared to C12). What if somehow the C14 levels were increased in the specimen after death, through some natural event?
It's all speculation as to whether any of these actually happen, but it's entirely possible. The first assumption is the most damaging, however. Assuming constant levels of C14 in the atmosphere (or environment) throughout time is a farce, and a measured one. The first measurements were taken in the 1860's I believe, and in that time, the concentration of C14 has decreased naturally by about 60%. So, there are correction factors introduced, which in turn may introduce more error.
I really don't think the dating techniques are the gospel they are purported to be.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
Actually this assumption has never been made to begin with, so your whole argument is a farce. From Wikipedia:
It goes on to explain how the reading is calibrated
Actually, only about 50 years, but I digress.
Can you clarify what you mean about "calibration is off"? If we're measuring against things of known age, why would it be off?
The levels do fluctuate, which is why a calibration is performed.
Yeah, and what if magical sky fairies pumped more C14 into the sample?
Unless you can actually name a viable process, this is nothing but mental masturbation.
What sort of natural event?
You fail at science.
ed21x
Diamond Member
- Oct 12, 2001
- 5,411
- 8
- 81
Radioactive decay can fluctuate base on temperature, pressure, exposure to radiation, ambient concentration, ambient condition, size of specimen, and a host of other factors. The only way to correctly calibrate this is to find an object of known age that we know has been through the exact same condition as the object we are testing.
<~ bioengineer, current material science grad student, had to relearn this shit hundreds of times.
With a screen name like hers, what else would you expect. You guys are just as biased as the "religious fundamentalists" you're hating on.
If the speed of light is decaying exponentially, why can't the rate of decay of carbon-14 be decaying exponentially as well? If you interpolate the curve on the decay of the speed of light backwards into history, you reach infinity at about 10,000 years. If the same thing happens with Carbon-14 decay (which it indeed may, as UCLA Labrat referenced above), then carbon-14 would finally line up with the 13 or so other methods we can use to date fossils (which by the way, all agree on the age of the fossil...in contradiction with Carbon-14 dating which is about 5 orders of magnitude off from these 13 other methods. About 11 of these dating methods find nothing older than 10,000 years, one finds the oldest materials to be about 50,000 years, the last one 100,000 years, and then of course Carbon-14 which says 100,000,000,000 years. Lol.).
For the speed of light thing, of course these people claim the speed of light ratings done in the 50's were not accurate...didn't have good enough measurements, blah blah.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 386
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter